In this paper I explore a recent development in capitalist production: the simultaneous commodification and subversion of women’s language. I approach this topic through a sociolinguistic analysis of feminist-branded products at Bulletin, a female-run company that features products by female-owned brands and donates ten percent of in-store profits to Planned Parenthood.[1] Through interviews with Bulletin employees and partners, as well as through individual product analyses, I will examine the following elements in which the commodified language featured on Bulletin’s products subverts women’s language: (1) profanity; (2) the celebration of female sexuality; (3) reclaimed semantic derogation; (4) the explicit rejection of societal expectations of women; and (5) humor. For the purposes of this paper, I define the subversion of women’s language as not only a rejection of stereotypical women’s speech but also a disruption of the symbolic meanings associated with this language. I will ultimately demonstrate the ways in which Bulletin’s products do not accomplish their disruptive goals in the political sphere as they project a co-opted, decontextualized and depoliticized form of feminism.
In a critical contribution to the study of language and gender, Lakoff introduced the concept of women’s language as a profile of linguistic performance that encompasses the harshly regulated qualities and characteristics of stereotypical female speech.[2] Women’s language features weaker expletives (“gosh darn it!”), many color terms, tag questions (“isn’t it?”), question intonations, hedging (using mitigating words such as “like”), empty adjectives (“divine”), hesitancy, politeness and a lack of humor. Lakoff notes that as a result of maternal influence, most children learn women’s language first, but boys later reject the language around the age of five for a more “neutral” dialect. As girls mature, they must learn to switch between the “female” and “neutral” dialects and effectively become bilingual, though they never truly master either language. The consequences of women’s language include the inability of women to express themselves as forcefully as men, and the marking of women as trivial, as well as disconnected from the public sphere.[3]
Throughout my time at Bulletin, where I conducted field research between March 2018 and May 2018, all store and corporate employees interviewed considered Bulletin to be a feminist company. One can therefore understand this object of study as developing in response to recent evolutions in the feminist movement, particularly the shift from second to third-wave feminism in the United States. In her piece on the progression of feminist advertising (known as “femvertising”) in the U.S. over time, Hunt notes that second-wave feminism, emerging in the 1960’s, demanded gender equality politically, socially and culturally, beginning with the recognition of patriarchy in American society.[4] Major accomplishments of the wave included the Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade and the passing of Title IX.[5] In her analysis of feminist consumption, Riordan adds that third-wave feminism in the 1990’s began in response to these political achievements, and featured the shift of popular discourse toward “pro-girl” rhetoric and the commodification of the notion of girl power.[6] While second-wave feminism primarily served middle-class white women, the rhetoric of third-wave feminism was deeply rooted in the inclusion of a spectrum of sexualities, gender identifications, races, and social classes.[7] In an interview with Rachel Hodes, Communications Manager at Bulletin, she remarked that the company was born as an inclusive response to the 2016 U.S. presidential election “to make a difference, to make women feel like their voices matter.”[8] In relation to the feminist theme of Bulletin, Hodes echoed Riordan’s comments on “pro-girl” rhetoric, stating: “It’s amazing…like on the corporate side of things, in the store…all of it. It’s just a genuine, girl power vibe.”
One can dissect the subversion of women’s language at Bulletin through this political lens, first through the element of profanity featured on many of their products. In her article on feminist vulgarity, Fricke argues that vulgarity in language shows commitment and produces impassioned, emphatic speech that “by nature transgresses the boundaries of propriety” in order to shock others.[9] To encourage female vulgarity without allowing the power of vulgar speech to function for men, Fricke believes that it can be effective for women to use profanity without sexual language. Though many products sold by Bulletin contain sexual language, several follow Fricke’s advice. One necklace by BIT x brown that states “I’M A FUCKING LADY” (Figure 1) uses profanity and sound symbolism through the harsh consonants of the word “fucking” (non-sexually) for emphasis. It is also particularly powerful because it juxtaposes two words of opposite levels of strength—“fucking” and “lady”—and appears in all-caps lettering, suggesting a harsher, more direct tone. Finally, as a phrase that references self-identity and is intended to hang around the neck of the consumer, the phrase effectively names and classifies the consumer, suggesting a deeper level of emphasis through the identification of the female self with powerful, profane language.
In a similar manner, one can view a keychain by GetBullish that displays the phrase “FUCK YES YOU GLORIOUS BITCH” (Figure 1). Here, the emphasis is not only through profanity and sound symbolism (present in both “fuck” and “bitch”), but also emboldened, all-caps lettering, signifying an even more emphatic or even aggressive tone through its messaging. Notably, “glorious” takes the place of an empty adjective such as “amazing” or “cute,” and instead implies triumph and heroism. As the phrase “fuck yes” indicates approval of an action supposedly made by a woman whose identity is being reclaimed through the term “bitch” (see below for further analysis), this product combines notions of enthusiastic approval and forcefulness in relation to women.
The use of profanity in the commodified language of these products subverts women’s language because it exists in stark contrast to the hesitancy and weaker expletives that are typical of women’s language. In her study on profane language and perceived offensiveness, Jacobi notes that reasons for swearing include a desire to release negative emotions and to shock or insult the receiver.[10] Profanity directly contradicts women’s language, which prevents the expression of forcefulness and anger: “women are allowed to fuss and complain, but only a man can bellow in rage.”[11] Additionally, the use of profanity in this context not only asserts female dominance through the shocking use of forceful language, but also makes it acceptable for women to feel more forcefully about various issues, and to potentially be taken more seriously as result.[12]
Just as the usage of profanity in Bulletin’s products serves to add emphasis and shock others, the celebration of female sexuality through language in Bulletin’s product assortment is equally subversive. As Bland and Barrett argue in their analysis of guidebooks for erotic talk, women are expected to need training and assistance to assert their sexual desires linguistically.[13] The authors of these guidebooks are careful to state that these desires should never sound too demanding, because this behavior does not appeal to men. Women are therefore only encouraged to use the language of female sexuality in the bedroom so as not to undermine their femininity in the public sphere. In contrast to this advice, Fricke, who firmly believes in female assertiveness in the public sphere, provides examples for expressing aggression such as screaming “‘Lick my clit!’” to men, which puts them down by aligning men with submissive sexual positions.[14] Echoing Fricke’s advice, Bulletin sells a hand-stitched cloth by BabyFacePress that reads “Lick it Before you Stick it” (Figure 2). The product implies the prioritization of female pleasure during sexual acts and is meant to be displayed in the home. The phrase also utilizes sound symbolism through rhyme as well as the harsh consonants of “lick it” and “stick it,” but due to a lack of punctuation or complete capitalization as well as its intended use in the private sphere it does not appear to have the same level of aggressiveness as Fricke recommends.
One can also observe the BabyFacePress slippers that display the phrase “Please Me” (Figure 2), or the hand-stitched cloth by A Shop of Things that reads “Make Me Cum” (Figure 2). It is significant that, like the previous hand-stitched cloth discussed, these items are not indicated as particularly emphatic or aggressive. Their messaging may be seen as softened by the decorative patterns on the two items: dragonflies and hearts, respectively. However, the use of the word “cum” incorporates sound symbolism and sexual language into these commands. Additionally, the display of the phrases “Lick it Before you Stick it,” “Please Me” and “Make Me Cum” in Bulletin’s retail spaces draws attention to female sexual satisfaction in the public sphere, minimizes the importance of male pleasure, and arguably normalizes what is often considered to be the radical notion of embracing female pleasure.
The direct statements on the previously discussed three products then clearly subvert women’s language through the rejection of indirect phrases, weaker expletives and politeness expectations of women.[15] They also disrupt the notion that women do not know how to talk dirty, as discussed by Bland and Barrett. Unlike the ultimate goal of erotic guidebooks, the phrases on these products celebrate women’s sexuality for the benefit of women, rather than the ultimate satisfaction of men. The display of sex-positive language in this context demonstrates that this language is actively used by the female entrepreneurs that have created these products and is also becoming normalized in the public sphere.
In addition to the elements of profanity and the celebration of female sexuality, one can analyze examples of reclaimed semantic derogation through Bulletin’s products. In her analysis of sexist language, Cameron introduces Schulz’s definition of semantic derogation as the process in which originally ungendered words take on negative and sometimes sexual connotations when associated with women.[16] For example, one can view the word “harlot,” which originally was simply used to indicate a young individual but today is linked to prostitution. Pauwels notes in her work on feminist linguistic activism, in agreement with Cameron, that the revaluation and reclaiming of words is a useful coping mechanism for dealing with verbal violence and is a powerful form of linguistic disruption, one that exposes sexism in language.[17] Fricke adds, “There is power in the ability to name,” and that “women should take on the business of naming themselves.”[18] At Bulletin, one can observe a brass cuff bracelet by BIT x brown that features the word “THUNDERCUNT” (Figure 3). The original term “cunt” has strong negative connotations and harsh consonants that make it an effective insult. While the term lowers women on the animacy hierarchy by reducing them to a body part and acts as a metonym as well, the adapted version of the word “cunt” suggests a rather forceful reclamation of the term. By wearing the word “THUNDERCUNT” on the female body, one also reclaims the notion of women being associated with nature and unpredictable storms, and instead projects a mockery of the nature-based and sexual elements associated with femininity simultaneously.
Bulletin store employees Angie and Jade identified Geneva Diva’s “Designer Pussy” apparel as the most popular product at the store (Figure 3).[19] Angie remarked, “It’s very much a statement…if you’re going to wear a shirt that says ‘designer pussy’ or something on it.” Jade added, “[The] ‘designer pussy’ sweatshirts are like the dopest thing ever…[Cardi B] has one, so definitely fire points there.” Similar to “THUNDERCUNT,” the phrase “Designer Pussy” originates from a derogatory word, one that was infamously used by Donald Trump to demean women.[20] As Angie and Jade commented, the reclaiming of the term makes it cool and even glamorous—it also hints at labiaplasty, also known as “designer vagina,” which suggests the association of the term with elevated socioeconomic status. Reclaimed semantic derogation rejects women’s language entirely by taking negative words from “neutral” dialects (as opposed to women’s language), adapting their form and meaning, and incorporating them into everyday female speech in a way that allows consumers to feel empowered.
Perhaps the clearest subversion of women’s language through Bulletin’s products is the explicit rejection of societal expectations of women. In her exploration of social meaning and linguistic style, Sclafani references Eckert when explaining the ways in which women’s language represents the ideological construct of “good” female behavior, to which all women’s behaviors are compared.[21] One can then observe transgressions of women’s language as the ultimate subversion of stereotypical femininity. Through her piece on backstage talk, Coates provides an example of rebellious language that stems from the restrictive imperative of niceness placed upon women.[22] This “highly subversive” language often contains themes of aggression and the general rejection of dominant societal discourses. It is through this lens that one can view a hand-stitched cloth by A Shop of Things that reads, “good girls go to heaven, bad girls go everywhere” (Figure 4). By indexing the “bad girl” persona, the consumer of this product can reject stereotypical femininity and become associated with qualities such as confidence, impulsiveness and rebelliousness. The phrase suggests that “good girls” do not live their lives to the fullest, and that the rejection of rules provides more opportunity for women.
In addition to the aforementioned product, one can view a greeting card by A Shop of Things that displays the phrase: “put the seat down you fucker” (Figure 4). This statement similarly rejects women’s language by ignoring dominant discourses of femininity and also incorporating sound symbolism and profanity for emphasis. Additionally, through a display of female aggression that specifically targets men, this product arguably represents a stronger rebellion against women’s language: like the backstage talk of Coates, the phrase provides an outlet for female frustration, but, dissimilarly, it brings this language into the public sphere. In so doing, this language rejects all of the “nice” qualities that Lakoff notes are required of women.[23] This includes being “caring,” “thoughtful,” “self-deprecating,” and “non-authoritative.” As Lakoff writes that women’s language is both a result and cause of sexual difference, it then depends upon and reinforces the subordination of women, all of whom must exhibit “good” behavior.[24] Therefore, the rejection of societal expectations of women through phrases such as “put the seat down you fucker” which include aggression towards men, the dominant societal force, is the ultimate subversion of women’s language.
Finally, the critical role of humor in the product assortment of Bulletin must be analyzed. Humor links all of the previously discussed elements, primarily because the language featured on these commodities is non-normative through its rejection of hegemonic discourses.[25] In our interview the Founder and CEO of The Zeitgeist (sold at Bulletin), Alexandra Chang, remarked, “one of my favorite things to do is come up with slogans and clever word play—I kind of have a wacky sense of humor.” Additionally, Bulletin store employee Lauren characterized many of their products as “sassy,” hinting at the sarcasm present in a poster by A Shop of Things that displays the phrase, “Let me drop everything and work on your problem” (Figure 5).[26] This language references the emotional labor expected of women, as well as their subordinated status more generally which implies that their time is devalued.
Though Bing’s piece on feminist humor highlights the fact that aggressive or subversive humor contradicts the notion that women do not have a sense of humor, she argues that the element of humor can also maintain dominant societal discourses.[27] While humor can be a powerful force to inspire group solidarity among women, particularly by disparaging masculinity, these same humorous undertones can further reinforce sexual difference and can render female values invisible by allowing men to be the subject of the conversation. In the product assortment of Bulletin, humor appears to act as a type of hedge which may soften harsher statements and makes these assertions more socially acceptable in their subversion. One can view all of these aspects of humor together in a GetBullish mug that reads: “WE WILL DANCE ON THE GRAVE OF THE PATRIARCHY AND DRINK THE BITTER TEARS OF MEDIOCRE MEN” (Figure 5). The language on this product encourages female solidarity, a form of aggression towards men, a reinforcement of sexual difference, and has humorous undertones due to the exaggerated image it conveys. As Mitchell argues in her piece on joke telling, the presence of humor in these linguistic forms are often “mild enough in their expression of hostility and aggression that many men can enjoy them, too, even if for slightly different reasons,”[28] which ultimately makes good business sense in the context of Bulletin. Feminist humor is a critical part of Bulletin’s success, but also detracts from the strength of their messages and prevents their products from fully subverting women’s language.
By analyzing the products at Bulletin, it has become clear that while subversive language is linked to the rejection of hegemonic discourses in society, the true impact that these products are having on the goals of feminists are closely tied to capitalism, through which ideas are bought and sold in the marketplace. One must address the following questions: What are the implications of the commodification of this language through the sale of products? Do these products accomplish their defiant and disruptive goals in expressing a feminist agenda? Commodification of language, as explained by Kelly-Holmes in her piece on language and the marketplace, is used to contribute to the exchange values of products.[29] As many commodities sold by Bulletin feature subversive elements, there is something to be said for inserting this language into the public sphere and normalizing the discourse.[30] Significantly, Bulletin’s products directly support female entrepreneurship and forms of social activism. In several interviews with Bulletin’s partners, female founders discussed their struggles with entrepreneurship, which reflect Lewis’s findings that white masculinity exists as an invisible norm embedded in entrepreneurial activities.[31] Co-Founder of Nevermind Cosmetics (sold at Bulletin) Vanessa Enriquez shared, “As a team of [female] Latina business owners, it’s hard for us to get our foot in the door, and I think that we were very fortunate enough to find a platform and grow from there.”[32] Mia Calotta, Founder of A Shop of Things (sold at Bulletin), reflected on the impact of sales on her entrepreneurial community as well: “My brand, it doesn’t just support me, it supports the friends that I pay to help me with my business…it’s like supporting a community of people…they’re also supporting causes that I want to support.”[33]
While it is noteworthy that Bulletin provides an additional level of stability and credibility to these female entrepreneurs, it must be acknowledged that there is a severe limitation on what the commodification of the language at Bulletin can encompass and truly accomplish. In their piece on commodity feminism, Goldman et al. argue that products with subversive, feminist-branded language have contributed to the creation of “an aesthetically depoliticized feminism” which is motivated by the market and characterized by the reduction of the movement to merely signifiers and signs.[34] The commodification of subversive language may increase awareness about feminism but can never truly reflect the roots and progress of this complex social movement. As a result, these products can appeal to a large customer base, but can never speak for all women’s subordination, an inclusive goal that is at the heart of third-wave feminism, and is the context for the creation of Bulletin’s products.
In addition to its lack of inclusivity, the commodification of language at Bulletin may in fact contribute to hegemonic expansion by rearticulating capitalist values.[35] As Zeisler writes,, feminism works to reset power structures, but marketplace feminism, which incorporates the feminist-branded products of Bulletin, is “a way to promise potential detractors that feminism can exist in fundamentally unequal spaces without posing any foundational changes to them.”[36] As a result, the commodification of the subversion of women’s language ultimately normalizes the experience of consumption to participate in a controlled form of rebellion. This act of separating customers along class lines by requiring a purchase and providing them with the language of rebellion directly contradicts two central themes of a feminist agenda: equality and liberation. As Zeisler demonstrates, it is simply not possible for these critical elements to function neatly within a branded retail environment, which depends upon profit for its survival. Due to the contrasting nature of feminist and capitalist values, the language featured on Bulletin’s products cannot accomplish its disruptive goals in the political sphere.
Through this analysis of the language featured on Bulletin’s products, one can better understand the ways in which their feminist-branded commodities attempt to subvert women’s language, but in fact participate in the very structure feminism seeks to critique, reform and destructure. While the products feature powerful elements such as profanity, aggression and female sexual dominance, they are ultimately softened by humor and their existence within a capitalist marketplace. They therefore do not succeed in being truly defiant tools for the expression of a feminist agenda. As marketplace feminism quickly evolves and takes new forms, feminist discourse must be swift in identifying feminist co-optation within these spaces and reject the notion that consumers can embody feminist values through the simple act of consumption.
Appendix
Figure 1.
Figure 2.
Figure 3.
Figure 4.
Figure 5.
***
[1] “Homepage,” Bulletin, 2017, www.bulletinbrand.com.
[2] Robin Lakoff, “Language and Woman’s Place,” Language and Society 2, no. 1 (April 1975): 45-80.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Alexandra Rae Hunt, “Selling Empowerment: A Critical Analysis of Femvertising,” (Thesis, Boston College, 2017).
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ellen Riordan, “Commodified Agents and Empowered Girls: Consuming and Producing
Feminism,” Journal of Communication Inquiry 25, no. 3 (July 2001): 279-297. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0196859901025003006 Accessed 10 April. 2018.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Rachel Hodes, Personal Interview, April 10, 2018.
[9] Erika Fricke, “In Pursuit of a Feminist Vulgarity,” Bitch Magazine 10, 1999, 29.
[10] Lora Jacobi, “Perceptions of Profanity: How Race, Gender, and Expletive Choice Affect Perceived Offensiveness,” North American Journal of Psychology 16, no. 2 (June 2014): 261-275.
[11] Robin Lakoff, “Language, Gender and Politics: Putting ‘Women’ and ‘Power’ in the Same Sentence,” in The Handbook of Language and Gender, eds. Janet Holmes & Miriam Meyerhoff (Maiden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2003). 161-178.
[12] Lakoff, “Language and Woman’s Place.”
[13] Lisa Bland & Rusty Barrett, “‘Stick your (adj.) (noun) in my (adj.) (noun)!’: Teaching
Women to Talk Dirty,” in Engendering Communication: Proceedings of the Fifth Berkeley Women and Language Conference. (Berkeley: University of California Press), 83-90.
[14] Fricke, “In Pursuit of a Feminist Vulgarity.”
[15] Lakoff, “Language and Woman’s Place.”
[16] Deborah Cameron, “Making Changes: The Debate on Sexist Language,” in Feminism and Linguistic Theory (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 1985), 99–127.
[17] Anne Pauwels, “Linguistic Sexism and Feminist Linguistic Activism,” in The Handbook of Language and Gender, eds. Janet Holmes & Miriam Meyerhoff (Maiden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2003), 550-570.
[18] Fricke, “In Pursuit of a Feminist Vulgarity,” 59.
[19] Angie, Personal Interview. April 16, 2018.
[20] Jade, Personal Interview, April 16, 2018.
[21] Daniel Victor, “‘Access Hollywood’ Reminds Trump: ‘The Tape Is Very Real,’” New York Times, November 28, 2017, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/28/us/politics/donald-trump-tape.html.
[22] Jennifer Sclafani, “Martha Stewart Behaving Badly: Parody and the Symbolic Meaning of Style,” Journal of Sociolinguistics 13, no. 5 (November 2009): 613-633, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-9841.2009.00427.x.
[23] J Coates, “Women Behaving Badly: Female Speakers Backstage,” Journal of
Sociolinguistics 3, no. 1 (June 1999): 65-80.
[24] Lakoff, “Language and Woman’s Place.”
[25] Alexandra Chang, Personal Interview, April 13, 2018.
[26] Lauren, Personal Interview, April 18, 2018.
[27] Janet M Bing, “Is Feminist Humor an Oxymoron?” Women & Language 27, no. 1 (June 2004): 22-23,https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1004&context=english_fac_pubs.
[28] Carol Mitchell, “Hostility and Aggression Toward Males in Female Joke Telling,”
Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies 3, no 3 (Autumn 1978): 25.
[29] Helen Kelly-Holmes,“Markets and Languages: Sociolinguistic Perspectives,” in Language and the Market (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010), 20-32.
[30] Riordan, “Commodified Agents and Empowered Girls.”
[31] Patricia Lewis, “The Quest for Invisibility: Female Entrepreneurs and the Masculine Norm of Entrepreneurship,” Gender, Work & Organization 13, no. 5 (August 2006): 453-469, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1468-0432.2006.00317.x.
[32] Vanessa Enriquez, Personal Interview, April 12, 2018.
[33] Mia Calotta, Personal Interview, April 11, 2018.
[34] Robert, Goldman, Deborah Heath and Sharon L. Smith, “Commodity Feminism,” Critical Studies in Mass Communication 8, no. 3 (May 2009): 333-351.
[35] Riordan, “Commodified Agents and Empowered Girls.”
[36] Andi Zeisler, We Were Feminists Once: From Riot Grrrl to CoverGirl®, The Buying and Selling of a Political Movement (New York: Public Affairs/Perseus Books, 2016).