aLibrarianOfSorts said:
I think the summary of Feminism in this is waaaay to simplistic. Feminism has never been a single-minded, unified movement and any contradictions that seem to occur in feminist ideology largely stem from the fact that feminism is as fragmented as any social movement. The ideas that reach a mainstream audience will be those of the movements most vocal members, not necessarily those of the majority. Besides, the 'sexual liberation' of the Bond Girls has been problematic from the beginning, as are most portrayals of women's sexuality in the media. Why are they problematic? Because for the most part, they are portrayals that are crafted to specifically appeal to the stereotypical hetero male. This is largely why many feminists have a problem with the idea of the Bond Girl. The Bond Girl is not about presenting a liberated, healthy role-model for women. She is, rather, a set of instructions on how to best please a man. Even the name 'Bond Girl' suggests a general lack of respect for the authority and autonomy of women; these are adult women, and yet we call them girls. Please do more research next time, Movie Bob.
Just to be clear: I wouldn't want to suggest that "movement feminism" was ever holding up Bond Girls or Playmates as a unified "role model" for young women. I'm speaking more of the movement(s) general tone, and in the mid-to-late 1960s that "tone" was very kind to the female icons of
"sexual liberation."
Now, I'm only 28 and not female, so it's wholly possible that my grasp of history here is 100% off-base. But in a general reading of history - at least here in the U.S. - feminism/women's-rights/women's-liberation has had several distinct permutations based on what aspect of womens' lives were targeted for improvement.
Around the turn of the century the focus was on equal-humanity, with figures like Carrie Nation and Susan B. Anthony, and it was at-first part of the temperance (anti-alcohol) movmenet - the idea being that less alcohol would mean fewer wife-beatings (the notion that the beatings THEMSELVES ought be considered socially-unnaceptable being, apparently, too novel of a concept for the time.) After that it was about equal-citizenship, i.e. suffrage/voting rights.
Then, in the 50s and 60s, it was about social/sexual-equality: Removing the double-standard by which promiscuity was just "bad manners" for men but a "trap" for women, mostly in reference to pregnancy i.e. a man can always leave but a woman can be "stuck" with a baby. Thus, this permutation of feminism embraced the pill, contraception and (ultimately) Roe v. Wade as it's rallying-points and female celebrities and characters that exemplified the "joy" in female sexual freedom (Bond Girls, Playmates, Jane Fonda, Goldie Hawn) as icons of celebration - though not necessarily "role models."
In the 80s and 90s it "switched" again, because the focus was now on being taken seriously in a work environment, and a calculation was seemingly made (for better or worse) that the previous sexually-liberated icons had to get dumped because "objectification" got in the way of serious regard. These things happen. I don't necessarily know that it "means" anything other than the arc of history, but that's what it looks like at this juncture.
