Did the Flapper Really Empower?

flapperempower copy In 1922, a magazine called Flapper published the “Flapper Dictionary” and included Cosmo Hamilton’s definition of a flapper as having “a jitney body and a limousine mind.” A jitney was a cheap five cent ride, and limousines, we all know what those represent! Flapper magazine would at least be the most outspoken supporter for the flapper lifestyle at the time, but even they were aware of the reality—that flappers sold their bodies. It could be argued that the ability to sell your own body is part of a woman’s power, but at the same time it cheapens sex and your body as something you can put a number on.

Orphans of the Storm (1921)

I’ve heard the argument that killing oneself should be every individual’s right. It’s a statement I fall prey to during my darkest of days. It is true, albeit somewhat, that your body is in fact your own. It’s not so easy to defend that when you’re under a marital covenant like me, having taken an oath in front of witnesses, swearing that you are one with your spouse and that your body is not just your own. When you’re single however, most people believe that you can do whatever you want with your body in the name of liberty. The legal system, working together to protect your civil liberties, also prohibits you to enjoy certain freedoms if they have somehow proven that what you do is harmful to yourself and others. Examples of such are the usage of marijuana and steroids, drinking while driving, and prostitution.

How does selling your body for sex harm yourself and others? Unlike marijuana, prostitution is frowned upon by the majority of people, mostly because of its relation to slave trade and sex trafficking. A lot of feminists I know frown upon the act as well and for basically the same reasons why I don’t espouse to it—being harmful to your own body and demeaning to the worth of women. It is a mystery to me why it is legal to be a sex worker via pornography but not in the streets (another topic for another time). So, why did the flapper sell herself? Perhaps because it was frowned upon, and it was her goal to do what was unconventional. Mind you, not all of them involved themselves in this business, but it was the general idea that came with the culture. It could’ve been a stereotype, but all stereotypes are derived from having something happen enough.

Everything else about flapperdom it seems is a delight to feminists. It is ironic however that the corset (which I am much a fan of) was representation of structure and was abandoned by forward-thinking women including the flappers; but now, corsets are attributed to promiscuity. All I know is that it makes me feel better with my posture, my shape, and my back!

I put the below outfit together for my idealized modern day flapper, with the elements of gold, feathers, tiered skirts, layered necklaces, and a fascinator—all of which a flapper in the 1920s would’ve incorporated in her dressing. The difference with my ideal flapper is that this woman would have had a limousine body and a limousine mind. She would, as I do now, enjoy her voting rights and her position as a boss of a business, without having to resort to using her own body as sign of power.


Bag: Minsstyle | Dress: Belonda | Locket/Pendant: Fashion Junkie 4 Life | Shoes: Pamplemousse Vintage | Fascinator: These Woods | Pearls: Chanel

Bag’s name is Coco by designer Lily Vasaelini and can be purchased through Minsstyle. I’m very much into black and white contrasts, striped or not, and this purse looks very pleasing. It’s also a good size and made from quality Italian leather. The dress is from Belonda who makes silk printed dresses, and this somehow made me a think of a tamer flapper Bjork with its resemblance to a dress I’ve seen her wear!

The heart locket you see up there is actually a replica of a rare Victorian vinaigrette necklace. Back in the Victorian time, women didn’t have the luxury of bathing daily, so to cover up the evidence of that fact, they would dip the pad that you see up there in scented oil and place it in the locket. They’d wear it around their necks and replace the pad as needed!

 What do you like or dislike about the flapper culture?


Great Gatsby (2013)


Eye Spy Spy Clothing!


What better femme fatale to feature for spy clothing than Emma Peel from the 1960s TV show The Avengers! Contrary to what most people think about the good ole’ days though, there were a lot of risque and scandalous clothing before now. The Avengers was not at all what you’d call sexploitation, but it was around the time when women unilaterally didn’t get all up and arms about women’s rights and equality. That was up until the women’s liberation movement of second wave feminism came along in the late 60s and early 70s. Before all that, men easily got away with using women’s bodies to sell movies and to make women believe that their powers reside in their sexuality. Women have brains as much as breasts, muscles as much as… men-struation? Yes, oh so sexy.

Setting aside geeky alliteration, here are some things I came across the web that deserve some attention, good or bad.  All these are great for a well-covered feminist spy who carries around gadgets instead of lingerie for a change to save the world. I am a lingerie addict, but I can’t pretend that it does any good outside the bedroom.

scottevest-trench-coat-spy En-trenched with this trench coat. I complain about how women’s clothes are lacking in pockets, but that’s what purses are for, right? Then again, it could just be a massive conspiracy where women’s clothing designers intentionally don’t add pockets so that they can sell more bags. Check out this trench coat by Scottevest. It has 18 pockets?! They have a whole line of TEC (technology-enabled clothing) that is perfect for a spy. Oh, and I spy Amy Tan sporting the coat on their website!


A Purse and a Boot, to Boot! Elizabeth Anne’s The European boot looks like an ordinary boot from the outside, but take a close look at the interior. This Canadian designer made the “The World’s First Purse For Your Feet.” I could see an Emma Peel in this decade wearing these as she whips out a credit card to pay for her purchases and picks up her cellphone to make a call. I’ve seen a lot of crazy fashion ideas out there, but this one seems not too far fetched from sanity. Femme fatales have been hiding knives and guns in their shoe and garter belts, pretending like they’ve obviously got nothing to hide in their skintight clothing. Oh, looks can be deceiving.


Zoom-ba! I recently saw a commercial for Zoomies on TV, and I immediately gave it the same creepiness factor as the Snuggies commercial. Don’t get me wrong, I LOVE my Snuggie. It’s an odd-looking thing, but its use is so practical. Zoomies may be very useful, but they do open up a can of worms for predators. Snuggies however do not, but perhaps another person can argue otherwise.

When it comes to decisions on clothing and accessories though, I  do succumb to aesthetics over practicality almost every time. I know some people may frown upon that, but dressing up can be and is an art form for some of us. If we were to supposed to wear the most practical pants, then we’d be all wearing cargo pants. I wore cargos in the 90s, and although I really liked them at the time, I may not ever go back.

My point in this post is this— there’s nothing wrong with “impractical” clothing if you see it as beautiful. However, if you’re going to try to kick butt, make sure you do so through “practical” skills and not your body.

P.S. Thank you for choosing me as one of your top 25 political and feminist blogs in June 2013! I’m not going to take this TOO seriously for two reasons. One, I haven’t written anything on point in a while. Two, I was ahead of Michelle Malkin by two points.

War on Women: What Would Women Do?

So Superstorm Sandy (newscasters should’ve just continued referring to it as “Frankenstorm!”) is almost over, and election campaigning will soon be back on track. (Not to gloss over Sandy—my thoughts and prayers go out to those who were in its path and were hurt or negatively affected by it.) How do you all feel about the phrase “war on women” being tossed around? Do you feel that politicians might just be using this idea as bait to get more women voters? If you consider yourself a well-informed feminist, would you vote for a candidate primarily based on social, economic, or foreign policy issues?

I personally do not like politics for politics sake, and to use my gender as a weapon for campaigning sickens me the worst. First of all, women are part of the collective human race—the same goes for every ethnic background. To decline a person from being chosen for employment primarily based on gender or race is unjust. On the flip side, to promote a person primarily based on their gender or race is also unjust. Considering that, how do you think women are being attacked from an economic standpoint—that is, if you even believe this discrimination still exists in our country?

The second reason why I hate the appeals toward women as part of a political campaign is that I care about mostly the same things men care or should care about when choosing a presidential candidate. To say anything else would be categorizing me as a separate entity not equal to men. As a woman, I should care about the economy for the future of my children and theirs as much as my husband cares about the economy to support his immediate family. To lure me in with women-only ads belittles my intelligence, leading me to believe you think this is the only—if not the primary arena I’m concerned with. For instance, these ads say that abortion is a women’s-only issue. When has it been possible to conceive without a man (or his seed) involved?

Why is it that Planned Parenthood seems to be the only place they make you think you can get affordable “women’s services,” excluding abortion? I don’t use them, but I was able to get my BCPs for $9/mo (with no insurance)! Now that I have good insurance that my husband and I picked out, I get them for free. That’s about the same deal as Planned Parenthood, if not better.

My dear fellow women, I do not need to tell you what you must do. All I want to warn you is that your world should not be limited to what they show you in a political ad. Some politicians will bait you by scaring you, making you mad, or making you feel like a victim. That is because these politicians rely on our estrogen-fueled emotions, and you need to prove that you can be as logical as men when making rational decisions. That kind of thinking, as well as our abilities, should determine our employment and our salaries—not because we are women. If your being hired is just because of your gender (or race), then you are merely part of a quota that needed to be filled.

My husband and I are not employed, but we are now proud small business owners—thank God for capitalism! Part of the reason why we felt a need to start a business together was because of his having been laid off by his job. Some of the people who weren’t laid off were arguably less qualified, but they were also definitely minorities. Maybe the company should’ve taken note that he was married to a then-jobless student minority before laying him off. I don’t need the government to make special arrangements to force employers to hire me even if I am a slacker or somehow less qualified than other applicants. I hope you get my point, despite my harsh tone.

Some time ago, during the height of my involvement with college, I used to buy into Marxist ideals. I have to say, they were always just ideals and never a plausible reality to me. Milton Friedman’s Capitalism and Freedom won me over. It is scary to see an America unfolding into a communist country, without the majority of its people even realizing it. A tactful politician can mask the ugliest thing you can think of and make you eat it up like cake.

I think the only war on women that exists (at least in the coming election) is the way that politicians make you think there is one and use it to their advantage. It’s like somebody’s trying to hypnotize us by waving pretty pearl necklaces in our faces, distracting us from all other issues and covering up huge past and pres(id)ent blunders.

You might not believe me if I say that I am not writing this politically to support a specific candidate. You’re partially right. I do know who I want to win (and so should you by now, being so close to election day). However, writing for women and as a woman, I want to preserve the integrity of our women as much as I can by telling you not to vote for a candidate because of our women’s issues. Our issues may be very important, but wise people (and even crafty terrorists like Bin Laden) know that to destroy a nation’s economy is to destroy a nation completely.

The (Misconstrued) PR Perceptions on Pussy Riot

On February 21st, about a few weeks before Vladimir Putin won his third presidency, a group of women in a band called Pussy Riot, boldly barraged into Christ the Savior cathedral in Moscow, Russia, and performed a “punk prayer” while holy services were going on. They sang lines that outraged both the Orthodox church and the Russian authorities:

“Virgin Mary, Become Feminist / Virgin Mary, Hash Putin Away.”

We might view the incident with Pussy Riot as anti-religion. It might be anti-fundamentalism, but it’s not anti-religion. Madonna wrongly thought she was supporting the cause of the band by writing the group’s name on her back and stomping on a cross while on stage at a performance in Russia. Ukrainian feminist group FEMEN, who are anti-religion, misrepresented their support as well by cutting a cross in half with a chainsaw. I myself thought that Pussy Riot did not have an ounce of righteousness in them, but I misunderstood. The people who support the Free Pussy Riot movement might have different perceptions of the band’s motives and goals, but they all agree on one thing—the severity of their punishment was unjust.

Besides reading the news articles, I have read what the women in the band had to say. I read their lyrics and their letters. I was impressed. It wasn’t just their intellect that interested me, or the way they articulated their thoughts, but it was the irony that these women talked more about Christ than Russia’s Patriarch Kiril.

On March 24, Patriarch Kiril delivered a speech that said,

“These days we are observing Lent. The devil has had a good laugh over us, having brought us so many sorrows in the days when we should be distancing ourselves from worldly worries, when we should be deep in prayer, observing Lent, confessing our own sins. But perhaps the Lord is making us go through such tribulations in the holy days of Lent so that we all become conscious of our responsibility for our land, for Holy Russia, and for the Orthodox faith. For the Orthodox believer this sense of responsibility is expressed primarily through fervent prayer to God. These other people do not believe in the power of prayer. They only believe in the power of propaganda, lies and slander, in the power of the Internet, in the power of media, in the power of money and weapons. We believe in the power of prayer. And I urge the entire Russian Church to pray fervently and diligently about our country, about our faith, about our people, so that the Lord will absolve us of our sins and once again fill us with His grace, strengthen us with the Divine Grace of the Holy Spirit, so that, having gone through temptations, we have emerged from them cleansed, stronger, and capable of arranging our future in conformity with God’s commandments and human conscience.”

Pussy Riot responded by saying,

“Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Your Holiness, Patriarch-

A fervent and sincere prayer can never be a mockery, no matter in what form it occurs, therefore it cannot be said that we jeered at, or mocked, the shrine.

We are plagued by the thought that the very shrine, which you consider so defiled, is inseparably linked to Putin, who in very words, brought it back to the Church. And because the [sic] of our prayer, asking our Holy Mother to drive out those who defile the brightest ideals of human life in Russia and all possible precepts of the Orthodox Faith, you are perceived as a mockery of the sacred.

In prayer it is evoked that, as millions of Christians were seriously grieved that you allowed the Church to become a weapon in a dirty campaign of dirty intrigues, urging the faithful to vote for a man whose crimes are infinitely far from God’s Truth. We simply cannot believe the representative of the Heavenly Father if he acts contrary to the values for which Christ was crucified on the cross. As said by Pushkin, “ It is impossible to pray for King Herod; the Mother of God forbids it.”

You were endlessly wrong in saying in your sermon that we do not believe in the power of prayer. Without belief in the power of prayer and of words, we would never have offered our prayers so desperately and fervently, in anticipation of the serve persecution that could be dealt to us and our loved ones. The repressive powers that simply waited for the right moment to take revenge on our group for our tough Civic positions we have taken with our art. The power and truth of our prayer did not shame the Faithful, for surely the faith of a true believer, as the feelings of Christ, are too deep and universal—too filled with love—to be shamed. Our prayer shamed only Putin and his henchmen, and now three women have been thrown in prison, taken away from their young children, and now daily calls for arrests and punishments are issued forth from the higher bureaucracies. It is Putin—not a believer—who, through domination and division, needs to keep the women in jail.

You say that we believe only in propaganda, the media, lies and slander, money and weapons, but we don’t have faith in any of those things, as we have no faith in anything entity equal the brute powers of King Herod. You encouraged the Russian people to vote and pray for these powers, in whose name you have tried to link with prosperity of the Russian land.
First the pervasive and false propaganda on state television wrested from the people a victory for Putin. Now, through outright falsehood opposition and detractors at least is trying to assure the people that women with young children should be kept in the custody for “for violation of the laws of the Church.” On whose side are propaganda, media, lies and slander? On whose side is the belief in money? On which side are the performers of Pussy Riot, whose lives are close to the asceticism necessary for any creative thinking? Or is the belief in money on the side of those who invested the empty values of unprecedented governmental luxury in the code of conduct for any high-ranking man? Who has faith in weapons? Perhaps those who call for the killing in the name of religious feelings? On whose side were the dozens of armed men who, shouting and wielding their weapons, commanded a raid on March 3rd, having been sent to arrest two women suspected to have been in the temple- suspected of having asked Mother of God, loudly, get rid of Putin?”

Perhaps it was the way they presented their message and the choice of venue which shocked the Christians and delighted all others into thinking they were mocking God. Both groups did not seem to see the irony in which they performed the “punk prayer” at Christ the Savior cathedral in Moscow. However, I am not necessarily saying that the band claim to be Christians themselves. Certainly, some of the things they believe in I do not agree with. I cannot write them off, however, by saying that they are of the devil, which is what the patriarch was implying. I also do not condemn them for their choice of venue, now that I have a clearer picture of the possible corruption within the Russian Orthodox Church and their special connection with Putin. As a National Reviewer writer said in a follow-up article realigning his original Pussy Riot article, “the Pussy Riot girls are seeking to protest not oppression by religion but the oppression of religion by the Russian state.”

The battle between all that Pussy Riot represents and Putin’s network does not necessarily belong in the same arena with the conflict between atheists or feminists and Christianity. Therefore, the cross stomping/halving misrepresents what the whole thing is about. If anything, the misconstruing of the intent of the band’s protest is a representation of how tense and in the forefront the issues between liberal and conservative Christians—gay marriages, abortion, traditional views and roles of women, etc—happen to be at this very moment. Scandals involving those issues happen every day within America. More than anything, corruption was at the center of the Pussy Riot protest. It doesn’t seem like Pussy Riot’s international supporters really understand that. Many people jump to the conclusion that Pussy Riot must have been oppressed by religion itself, because perhaps that is how these observers from afar personally feel about religion. We all usually have the tendency to have our beliefs polarized by supporting what we think already supports our belief—not to mention projecting and applying specific connotations and intents to radical actions taken by others. Many seem to have perceived that Pussy Riot, by performing seemingly anti-God statements in a church, were espousing and enacting an anti-religious agenda. What happened to our keen sense of irony detection?

So, if someone wants to “free Pussy Riot,” as the movement touts, then he or she must also believe in the band’s true, unadulterated cause, and not an incorrectly interpreted general anti-religious sentiment. He or she must believe that corruption must end. Of course, the band, through their “hooligan” antics (they were actually ultimately charged with hooliganism) of disrupting a church service, has lent to this sentiment that they are anti-religion, but if we believe their claim that the church is corrupt and under sway of a corrupt official, Putin, then really the “attack” on conservatism and religion should not be the issue. If supporters of the FPR movement wanted to do their part, they would be doing research on the corruption of Putin and his relationship with the church that was protested. And they should then do their part to try and seek his removal from office. I’m not exactly sure how international supporters could do this, but that’s really the most logical reaction—along with speaking out to free or lessen the severity of the band members’ punishment.  If Putin is using people’s faith in the church and paying the church to sway votes in his direction, then action should be taken, and PR’s message and freedom should be supported.

Below is a video put together by The Guardian with the band’s new single, “Putin Lights Up the Fires.”