What makes a strong woman strong? When it comes to the crossover between feminism and kink, as well as in the media and entertainment industry, there are many differing perceptions. Here’s an excerpt from a really interesting post by Robwrite at HubPages on “Fighting Females: Empowerment or Fetishism?”:

“…Now don’t get me wrong. I love strong, smart, independent female characters. Dr. Dana Scully (Gillian Anderson) on the X-Files; Chief of Staff C.J. Craig (Allison Janney) from The West Wing; M (Judy Dench) from the James Bond films; Dr. Lisa Cuddy (Lisa Edelstein) on House, MD; Even young Hermione Granger (Emma Watson) from the Harry Potter stories. Formidable females are fun.

What annoys me is that most females in modern drama/sci-fi TV shows and films, all seem to be portrayed as super-tough fighters. It’s become an all-too-common cliché of modern times that a woman needs to be able to physically dominate those around her in order to be a strong woman. Some people may say that this is female empowerment. But is it really a good message to send to young girls that if you really want to be empowered, you have to be able to physically beat people up? Do women have to become like men and overpower them hand-to-hand to be on equal footing? Where are all the female role models who show that strength is more than just punching and kicking?

Yes, sometimes it does make sense, plotwise, to have a super-strong, butt-kicking leading lady; For instance, Buffy the Vampire Slayer (Sarah Michelle Geller); Xena Warrior Princess (Lucy Lawless); Emma Peel from The Avengers (Dina Rigg); Wonder Woman (Linda Carter); the Bionic Woman (Lindsey Wagner) are all examples of women who logically needed to be able to outfight their opponents. I loved all these ladies.

However, more often than not these days, it’s just an unnecessary cliché that shows the limitations of a writer’s or producer’s ability to write a woman as strong and independent without being a female Rambo. It reflects the industries inability to evolve enough to understand and reflect the genuine changes in women’s roles in society…”

Full article here.

Is it not a bit patronising to reduce a woman’s entire career to a sexual stereotype or uniform fetish for the sake of a sexy calendar? Is a man’s job always taken seriously, while the idea of a woman in a similar role is depicted as little more than a game of dress-up for a series of titillating novelty photographs? Ah, but is it still objectification if every model is lesbian or bisexual and the pictures are designed for the viewing pleasure of women, not men? Well? Is it?

Actually, yes. It is. A bit. But I also think it’s hot, so I’m putting it on my blog anyway. Yes, I’m a terrible hypocrite who likes looking at photos of beautiful women in D/s poses and outfits. There. I said it. I love these pictures. Thank you Diva Magazine for the (borderline sexist but admittedly sexy) I Love Career Girls 2012 Calendar.