On beauty

[liv]

One of the very cool side-effects of hosting the friending meme is that lots of people have chosen to add me as well as eachother. Welcome, new people! So I thought I'd better provide some content before you all get bored and go away again. Here's an essay I've been meaning to write up and post for a long time, about feminism and appearance:

Some background: for a long time, I didn't identify as a feminist, for a number of reasons. Eventually I came to feel that certain feminist issues were important enough to me that I wanted to call myself a feminist in spite of these problems. (I still massively object to racism, transphobia and ableism, mind you, I haven't softened that stance at all.)

Anyway, one of the things that I found, and to some extent still find, very alienating about feminism is the policing of women's appearance and gender identity. I couldn't get my head round endless debates about whether women "should" wear makeup, or shave their legs, or have breast implants. I just couldn't see that as a political issue, or something that should be decided by moral arbiters rather than just being up to the individual. I could observe a lot of people who would otherwise be sympathetic to feminist causes being excluded from the feminist movement because they made the "wrong" choices.

The whole thing just seemed so narrowly prescriptive: Don't wear revealing or sexy clothes, because then you're desperate for sexual attention from men. Don't wear clothes that are too covering, because then you're supporting a patriarchal ideal of submissive, modest femininity. Don't wear clothes that are too frilly and flowery, or grow your hair long, because then you're being girly and accepting gender stereotypes. Don't wear clothes typically associated with men, or cut your hair short, because then you're valuing masculine things above feminine things. In short, any deviation at all from the current fashion (I use fashion in the sense of mainstream clothes that most people wear, rather than in the sense of high fashion or up-to-the-minute trends) means you're anti-feminist.

One could caricature typical internet feminist debates on the topic as falling into two camps: on one side, the radical or second wave or older or gender feminists, who reject any sort of adornment, and want women to burn bras, shave their heads (but never their legs or armpits), wear dungarees and so on, or failing that, at least to eschew makeup, high heels, jewellery, dresses etc. On the other side, liberal or third wave or younger or equality feminists, who say that what a woman wears is totally her choice and totally above any possible criticism. I didn't find either position satisfying, but the second at least has the advantage of allowing a range of gender and style expressions. I think however that this dichotomy is one of those emergent properties of internet arguments, where a lot of people end up taking a position without really understanding the issues, and the debate is further muddied by trying to address a lot of bystanders who aren't feminists at all but are looking to find fault with feminism.

My impression is that it's possible to move to a level deeper than that, and discuss the political implications of choices about clothing and appearance without insulting or excluding women based on the choices that they make. Perhaps one way to do this is to look at the consequences of not making the approved choices about appearance. For example, in some parts of society, women may face workplace discrimination, overt or indirect, if they don't dress in a way that's considered professional, which just coincidentally happens to be a lot more effort than is required of men to look professional. But if they are seen to put too much effort into their appearance, or just plain look too pretty / attractive, they are not taken seriously, they're assumed to be bimbos or airheads or trading on their looks or even their sexuality. I really want to have this kind of conversation without falling into the exact same trap, of saying that if women don't make enough effort to conform they are displaying internalized sexism, but if they make too much effort they are selling out. There's actually a distinction between "women should not be punished for not wearing makeup" and "politically conscious women should not wear makeup", and that distinction seems to be getting blurred in a lot of places.

Another angle I would like to take is to discuss appearance and expectations about appearance without assuming that the only reason a woman would ever care about looking good is to please men or to be a slave of the "patriarchy". That's a huge, dangerous over-simplification. There are lots of good reasons to care about your appearance; it's a way of expressing yourself, it's confidence-boosting to look your best, and so on. Also, it's very much part of human nature to respond better to people who look good, and there's nothing at all wrong with wanting to benefit from that positive response. It doesn't mean you're trying to attract sexual attention, just the general halo that goes with attractiveness. (Actually, I don't think there's anything at all wrong with wanting to attract sexual attention in the right circumstances, but it's probably not a good idea to make that the whole aim of your life.)

For most people, of all genders, for most of history, it's been completely natural to want to look as good as possible. It's not frivolous to want this. My feeling is that a lot of feminist arguments have been contaminated by an idea that is essentially sexist: that caring about your appearance is feminine, and being feminine is weak and unintelligent and trivial. Hence women who put time and effort and money into looking beautiful (and sometimes even women who just happen to look beautiful) are considered by sexists to be shallow and stupid, but they are also considered by many feminists to be, well, shallow and stupid and in addition politically ignorant or even anti-feminist.

Our society, by which I mean the anglo-influenced world of the last hundred years or so, is a historical and social anomaly in that one particular group, high status men, can get away with a bare minimum of effort with their appearance and still be respected. Or if they do make effort with their appearance, they aim to look as plain and unobtrusive as possible. I can see some value in arguing that women should have the same right as men to make minimum effort with their appearance, to wear plain, comfortable clothes which do not lean heavily on sexuality. But actually I think the whole issue is more complicated than that. One way it's complicated is that there's a huge class element in what's considered an acceptable amount of effort, and even within roughly the same class level, it's not just that women have to make a lot more effort than men, it's also that fat people have to make more effort than thin people, and visibly disabled people have to make a lot more effort than apparently able-bodied people, and I gather that POC have to make a lot more effort than white people. Another way it's complicated is that there's also an important need for expanding the range of options for self-expression available to men.

Myself, I am in the category of women who aren't at all interested in clothes, makeup, fashion, accessories or generally spending time on my appearance. I think feminism has been very good for people like me. I generally haven't had much trouble in my life because I want clothes that are simple, comfortable and convenient, and I don't want to have to put time or money into looking pretty. In fact in many situations it's illegal for anyone to treat me worse because of this choice. But I don't want this advantage to be at the expense of women who do enjoy dressing up. Or women who may not positively enjoy clothes and fashion, but who find the benefits worth the effort.

Of course, another feminist issue that could be discussed is about all the labour that goes into producing clothes and fashion accoutrements. It's mostly done by women and far too frequently by women with really poor employment conditions. But that's a separate topic.

Comments

[snowsurrounded]

Not driven me away; in fact it's left me pretty damn impressed. This articulates a lot of things I've thought about, actually, as someone who identifies as a feminist but also does enjoy dressing up and being, well, kinda girly. Thankyou for posting it.

[liv]

Wow, thank you. I'm so glad this post resonated with you, that's really encouraging!

[kate]

Oh, this is really well articulated, thank you! I have a problem with the rigidness of some feminists too, with regard to appearance.

Myself, I am in the category of women who aren't at all interested in clothes, makeup, fashion, accessories or generally spending time on my appearance. I think feminism has been very good for people like me.... But I don't want this advantage to be at the expense of women who do enjoy dressing up. Or women who may not positively enjoy clothes and fashion, but who find the benefits worth the effort.

Yes, this describes how I feel about it exactly.

[liv]

Yay, thank you for the kind words!

[ironed_orchid]

Interesting.

I have a real problem with versions of feminism which tell women what to do. For me, the goal of feminism can be summed up as 'increasing women's agency' - which means that choices women make can't be wrong. Of course, some of the would-be presciptive people then have fall back positions like "false consciousness" or "buying into patriarchal gender stereotypes".

The thing is, at a glance it's impossible to tell whether a woman who is wearing feminine clothes has chosen to do so because they are in fashion this season or because she has thought deeply and long about her gender presentation and what it signifies to her. My stance is that that because we can't tell, we should STFU. But if people do say misogynist, sexist, or anti-feminist things in my presence, then I tend to call them on it.

[lavendersparkle]

I think that there's a bit more nuance to it. Women certainly can make anti-feminist choices, how else would you describe a woman who refused to employ other women. In the second part of your comment you explicitly refer to that, as saying misogynist things is a choice you would call people (presumably including women) on.

I think that most of our actions have effects upon others. We live in such an interconnected world that it's difficult to sneeze without someone else catching a cold. From that perspective, even choices which may appear purely personal, such as what we wear, does have effects upon other people. If most women continue a particular beauty practice it sets an expectation that women should do that and increases the cost to any one woman going against that standard. There had to be a few brave women to be the first to wear trousers and short hair in England for it to be a relatively uncostly choice for the rest of us.

However, feminist discussions often descend into terrible prescriptive rhetoric which is a problem for a number of reasons. As you identified, is difficult to tell what's going on just from a woman's actions. There are so many competing influences for women to conform to femininity but also to view masculinity as superior, that patriarchal influences can pull women into pretty much any clothing choice.

Another issue is that women shouldn't have to fight the patriarchy in every aspect of their lives all of the time. We have to survive. If a woman acts in ways which conform to and reinforce some aspect of patriarchy, maybe she's doing it because she's not willing to take on the psychic, social and economic costs of challenging that standard at the moment. We make our choices; we pay our prices, in integrity as well as in money.

Another problem I have is that I think there's a tendency to concentrate these things due to an implicit individualistic philosophy of self determination. It's as if some feminists want to believe that if they just wore the correct amount of make up and the correct amount of clothing, they'd stop being oppressed. But patriarchy is much bigger and all encompassing than something which any one woman can extricate herself from through her lifestyle choices. I think it's more comforting to think that sexism can be defeated through things which we're easily in control of rather than through a hard slog which will take centuries.

[ironed_orchid]

This would be some of the stuff that I deleted becausE I wasn't able to express my thoughts clearly and succinctly.

[liv]

Thanks very much for this! I've been getting a lot out of your thoughts about individual change versus systemic / collective action recently, you've been posting some really good stuff about both the environment and feminism and where they intersect. I find it challenging, mind you, because by nature I'm an individualist (I think that's a big part of why I came to feminism reluctantly, because I have a hard time seeing women as a group rather than just a collection of individual people). But your comments about how it's easy and comforting to think you can fix things by making minor changes in your personal habits is very apt for me. (I hope it will not take centuries to defeat sexism, considering how much progress has been made in the last few decades, but yes, it's hard work and needs to be fixed at a society level not just via individual behaviour.)

I do think it's true that each women's choices effect others, for example by supporting or challenging expectations. But it doesn't make sense to me that a woman whose natural gender identity is fairly mainstream feminine should be expected to wear trousers and cut her hair short just to make it easier for other women or make a political point. Though I do absolutely agree with you that even when you have decided that it's politically right to dress and appear in a certain way, you may not be able to afford to do that all the time. And it's not fair for other women to stand in judgement without knowing individual circumstances.

[liv]

I definitely don't want to be part of a movement that wants to tell women what to do, and I don't really believe in false consciousness or the patriarchy. But I think I wouldn't go as far as to say that choices women make can't be wrong. I think it's a mistake to see sexism as something perpetrated by men (or "the patriarchy") against women; women can be sexist as well.

That said, I think that blaming women for conforming to problematic standards is absolutely unproductive. The standards are the problem, not the women! I quite agree with you that feminists shouldn't be judgemental about someone's choices when they have no idea what the reasons are for making those choices. Part of what I'm trying to argue though is that wanting to look pretty or be in fashion or found attractive are not necessarily bad reasons. Nor is wanting to avoid the hassle you can get for bucking gender conventions.

I wish there were a way to address the problem that what's considered pretty requires so much effort and expense that few can afford, that it's so restrictive, that the the ideal to strive for is seen as being both barely adult and highly sexualized, and so on, without blaming women for doing the extremely natural human thing of wanting to meet society's standards of prettiness.

[ironed_orchid]

I've phrased my thoughts badly.

Of course women are quite capable of making bad choices, and of making sexist, anti-feminist choices. But what I think is that women being in a position to make choices for themselves, rather than being told what to think and what to do by authoritative powers and institutions, is a good thing.

I certainly do NOT think that Women are now empowered by everything a woman does.

What I want, and what I consider one of the underlying assumptions of a lot of feminist actions and analysis, if for more women to be in a position where they can make choices about how to live, and what to believe, and how to express their gender identity, and even how to dress.
The problem I have with prescriptive schools of feminism is that they tend to be just as authoritative and which consequently do not increase the sphere of women's agency and personal autonomy but simply change the rules which women are expected to obey.

I should also add that I have slightly complicated philosophical thoughts about agency and autonomy, but they can be loosely summed up as: it's not a truly autonomous act if you haven't thought about your reasons first. So when I talk about making choices I assume that those choices are thoughtful and considered, rather than merely reactionary or completely determined by some external factor.

[liv]

Ah, with this clarification I think I agree with you strongly! I very much do want more women to be in a position where their choices are unconstrained, and I don't want feminism to set itself up as a prescriptive force which just pushes people in a slightly different direction from sexism.

Interesting idea about autonomy requiring thought and consideration. I do want people, including women, to have the option of just doing whatever seems easiest and not having to make a political issue of what clothes to put on in the morning. In other words, I think it can be a valid meta-choice to prefer not to agonize over a particular aspect of your life. Partly because, well, most men don't ever think about the politics or implications of what clothes they wear and I would like women to have that freedom. And partly because having that level of consciousness is incredibly demanding and I don't think it's fair to expect it of people who may be struggling just to get through the day for any number of reasons.

[ironed_orchid]

Well one nice thing about thinking on the meta level is that you can sort of group actions together and say "these are actions which require careful thought every time, but those are actions which can come under a general principle, and so I don't need to make a careful decision every time".

For instance, someone may make a decision to be vegetarian in adherence with some principle they think is worth acting on, maybe it's to do with suffering, maybe it's to do with health, maybe it's to do with intelligence in mammals... but having made that decision, they don't have to agonize at every meal whether or not they should eat meat. They've already made that choice.

[holyschist]

Good stuff to think about!

[liv]

Thank you, I always enjoy it when other people join in with something I'm thinking about!

[nicki]

My personal viewpoint is that given the financial resources to adjust one's wardrobe, all clothes are costumes we use to make the world react they way we want it to react. So in choosing clothing it is important to consider the statement and whether we wish to make that statement in the situation we are dressing for.

Work clothes, for example, are basically a uniform. We can not care and ignore the uniform entirely for lounge clothes or be clearly ungroomed which tends to send the statement of "I'm tired or sick or totally oblivious, don't count on me for too much today". We can choose to dress up the uniform "Look at me, I've decided that work is a place in which I should be admired." or dress down "Look at me, I am making a political statement about the uniform of this workplace (or women in general)." Or simply follow the uniform "I am a cog in the machinery of my workplace." Each of our situations is different and each of our work places is different, so the choices we make are going to be different. Each person, however, also is probably going to judge the others in the office based on their own opinion of the appropriate response to the situation as well.

I am lucky in that the current "uniform" for my job is essentially the same for both men and women (neat, clean, not overly worn, not overly wrinkled slacks and a shirt, skirts, ties, or suits acceptable but not demanded), hair should be neat, makeup doesn't really matter, and we probably shouldn't be seeing anyone's armpits, so I don't much need to decide if I want to rebel as a political statement. At my job we are all cogs in the education machine. :P

[liv]

That's a good point, and fits in with the kind of gender-deconstructing po-mo feminists ('everything is drag') that I find a bit hard to understand but generally find myself in agreement with once I can get past their jargon. I do very much agree that clothing is a way to get the desired reaction from the people we encounter, but I guess the angle I want to tackle as a feminist is how hard it can be for women to get that desired reaction, and how bad the consequences can be if someone doesn't like their choices.

I'm not at all saying that people should be able to wear whatever they like all the time! There are always going to be appropriate clothes for appropriate circumstances, and if you do a professional job, you should totally look groomed and business-like, even if your natural inclination is to slop around in jeans and t-shirts, or to dress up to the nines and be as sexy as possible. I'm not childish enough to see dress codes as a horrible mean restriction on people's freedom of expression! Your workplace with very similar requirements for men and women sounds completely reasonable to me.

I also work in education (university lecturer), and you do get a range of styles, from jeans and sweatshirts to sharp suits, and that applies to both genders. So I'm pretty happy that I personally will not be discriminated against because I'm not particularly interested in clothes or makeup and can't cope with high heels. I do choose to dress up a little when I'm lecturing or teaching, because I believe it shows respect for the students and helps to build up one's authority. But I don't see a situation where the women have to make far more effort than the men, and that's as it should be.

[eumelia]

I recall someone once commented on the fact that I didn't always shave my legs, but I always my arm pits.
I'm like, well, yeah, and...? And I was told that I had to do both equally, otherwise *mumble mumble*.

Yeah.

Clothes and hair, because they are huge tools of gender differentiation culturally speaking, have always been sensitive spots in women's lives, because so much of fashion is dictated by men's vision of the feminine body the whole debate takes on a difficult plane of existence.

I think the fact that the early feminists gave an alternative to mainstream fashion is excellent, the fact that the "vision" of what a feminist should look like is counter-productive and intuitive, especially because - surprise, surprise - aesthetics aren't something that can be dictated and the assumed viewer of the aesthetic isn't in fact the actual viewer.

My favourite example is the dyke Butch-Femme aesthetic. Butch women, to a certain extent, look like "classic Lesbians" as well, as well as being the model upon which "feminist" is used as a pejorative, 'cause all feminists are mannish-dykes, of course. Femme's can "pass" as straight women, because they perform "proper" femininity, but they're not actually doing it for men... they're doing it for other women!

You just can't tell or dictate why women (or anyone!) wants to dress the way they do. Feminists who criticise other's women's choices need to step back and do a little soul-searching as to why other's choices bother them.

Excellent post!

[monanotlisa]

Excellent icon!

And, Liv, thanks for this post. :)

[ironed_orchid]

Thinking about femmes and how they are invisibly subversive has been really influencing my presentation lately.

One of my favourite signs at Mardi Gras was held by a member of The Femmes Guild and said "should I use my invisible powers for good or evil?"

[khalinche]

I think that sign's ripe for appropriation by the bisexual bloc at the next Pride march I go to!

[ironed_orchid]

Ooh, good plan.

[liv]

Interesting thoughts, thank you. I definitely do want to consider the issue that so much of fashion is dictated by men's vision of the feminine body, but I think that framing it as women "just trying to please men" or being "slaves of the patriarchy" is unhelpful. I don't want to give the impression I'm anything but thankful for the work of the early feminists in opening up more options to women, and pointing out how male-centred much of fashion can be. I do very much like your point that aesthetics aren't something that can be dictated and the assumed viewer of the aesthetic isn't in fact the actual viewer, though.

Interesting example about the Butch/Femme thing! I think in some ways it can be a bit heterosexist, sort of assuming that women can't really love or be attracted to other women, there has to be a sort-of man in the relationship. But it is definitely something that has been hugely developed in Queer culture and can't usefully be interpreted on mainstream, heterosexist terms. I would add that in my experience there's a whole range of gender presentations and attraction preferences among lesbians just as much as there is among straight people. Also I don't want to assume that lesbians create an image only "for" other women, just as with straight women there are a whole bunch of reasons for choosing to look a certain way apart from just attracting sexual partners.

[seryn]

I don't like how women have abandoned feminism, which to me is about the equality of people regardless of gender. I really don't like how women who seem to consider themselves post-feminist want special treatment for women just because they're women.

I don't like it when women cover their heads for religious reasons because that is about the restriction of rights of people based on gender. But I personally love hats. Hats are a choice, veils are oppression. Feminism is about women having their own choices.

I don't dress in revealing clothes and I tend to look down on people who do, but that's my personal belief. "If you dress to be eye candy, then you're saying it's okay for people to treat you like you're brainless." It's not wrong for people to do that, but why on Earth would you want to spend any time with someone who deliberately makes themselves appear stupid? I suspect that is more of a geekism than a feminism.

I don't think most women would want to burn their bras... Somewhere recently I read that the average cup size is over a C now. No one with that much chestage wants it to swing free all day unless they have a really attractive chiropractor.

I think men should wear skirts. They have the thin legs fashion magazines say look awesome in skirts. Men are always complaining about inseams being too high and restrictive. I don't wear skirts because my feminine biology says I tend to have extra weight on my thighs and rubbing them together naked all day gives me a rash. But other women can wear skirts as long as I don't have to--- which includes the jerks dissing female politicians for their pantsuits.

I too questioned my identity as a feminist. Why would I want to be associated with people who think being a woman is about needing a lactation room and telling the world that female biology inherently makes a woman disabled? Then I realized those people weren't feminist. They don't believe in equality. They believe women need to be protected and have special treatment in order to succeed. Which is actually the opposite of feminism.

I'm old enough to remember when jobs (advertised in newspapers) still specified the gender required. You could not get an interview for management jobs as a woman, the only way to get there was to get promoted from within and most companies still prefer to bring in external people so no one feels bitter about being passed over. It was shocking when the woman next door to us went back to work while her children were still in school and she got a job doing lingerie sales until she was abducted at work and beaten for "not being a good woman". I'm not 40. We're not even two generations past violence against women seeking equality and already women are undermining those efforts for other women. But there have been women undermining women's search for equality from the very beginning.

im in ur thrd restrictin teh rites ov peeps basd on gendr

[lavendersparkle]

I don't like it when women cover their heads for religious reasons because that is about the restriction of rights of people based on gender. But I personally love hats. Hats are a choice, veils are oppression. Feminism is about women having their own choices.

HA HA HA HA HA!

I'm sorry. I don't want to bring drama onto liv's journal but your post is so full of FAIL that it's like some kind of dry witty pastiche of a terrible clueless comment.

Nao iz makin choice. Can I haz femnist cooky?

[lavendersparkle]

I find head scarves more comfortable than hats and more versatile to go with different outfits.

How do women who wear hats to cover their hair for religious reasons fit into your scheme of good/oppressive headwear? How about in the winter when I sometimes wear a headscarf under a hat to keep extra warm (stealth oppression maybe)?

Apologies to liv

[nacbrie]

I don't like it when women cover their heads for religious reasons because that is about the restriction of rights of people based on gender. But I personally love hats. Hats are a choice, veils are oppression. Feminism is about women having their own choices.

Actually, some women who wear restrictive clothing for religious reasons find it liberating, for example, because they are addressed as people and not objects of sexual desire. The reasons for wearing veils, or other forms of restrictive clothing (e.g. hijab), are many, and depend on the individual, and you can't speak for the experiences of those people and call it 'oppression' simply because your society is used to women wearing hats.

(not to say that every woman in a veil is happy in it, but to say that every woman is unhappy is equally invalid)

[holyschist]

I am, um, boggled by this whole comment, so I'll leave it at--

Why do you assume people who look attractive (or whatever "eye candy" means to you) must be stupid? Did you read the middle chunk of liv's post addressing the problems with this assumption?

[timeasmymeasure]

I don't dress in revealing clothes and I tend to look down on people who do, but that's my personal belief. "If you dress to be eye candy, then you're saying it's okay for people to treat you like you're brainless." It's not wrong for people to do that, but why on Earth would you want to spend any time with someone who deliberately makes themselves appear stupid?

Wait. What?

Please correct me if I'm wrong but are you implying that dressing well, and if that happens to accentuate parts of me I like that happen to be attractive I'm deliberately making myself look stupid?

I really am trying to understand your point whether or not I agree with it but I just want to be clear on your pov.

[ironed_orchid]

Hats are a choice, veils are oppression. Feminism is about women having their own choices.

If you are being sarcastic, then you win at the internet. If not, there's some serious flaws in your thinking.

As lavendersparkle says, this reads like a pastiche of a clueless comment, so much so that it's not even internally consistent.

[liv]

Hello, seryn, and thank you for explaining some of your thoughts about the topic. I am afraid you've been a little piled on; since this happened to be the first post I made after the friending meme, I haven't had a chance to establish conversational norms among my new readers. I do disagree with some of what you're saying, while I am fascinated by others of your points. Do you feel comfortable having a robust debate about what you've posted here, or would you rather not argue your corner when you seem to be in a minority position in this discussion?

[seryn]

I didn't want to start a huge fight and it seemed like I had, so I tried to stay out of it after it was too late. It was inconsiderate of me to start something in someone else's space, for that I am sorry.

I'm not entirely sure how I really feel about how people look in relation to anything else, which is some of the source of the wibbliness in what I said. It's bad if there's no substance behind a pretty facade. It's also bad if you get flamed for making the most of what you've got in a world where people value the appearance over everything.

A lot of what I said sounds really judgmental and I don't mean it to spin that way. [I promise that even if I'm judgmental in the abstract, I try to treat individual people with courtesy and civility.] I wrote a lot there and without spending a lot of time editing it and left out a lot of the "to me" parameters on whom was affected by those choices.

[oursin]

Joanna Russ wrote what I think on this generally - applies well beyond issues of appearance:

To call X a feminist issue did not then mean that there was a good way to do X and a bad way, and that we were trying to replace the bad way with the good way. X was a feminist issue because it was the locus of various social pressures (which it made visible) and those social pressures were what feminism was all about.... Those who don't see the distinction are building a religion, not a politics.

It's not about rules, it's about questions. But people do love to have rules.

[blue-mai.livejournal.com]

great quote

[liv]

Nice quote, and very apt, thanks for contributing that!

[nacbrie]

I really liked your post, as someone who's always felt that the end result of feminism should not be that high heels are banned, but that the choice to wear high heels is entirely that of the wearer's*. (Speaking as someone who's wedded to her flats)

*ETA: that is, a choice free of social pressures as well as more overt ones (like uniforms with high heels), and, no, it's not going to happen any time soon, and maybe not ever.

[liv]

Thanks for this kind comment. I do think we're very much on the same page; free choice, yes, but that doesn't mean "anything you feel like is cool", it means being aware of and sometimes challenging the pressures that can influence such choices.

[lilacsigil]

The best thing about current feminism, for me, is that intersectionality is finally making inroads. We can talk about fashion without excluding the extra effort than people without, say, cis-privilege or thin privilege are required to make. We can look at our choices in more than one light - in terms of privilege, kyriarchal expectations, economics, class, nationality. Fat acceptance, in particular, has led me to back right off on thinking I have the right to criticise (as opposed to question) other women's individual choices.

What I do not like (and I don't think this is exactly new) is the way that discussions seem to so often start by singling out a woman (often a famous woman) and criticising her. It's like [person X] has to not only fight the system at every second, in every way, but do it in a way that commentators instantly recognise as resistance. Everyone makes choices and compromises to survive (and/or thrive) in an often hostile world, and I don't like adding to that hostility. This is not to say that women can't make anti-feminist decisions, but that no-one can be everything to everyone at all times; and those anti-feminist decisions need to have context. (I saw this most recently in a discussion populated largely by white people, about how Beyonce conforms to white, patriarchal beauty norms. Maybe she does, but maybe that's her decision to make, and one where she has a lot more expertise than I do!)

[liv]

Yeah, it might well be that intersectionality is my friend here! There are some feminists (not the ranting idiot kind, but sensible ones) who feel that intersectionality is at odds with feminism because it takes the focus of effort away from women and addresses more general social justice issues. I can see the value of that argument, but I lean more towards the intersectionality side, because for one thing women are part of the world, women have other issues apart from being female, and it's just practically impossible to act politically "only" in favour of women while ignoring men altogether. Also because I don't want high status women to prosper at the expense of other women who have to bear the brunt of multiple isms, because that doesn't seem very useful for feminism.

Really good point that taking a famous woman and criticizing all her choices as "anti-feminist" is not very helpful. Good example with white people complaining that Beyoncé is too white-conforming, definitely, I hate that kind of thing.

[lilacsigil]

There are some feminists (not the ranting idiot kind, but sensible ones) who feel that intersectionality is at odds with feminism because it takes the focus of effort away from women

I do understand this, and I agree that sometimes intersectionality gets hijacked to express "What about the men???" which is really not the point! I also think that whatever other -ism is in play, women almost always cop the worst of it. Feminism can bring the lens of high-powered women onto these issues, and centre women and women's decision-making, starting from the basic tenet of feminism - everyone is a person, and all people are worthy of equal respect. That's a powerful idea, and a powerful starting point for addressing any kind of inequality. I don't see it as diluting feminism but making feminism the norm.

[naath]

My general opinion on the matter is that... well, that your sartorial choices are your own to make, for your own reasons, whatever they might be. I don't think you can be a "bad feminist" or whatever no matter what you choose to wear (er, with the possible exception of articles of clothing with specifically offensive slogans on them).

On the other hand I think it is an act of feminist *activism* to make appearance choices that differ significantly from the accepted social norm (whatever that norm happens to be where you are). To be the person who blazes the trail that reduces the social-cost of making that choice; thereby increasing (hopefully) the range of choices that are *realistically* available to the majority of women (many/most of whom can't afford the social cost of making highly unusual choices about their appearance).

I think that it's reasonable for feminists to promote engaging-in-feminist-acts, but I don't think it's reasonable to berate people for failing to do so. Obviously being All Feminist All The Time is hard work, and most of us are also interested in, eg, Being Paid.

Personally speaking I'm very interested in broadening society's standards such that the level and type of beauty related effort I am comfortable with engaging in is something that is normal and socially easy. Fortunately (and I realise I'm very lucky here) I'm in a position where being the ugly freak isn't actually negatively impacting my ability to earn money and have friends, I'd like to make that more the case for more women.

[velvetpage]

I'm between you and the fashionistas; I like clothes that suit me and make me look good, and I blow-dry my hair every morning and make sure my skin is in decent shape, but I don't worry about makeup or hair colour (that may change when I stop having to hunt to find the gray hairs.) Professional dress in my profession just happens to be business-casual, which I can dress up very easily without even wearing a skirt most of the time. One of the things that is worrying me about applying for a facilitator position is that the facilitators generally do dress the next level up - more like a principal than a teacher - and I don't want to. I find skirts, and the shoes that go with them, to be extremely uncomfortable for all-day wear, and I have yet to find a blouse that neither gapes at the bust nor balloons all the way down. They're not flattering at all.

And I wonder why I should have to go to that trouble, because I can look perfectly professional and far more comfortable in business slacks and a nice sweater.

[timeasmymeasure]

I don't think you have to worry about this post driving people away, in fact I think it sparks interesting discussion. Physical appearance and the expectations/stereotypes associated with it have always been a contentious point in the exploration of my feminism (I say 'my' feminism because I've found interpretations are different and feminist passions moreso. Also coming from enough people arguing on what makes a feminist and that just puts me off so I decided to just own my idea of what it is).

I'll stop before I get well into a ramble.

[manifesta]

We seem to be on a similar wave-length; I was thinking about this very issue right before I clicked over to this post. I particularly liked:

I really want to have this kind of conversation without falling into the exact same trap, of saying that if women don't make enough effort to conform they are displaying internalized sexism, but if they make too much effort they are selling out. There's actually a distinction between "women should not be punished for not wearing makeup" and "politically conscious women should not wear makeup", and that distinction seems to be getting blurred in a lot of places.

I think that there is definitely something to be said for conforming to traditional patriarchal norms while also analyzing how those norms shape society. But I also think that people should not be penalizing for not doing so, because it shifts the focus from how the sexist rhetoric surrounding how women dress is a problem to, simply, how women dress is a problem. And that is a problem in and of itself.