![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
livOne 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.
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.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-03-18 12:46 am (UTC)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.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-03-18 09:46 am (UTC)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.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-03-18 10:40 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-03-22 09:15 pm (UTC)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.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-03-19 03:37 pm (UTC)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.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-03-19 09:10 pm (UTC)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.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-03-22 09:32 pm (UTC)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.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-03-23 08:12 am (UTC)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.