![[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 10:40 am (UTC)