Sunday, June 6, 2010

pretty and feminism

I was going to write a post on how it isn't anti-feminist to take an interest in your appearance, that smart and pretty aren't mutually exclusive, etc.

Then I stumbled upon an article about that very topic on another blog, Already Pretty.

But if you're too lazy to click that, here's what she says.

I've heard people say that whenever a woman dresses up, elements of patriarchal oppression, conformism, and weakness are at play. That it goes against the feminist grain to cinch your waist, or maximize your bust, or lengthen your legs with flattering clothing because on some level, you're doing it to garner male attention ... or to make your fellow women feel inferior. That you're unconsciously playing into some societal idea of what a woman should look like, even as you're telling yourself you're doing it because it makes you feel good.

But I don't buy it. Not for a minute.

This kind of thinking paints women as mindless, consumption-driven zombies incapable of making their own decisions. It assumes that any time we dare feel good about our looks, any time we include grooming and style in our regimen of self-care, we are surrendering power. And, perhaps even worse, it feeds into the smart-versus-pretty dichotomy. I mean, any woman who wants to dress up and look fashionable every day can't be smart, can she? If she makes sexy shoes and perfect makeup a priority, she can't possibly have room in her life for anything deeper or more meaningful. And, obviously, someone who stays abreast of the trends and dresses to accentuate her assets couldn't be a real feminist.

Obviously.

And that's a bit extreme and most people who accuse women of pandering when they pull on miniskirts and brush on mascara aren't quite that prejudiced. But a few months back, I saw a blog comment about how Eve Ensler wasn't relevant as a feminist anymore because she'd gotten a flattering new haircut and put on some lipstick for an interview. And I had to walk around the block a few times to keep my head from exploding. Because Eve didn't lose brain cells as she lost length off her 'do, and she didn't get the smarts sucked out of her when she slapped on that lippy. She's still herself, still amazing, just a little different-looking. And saying she's a sell-out for changing her personal style is assuming that she took someone else's opinion into consideration when she made those changes. That's a BIG assumption, and not one I'm comfortable making. About anyone.

The choices we make when we dress are nothing if not complex. To deny that societal ideals have influenced modern fashion would be naive, and to claim that women never dress to appeal to men would be preposterous. These things play in, sometimes, for some women. But it really frosts my cake when people assume that ALL women who dig clothes and fashion, cosmetics and fitness, are brainless bimbos who'd love nothing more than to bulldoze all that feminists have worked so hard to build.

Are all women who dress up feminists? No. Are all women who dress down feminists? No. What someone wears tells you some information about their tastes, choices, and lifestyle, but that information is minimal at best. Important, but minimal. There is no way to determine from looking at a woman whether or not she is a feminist. There is no way to determine from looking at a woman whether or not she is smart. You have to dig deeper to find those things out.

So don't tell me I'm not a feminist because I'm a clotheshorse. Those two things are not mutually exclusive.



Much love,
The Albright Sheriff

4 comments:

  1. I don't think that there is anything inherently wrong with the performance of femininity, but I do think that it is something that is important to examine and critique since it is used to often as a method of patriarchal control, and those that do not follow traditional feminine performance - or those that are denied it but adopt it as their own - are often mocked or degraded. Femininity itself is not a problem, but sexism and the practice of femininity as a method of control are.

    What I find problematic with this blog excerpt is that it seems to conflate the critique of gender role conditioning (this is clumsily worded, forgive me) with a critique of feminine performance itself. Of course patriarchal conformity is at play - the concept of "pretty" does not exist within a social vacuum. We also can't deny how "pretty" functions as a privilege: only a narrow definition of pretty is allowed within patriarchal conformity. Women of color can't be pretty. Transwomen can't be pretty. Lesbians can't be pretty. On the flip side, those that do most closely resemble the cultural ideal of "pretty" tend to be the ones that are generally allowed to have the privilege of rejecting it. (Lady Gaga is a great pop culture example of this - sure, nothing she does is actually that envelope-pushing or avant-garde, but would she be embraced in the way she has been if she wasn't white, thin, and blonde?)

    Whenever I read an article or blog post like this about how it's okay to be a traditionally-feminine feminist, I have to question the motivation behind it. Often (not always, but often), they seem like such a product of choice feminism, which gets nothing done, and an effort to market feminism to the male gaze. We need to stop criticizing an individual's choices and work on attacking and dismantling the larger concepts as a whole that create the environment for these kind of choices, decisions, and battles.

    Also, co-opting feminism as a way to excuse one's shopping habits makes me kind of uncomfortable. You're not going to find feminism in the pages of, say, Vogue magazine because all they want you to do is buy shit.

    - Rhian

    ReplyDelete
  2. I agree completely, especially with "We need to stop criticizing an individual's choices and work on attacking and dismantling the larger concepts as a whole that create the environment for these kind of choices, decisions, and battles."

    I like some of the points she makes regarding "pretty" and "smart" not being entirely different categories and how the expression of femininity is not inherently harmful, but I think her focus on consumerism is a little questionable. But I agree that "pretty" is a form of privilege, absolutely, and that it's an exclusive category. I read an interesting article on the flip side about surrendering to ideals of attractiveness and how it hurts all of us that I really liked (even if I can't entirely apply it all to myself yet) and here's the link to that
    http://www.yesandyes.org/2010/04/your-surrender-is-significant.html

    --The Sheriff

    ReplyDelete
  3. I'm glad to see the complexity of this issue being acknowledged. I too am troubled by the consumerist attitude pro-traditional-femininity feminists often take. I know one badass radical queer femme who has examined the issue in light of a range of privileges she holds and has decided to continue to present as (somewhat) traditionally feminine because it suits her best. When she talks about femininity and her decision to present as femme, I listen closely because I know she has done that work.

    When, on the other hand, some feminists (such as those at The Equality Myth) act really defensive about their decision to present as traditionally feminine, and in the course of their defense display a high degree of unacknowledged economic, cisgender, and white privilege, I just have a hard time taking their position seriously. The idea that feminist movement has granted us the right to "spend money on fancy shoes" (that's from The Equality Myth) is just really sad. You can wear trendy, sexy shoes and be feminist, sure. But how much money did those shoes cost? Under what conditions were they produced? What kind of marketing does the company who produced them use? I knew a girl who considered herself feminist but had a thing for collecting Sex In The City-style shoes in the range of $500-$1000. I just don't see how one can justify that.

    I don't get the impression that the Already Pretty author is fully in that camp, at least from this post, but I would like to see any defense of traditional femininity include at least a mention of anti-consumerism and an acknowledgment of the other kinds of privilege that allow one to be thought of as pretty (as Rhian mentioned).

    ReplyDelete
  4. Ask yourself this question:

    Would you leave the house without make-up on? Without all of those pretty and flattering garments? Would you leave the house looking less than "pretty"?

    The whole point is that for SOME women these beauty rituals are a FALSE CHOICE.

    If the answer to that question is NO...THEN WE HAVE A PROBLEM.

    There is nothing wrong with make-up as such, with fashion and caring about your appearance. It only becomes a problem when these rituals become a "duty" or part of a "pressure". When they stop being fun and more a source of pain or insecurity. Read The Beauty Myth.

    So can you leave the house without make up on? Can you?

    The issue is as simple as that.

    ReplyDelete