I liked this post by Daisy Bond at Revolutionary Act:
One unfortunate consequence of feminism’s emphasis on the personal as political is that it becomes too easy to discriminate against people for not being “feminist enough.”
This is the opposite of what “the personal is political” is supposed to mean. “The personal is political” is not an excuse to bash other women or take away someone’s feminist membership card. It’s the idea that our ostensibly “personal” problems — like rape, domestic violence, and sexual harassment — are actually part of large-scale systems of oppression. Many personal hardships are the result of political injustices.
Now, of course individuals should be held accountable for their own unfair or bigoted actions. But wearing lipstick — for example — is not an act of bigotry, even though it’s caused by a bigoted system. The fact that women wear lipstick is a function of the gender system, but the fact that women wear lipstick doesn’t itself cause sexism. We could have an egalitarian world with lipstick; we couldn’t have an egalitarian world with a wage gap.
In virtually all political movements, there’s a tendency for people to take their focus off of systematic change and to look instead at policing personal purity. It’s really unfortunate that in feminism, this tendency has also caused “the personal is political” — which is a nutshell of an extremely valuable analysis — to be warped and misunderstood in the way Daisy describes.
Thank you for the link, Ampersand! I’m very glad you liked the post.
“We could have an egalitarian world with lipstick; we couldn’t have an egalitarian world with a wage gap.”
Right. But can you have an egalitarianworld with an expectation that women must wear lipstick to maintain femininity? I’d say no.
Thanks for making it clearer, Mandolin; the dscision to wear this or that should be a free one, more informed than it usually is. If lipstick or whatever wasn’t already so loaded… Maybe someday it won’t be. Maybe enough people questioning all this, and trying on a different look every week, will help. Maybe this or that fashion accessory won’t any more be linked with this or that oppression. But it’s going to take a while.
Go ahead, wear what you darn well please, the system isn’t your fault.
…It ought to be, “The political is personal.”
As for the question of sexual inclinations…it begins to look like this is something one can’t help.
(beginning TMI)
Believe me, when I found that my body’s responses did not match my true identity, I sought help, only to be told–for the past 35 years–that there was no help for it. Now, the urges are beginning to fade, and they are not missed. But I still sometimes wish I had had the courage to cut the offending nerves, not to mention punching a few of the so-called experts who tried to tell me that that was “just you” when it is NOT me. Who are they to say what is or isn’t ME??
To this day, when I have pleasure, I don’t know if I’m making this crappy little body earn its keep or just selling out. At least I never got anyone else mixed up in this mess.
(ending TMI)
These people who are trying to make gays into straights are really off. A body should obey its owner, not some external myth, whether derived from some god or from “nature”.
But heck, they haven’t even found a cure for colds…
Lip Stick is certainly getting it’s 15 minutes of fame this election season. But those poor pigs that got lumped in with it.
Mandolin,
But can you have an egalitarianworld with an expectation that women must wear lipstick to maintain femininity? I’d say no.
I very much agree.
Anyone who conforms to a system is supporting that system, and women who wear lipstick make it harder for other women to go without. Who creates this “bigoted system”? TV producers? They only have power because people watch their shows. Politicians? We vote for them. Corporate interests? We buy their products. Who do you hold responsible for the patriarchy, if not ourselves?
“Anyone who conforms to a system is supporting that system, and women who wear lipstick make it harder for other women to go without.”
Okay. And by the same token, my heterosexual marriage normalizes heterosexism. Should I forego the legal protections I gain by being with my partner? Should I give up health insurance?
We all choose to challenge the patriarchy in some ways, while capitulating in others to make our challenges possible. So, some women wear makeup so that they can gain the benefits of makeup. Maybe this allows them to be more acceptable in their activism. Some black women painfully straighten their hair, rather than wearing it natural, and maybe this plays into the way that natural hair is stigmatized for other black women. But maybe those women can use that to get ahead in their jobs and gain authority.
Or maybe those women have enough other shit to deal with in their lives that they don’t have the energy for fighting lipstick, when they’re fighting an unequal living wage.
Yes, it’s a political choice, but that doesn’t mean that it can be looked at simply or without ambiguity.
Hi Medea. As Ampersand quote above, this is what I said in my post (emphasis in original):
Now, of course individuals should be held accountable for their own unfair or bigoted actions. But wearing lipstick — for example — is not an act of bigotry, even though it’s caused by a bigoted system. The fact that women wear lipstick is a function of the gender system, but the fact that women wear lipstick doesn’t itself cause sexism.
I went on to say:
I happen to be not at all stereotypically feminine, but nonetheless, I totally disagree that “stereotypically feminine” = “bad/worse feminist.”
My best friend is a heterosexual with long hair, and I’m a dyke with a buzz cut. She can’t help liking men any more than I can help liking women, and she might feel as uncomfortable with very short hair as I would with a ponytail. Am I therefore a better feminist?
My girlfriend wears lots of dresses, jewelry and girly shoes, while I prefer to wear pants, t-shirts and motorcycle boots. We both wear the clothes we like, feel comfortable in, and look best in, and our choices are both, inevitably, influenced by the gender system. Am I a better feminist?
Also, to borrow Ampersand’s phrasing, I’m more concerned, as a feminist, with systemic change than with other feminists’ personal purity. I think we get can a lot more done working together for things like comprehensive sex ed, health care access for all people, justice for all survivors of rape and abuse, and against things like war and human trafficking, than we can by regulating one another’s clothes, make-up and consensual private sex lives. If someone is at my side lobbying against a bill to restrict reproductive rights, at my side at a peace protest, at my side to volunteer at the rape crisis center, I, personally, am not that concerned about her hair cut. Talking about her hair cut kind of seems like a waste of time to me.
Which, again, is totally different from how I’d respond if she told me I wasn’t a real woman because of my hair cut.
Oh, I agree that we all make compromises, and makeup isn’t the most important issue–but Daisy Bond said
the fact that women wear lipstick doesn’t itself cause sexism
without mentioning that it helps perpetuate sexism. Spotted and Herbaceous Backson said
Go ahead, wear what you darn well please, the system isn’t your fault.
which is what I was really responding to and which is remarkably short-sighted.
Mandolin,
Or maybe those women have enough other shit to deal with in their lives that they don’t have the energy for fighting lipstick, when they’re fighting an unequal living wage.
YES.
And another thing. As I said at #8 and in my original post, all our choices about clothing and appearance are influenced by the gender system, whether we’re gender-conforming or not. In addition to taking some extra crap for looking a dyke, a gain a measure of something like male privilege for my somewhat masculine appearance. I used to get honked at, cat-called and harassed all the time when I had long hair and wore girlier clothes — that never happens now. I’m pretty sure people take me more seriously when I speak now than they did when I had a more feminine appearance. I benefit from misogyny (in addition to suffering from it). What’s so feminist about that? Why is that more feminist than have a conventionally feminine presentation?
Drat–I responded before Daisy Bond posted.
I wouldn’t criticize the haircut of a fellow volunteer either, but the little things–dress codes, gendered language, chivalry–add up to an enormous pressure, and we are, to varying degrees, complicit in keeping the pressure strong.
Medea at #9: ah, okay. I acknowledge that unthinking gender-conformity, including wearing make-up, helps perpetuate sexism, but I think it’s first and foremost a symptom of the disease. Combating sexism will result in less gender conformity. I don’t think combating gender conformity is a particularly effective way to diminish the underlying sexism.
Edited to add: Medea, you cross-posted with me and then I cross-posted with you! : )
I don’t disagree with #11, but I maintain what I said originally in this comment.
Responding again–you’ve made it easier for other women to have a non-feminine appearance. You took the blows, you’ve paved the way (or at least added a few paving stones).
“I wouldn’t criticize the haircut of a fellow volunteer either, but the little things–dress codes, gendered language, chivalry–add up to an enormous pressure, and we are, to varying degrees, complicit in keeping the pressure strong.”
“I acknowledge that unthinking gender-conformity, including wearing make-up, helps perpetuate sexism, but I think it’s first and foremost a symptom of the disease. Combating sexism will result in less gender conformity. I don’t think combating gender conformity is a particularly effective way to diminish the underlying sexism.”
I agree with both these statements. ;)
And we keep cross-posting, so I’ll lay off now. :)
Responding again–you’ve made it easier for other women to have a non-feminine appearance. You took the blows, you’ve paved the way (or at least added a few paving stones).
I suppose so. It’s complicated, though, by the dynamics I mentioned at #10, and by the fact that it wasn’t exactly a choice — it was literally a choice, but I was suffocating and miserable with a conventionally feminine appearance (it was very tied, for me, to internalized homophobia). I’m grateful to the work of feminists that made it possible for me to have the presentation I have and I hope to contribute to that work, but I know what it’s like to have a gender presentation that goes against your deepest self. I’m not going to ask other women to suffer like I did if a feminine appearance is what allows them to be confident and self-actualized. I think that having strong, feminist women with many different gender presentations can do a lot to fight sexism: the outspoken, independent feminine-appearing woman probably does as much for carving out new ways of being a woman as I do by being a woman with a different gender presentation.
Mandolin at #14: in case it wasn’t clear, so do I. : )
And Medea, sorry again for all the cross-posting!
I think the harder question isn’t the one about how you fold to the desires of other people – whether to wear a skirt or pants to work – but how you handle your own. The headliner. Is a man wrong for being attracted to women in lipstick? Is a woman wrong for wanting a tall, powerful, protective man?
I’ve talked on other sites to argue about the virgin/slut dichotomy – I mean, I’ll be blunt – I like sex, and would like to have it with many women. For most guys, that’s considered normal, but for women, that’s considered terrible. I never understood that. Now, the problem is that many men do want a virgin… and none of them can even explain why. They know the logic, they know it’s hypocritical, they know they’re wrong.
But it’s what they want.
How do you deal with this? That part always worries me – that many of our deep, hindbrain desires push us away from egalitarian ideals. Not the simple, cosmetic things like sexual positions or grooming, but deeper issues. Women who desire powerful men (and men who desire “weak” women) are a heavy force in encouraging the patriarchy… but can you fault them for their sexuality? Any point where our desires make hypocrites of ourselves will cause this problem.
Really, here’s a hint: “masculine” means powerful, “feminine” means weak. I’ve found very few cases where you can break from that. I know feminists believe that this is all cultural, but I’m skeptical of it. I worry that there’s a lot more biological motivation than we want to admit pushing us into our gender roles. And if that’s true, you can’t beat that kind of force. It’s a loser’s game, like the War on Drugs (or pornography).
This reminds me of the argument over Palin’s $150k wardrobe and $24k makeup artist, and over that Newsweek closeup cover photo of her. Because she is a Republican candidate, the argument unfortunately fell into expected spheres: Republicans said that it was appropriate to spend the money, and inappropriate to have done a photo without a touch-up, because women’s appearance is more expensive and more criticized than men’s, while Democrats asked why a former beauty queen who has hyped her ability to field dress a moose needs to be slathered in makeup and couture and have every defect photoshopped out. The comparisons to past candidates didn’t help, because John Edwards was criticized by Republicans on the premise that vanity is effeminate (and femininity in men is bad, of course).
In my opinion, both men and women should seek to look professional. At least in my experience, professionalism requires one to adhere to a business suit dress code and good hygiene (daily shower, trimmed and combed hair). It does not require makeup, skirts (even my Texas employer started allowing pantsuits 10 years ago), hair gel, etc. People who go beyond that are either doing it to benefit from the extra points given for being attractive/feminine, or for self-actualization. If John Edwards feels more himself with a fancy haircut to hide his growing forehead (or Joe Biden more himself with a rumored eye job), I’m not going to give him any more of a hard time than I will a woman who spends a lot of time, effort and money on her appearance.
SiF,
masculine” means powerful, “feminine” means weak.
I don’t think I mind that so long as men have access to femininity and women have access to masculinity. If masculinity and femininity are roles that we can play at will, without negative judgment on which we choose, then associating a set of traits with them doesn’t bother me much. It is mandating femininity for women and forbidding it to men, and vice versa regarding masculinity, that I would fight against as inegalitarian.
I just worry that our libidos may, to a certain extent, mandate those roles even when our minds reject them. And if you’re thinking that what happens in the bedroom is private, there’s still the issue of how people socialize to find others to take to that bedroom.
Medea said that my saying folks could wear what they want because “the system isn’t your fault” is shortsighted. I guess I could have nuanced it a little better than I did, and Medea helped by saying that we who broke gender rules helped make it easier for the rest. Well, I’m glad I could help there, but not everyone can, not all the time, for various reasons. I am not about to tell anyone else what they can or can’t do, that is, what challenges they are or aren’t up to facing; I will encourage those who go against a sexist, etc., current, but I think in the long run what a person says and does is more important than what they wear. I tend to agree with Daisy Bond. How much time/energy can I spend subverting every evil when I have to do all the other stuff necessary to have a life in the first place?
I am a bit more concerned with what Silenced is Foo has said. Are we truly at the mercy of our hindbrains forever? I would hate to think that this could not be eventually fixed, like bad teeth or something. It might not happen in my lifetime, but still.
When I found that a whole lot of people had desires that didn’t match the rest of them, whose physical response made hypocrites out of them, I felt less alone and that helped a bit. Still I didn’t and don’t think I should have to battle this in addition to all the other problems I face. If folks’ libidos (whatever that is) do “mandate those roles”, then maybe they could learn to compartmentalize them better or something, and have the best of both worlds. Finding the right person to compartmentalize them with, that is still a question, but I think science–and a refusal to forever lie still for every bugfuck oddity that nature happens to shit out–will help. The kinky ones will be able to somehow integrate all their facets, and people like me will be able to skip the whole mess. But as for making a world where if someone wants to wear this or that without colluding with some inequitous ideology, that’s going to take some doing also–but don’t give up.
Pingback: Alas, a blog » Blog Archive » Definition of feminism, round 2,614
Re: libidos mandating roles. That doesn’t really mesh with my observations, but even if it is the case, it definitely doesn’t mesh with my observations that most people are interested in maintaining those roles outside their bedrooms.
I’m reading The Moral Animal at the moment (quite intriguing in some parts, hell of a wallbanger in others), and this is a recurring theme. We like eating sweet things, but it’s a habit that’s outlived its usefulness, and no matter how much you know that eating concentrated sugar will rot your teeth and make you sweaty and jumpy, it doesn’t change the fact that you want to do so. Or consider tribalism–despite literal millennia of civilization at our backs, we still judge those we identify with differently than those we consider outside of the group. All too often.
We deal with the former by tricking ourselves; fake sugar is a damned popular product. We deal with the latter by extending the in-group; sure, your average American is tribalistic, but their tribe consists of millions of people–progress, of a sort.
So yes, we do have mental baggage inherited from our forebears, but it doesn’t inherently doom us. Understanding what can be changed easily and what can be worked around is a good start, though.
Correction re: my comment at 19: apparently a lot of the money was expended not just on Palin herself but also on her family, which indicates that the concern for appearances reached beyond just the candidate.