In the comments of my desperate plea for blogging inspiration, a reader writes,
Dear Wise, Hott, and Fabulous One,
From the whole Tittiestorm ‘06 thang… What still needs to be done for attractive women to be taken seriously as feminists without being labeled negatively for being attractive?
Sincerely,
Mark
Dear Mark,
Why, a challenging and uncomfortable question! I’ve been thinking of blogging about my new obsession with gel eyeliner, but I’ll put it off for the night.
We live in an either/or world. Either women are good to talk to or good to look at. Luckily you’ve found yourself at a both/and blog and we believe that people are fun to look at and (sometimes) to talk to as well. You are also at a misanthropic blog, so while we care about the well-being of people in general we may not want to interact with them individually. In other words I may not want Ann Althouse to drop dead at a lectern, but I won’t have tea with her either.
As feminists our interactions with beauty culture are something of a hot topic, especially for us third wavers. The second wave spent a great deal of time pondering the usefulness of fitting into a culture that said a woman must look just-so, and largely rejected it. Third wavers are accused of “choice feminism” when it comes to our decisions to wear makeup or high heels, or to shave our legs, whatever. On the other hand, it’s difficult for our nay-sayers to hurl tired insults at us — ugly, hairy, needs to get laid — if we look like the feminine norm instead of the strawfeminist. In that sense, there is privilege aiming for “traditionally attractive” and being simultaneously feminist in action. I get the sense that people are more willing to hear the message if it comes from an unthreatening-looking woman. Unfortunately we live with an undercurrent of hypocrisy if we say “don’t bother with what I look like” while dressing to be seen. It hurts when other feminists call us on this hypocrisy, but I don’t doubt its truth.
I won’t deny that I personally love getting dressed up — makeup, heels, tiny handbag, lipstick — but neither do I ignore that my idea of attractiveness is culturally shaped and patriarchally informed. At the same time, feminist culture has broadened my horizons beyond the narrow norms of pop cultural attractiveness. Third wavers have, on many levels, been able to fit various messages defying this beauty culture into our system of thought — fat is beautiful, black is beautiful, gay is beautiful — and despite the forces that press on us to believe otherwise, own it. For those of us living in the post-modern era, transgressive is beautiful — all of these things are true. Even better, the advertising world is beginning to respond on small but significant levels.
But the world is not feminist culture, this is the problem. I can dress up, I can dress down, and no matter how I appear in public someone (someone!) will behave badly toward me. I don’t believe this is because I am irresistably hot (even though I am) but because I am a member of the sex class. All appearances are currency for the spank bank if you are female. This bank may be intended for political, social, or sexual currency, but currency nonetheless. It’s all masturbatory. Don’t expect to be above admiration or contempt if you are in public. This is, of course, unfortunate for our fellow photogenic feminist who probably never wants to be mentioned again in the same sentence as the Clenis. My older sister used to say that nothing you do in public matters, nobody cares. This is true. Not a lot of people genuinely care about you or what you do. But everybody talks shit, too. This is social currency.
In the words of the feminist that shall not be named in the same sentence as the Clenis, looks are the primary factor of contention when a person can’t find more valid criticism. Commentary on our looks are ammunition for a decision a naysayer has already made.
What I’m really saying: make the world more feminist.
Sincerely,
Lauren
Also, this is a trickier topic when we’re talking about the difference between how we’re perceived in meatspace versus in person. In person I’m commonly considered intimidating by my peers. Online, libertarian cannon fodder.
And a chance to point out the hypocrisy! Which is my way of noting tiredly that some people will never get over the cellulite cream incident:
More than one? I don’t recall that, but who am I to argue with a dude who doubtless knows the Feministe archives better than I do?
You know, no one ever gave me a wave to ride. But if I got to pick my own, I guess it would be 2.75.
Roxanne, I sense that is an obscure movie line. Prove me wrong.
And a chance to point out the hypocrisy! Which is my way of noting tiredly that some people will never get over the cellulite cream incident
Ass cream is a cute way of making Jeff feel better about his own vanity.
That’d take a lot of cream. The guy’s a colossal ass.
Fabulous post!
But the world is not feminist culture, this is the problem. I can dress up, I can dress down, and no matter how I appear in public someone (someone!) will behave badly toward me
So true! That’s what I think a lot of men don’t get, because they don’t experience it—the degree to which women are judged on appearances, and the lack of refuge from that. True, men are also judged on appearances, but there is such a thing as a “neutral” look for men—a “Joe Average”. Women don’t have that privilege. Any look we have screams out stereotypes, histories, backgrounds—volumes of information, true, false, or alternately so. A woman’s appearance sends messages about her culture, education, politics, morality, sexuality, you-name-it. Strangers are more apt to think they really know something about any given woman, just from her appearance. Men have a “middle of the road” path to take in this regard if they don’t dig the false assumptions. We don’t.
Wow, it is as if you read my mind! GET OUT OF MY HEAD!
Anyway, I am glad I could be the muse to a great post, thanks for the answer! :)
I am in a position to supervise young professional women and I keep a constant watch on myself to judge their work as work and not let how I relate to them influence me. It is of course possible that how I think of my male associates would affect how I see their work, too … but it’s not the same. I really am not prone to see them as less competent or intelligent if they are attractive, however. In fact, I worry about the opposite tendency — that I will read a draft brief more charitably when the author is someone I find attractive. That would not, ultimately, help her become a better litigator, and it certainly would not be fair to her colleagues.
I can’t dip myself in a bath of patriarchy-rinse and take off all the grimy socialization I have picked up. I don’t know what I can do except to constantly check myself.
I really am not prone to see them as less competent or intelligent if they are attractive, however. In fact, I worry about the opposite tendency — that I will read a draft brief more charitably when the author is someone I find attractive. That would not, ultimately, help her become a better litigator, and it certainly would not be fair to her colleagues.
IANAL (just wanted to use that in a different context for once) but this is what I guard myself against, as well.