Where’s this free will you’re talking about?
I’m starting to get frustrated with feminists who think that, as long as they ‘choose’ to wear high heels, it’s OK. Who think that, as long as they ‘choose’ to be a SAHM, it’s OK. Who think that, as long as they ‘choose’ to iron their partner’s shirts, it’s OK.
It isn’t OK.
Well, let me rephrase: it’s OK and yet, it isn’t helping women on a bigger scale. It isn’t problematic to individual women and yet it contributes to women being and remaining the sex caste.
Many feminists are familiar with the idea that our choices do not occur in a vacuum. This is feminism 101, something you pick up when you start reading feministy blogs and forums. All the choices we make are illusions. There’s a reason why we do things. There’s a reason why I chose to wear the dress I’m wearing right now: it’s pwetty! It ‘flatters’ my ‘womanly’ figure. And people compliment me on it. I love it so much that I sometimes wear it twice a week.
There’s also a reason why I’m wearing the shoes I’m wearing: it’s pwetty! The receptionist at works loves it. It’s also mostly comfortable.
So it’s dishonest to say that wearing high heels is a feminist act when it comes with so many rewards. It’s dishonest to say that showing cleavage, as I’m doing today, is a feminist act. And it’s dishonest to think that presenting as femme, as I’m doing today, is a feminist act.
I’m taking up very little space right now because the dress I’m wearing is forcing me to sit with closed legs. My handbag is on the ground for all to see. I’m sitting with my feet together. My hair is blow-dried and is bra-length. I look like a ‘womanly woman’, one who would be nurturing and passive and charming.
The rest of the people in the coffee shop would never guess I’m a radical feminist. They’d never guess with how much passion I can debate. They’d never guess that I only shave my armpits on special occasions. Worse, still, I’m not giving any of the women here the idea that it’d be OK to present as butch.
I’m not doing much to overthrow the kyriarchy today. Besides writing this blog post. ‘Cause you see, I’m conforming, whether it’s my ‘choice’ or not. There’s a certain way that society wants me to look and I’m going along. I’m not disturbing anyone’s idea of what a woman should look like. I am reaping the rewards of the kyriarchy. Why? Well, the kyriarchy has a wonderful loyalty programme with plenty of rewards: beneficial treatment, compliments and many more. The other reason is because I’ve been socialised to present as feminine. And there are probably also tons of other reasons why I go along, reasons that I might not even know of.
I own that. I own my ‘choices’. And I am aware that presenting as a femme is not going to overthrow the kyriarchy. Whether I’m OK with that is a different matter.
I just wish more feminists would realise that everything they do contributes towards everything else, even, *especially* the kyriarchy.
And that radical feminists, as far as I’m aware, aren’t judging the women who go along with the kyriarchy. We judge their choices, as much as we judge our own. We’re not saying women/feminists *should* or shouldn’t do something; we’re saying that many of the things we do are problematic. That’s the difference.
“I’m not disturbing anyone’s idea of what a woman should look like.”
It’s conservative (and therefore pro-kyriarchy) to grant the assumption that the tools of your oppressor work. We learnt this lesson from gay activists who commandeered the word ‘Queer,’ transforming it from a pejorative to one of the handful of proud self-ascriptions.
What this means in the context of your article is that there are thousands of women who’ve outgrown the (questionable) idea that men can control them by requiring that they look a certain way. So they wear what they chose (however much socialisation lives behind that choice) and remain happilly uncoerced.
(please don’t disemvowel or in any way redact this message.)
youknowwhoIam
19 May 12 at 5:32 pm
I only disemvowel comments that are attacks on someone’s personhood.
The point I’m trying to make is that wearing whatever we want isn’t going to effect a revolution. Whether individual women happily remain uncoerced is a seperate point.
joymaric
20 May 12 at 11:34 am
Firstly, I think it (“wearing whatever”) actually does effect a revolution. When you blunt your opponent’s tools (by simply defying the assumption that they work) then you deny her the use of those tools. And that’s revolutionary. Revolutions often involve erosion rather than cataclysm.
Secondly, (albeit relatedly) I don’t think you can seperate “individual women happily remain uncoerced” from “effecting a revolution.” It would surely be revolutionary if women’s repertoire of clothing and occupational choices are uncoerced. So a sure sign of whether (or not) that revolution is in the offing, is whether large numbers of individual women are negotiating those choices while being “happily uncoerced.”
youknowwhoIam
20 May 12 at 2:03 pm
Neil, feel free to use your own name.
“Firstly, I think it (“wearing whatever”) actually does effect a revolution.”
How?
” So a sure sign of whether (or not) that revolution is in the offing, is whether large numbers of individual women are negotiating those choices while being “happily uncoerced.””
Can you rephrase this?
I’m, on a couple of levels, quite sympathetic to the argument I think you’re making. It’s one that many ‘funfems’ also make. One of the reasons I’m sympathetic to your argument is because I quite enjoy presenting as a femme. At least in my appearance.
But I still don’t see how it is revolutionary when sexism is based on the faulty thinking that women and men differ not only physically but also mentally, emotionally, etc. And presenting as ‘womanly’ is about more than clothing; it’s about the full package of looks and behaviours.
*One* woman whose outward appearance seems feminine but whose behaviour seems ‘masculine’ may receive the title and rewards of an ‘honourary man’ or the ‘exceptional woman’. *that* isn’t a revolution.
Another reason why I am sympathetic is that asking women to change their behaviours is yet another way in which the possibility of change is women’s responsibility. This is unfair when *men* as a group are the ones who should change their behaviour.
joymaric
20 May 12 at 2:45 pm
1. “How”
In the way that I mentioned. In the beginning, men did want to control the way that women presented. And that was, and still is, an effective mechanism of control. But the degree of its effectiveness has been blunted by (some) women’s showing that they can make dressing decisions AND retain their autonomy. This blunts the edge of the tool somewhat. See my earlier remarks about gays and erosion.
2. Rephrase attempt:
Rather than assume/accept that women are controlled by their fashion options, measure their degrees of freedom and correlate that with fashion choice. In other words, if the only free-seeming women were dungareed and hairy-armed then I’d believe that the revolution is failing. On the contrary, large numbers of free women in heels tells me that fashion choice is failing as an instrument of control.
3. It’s not faulty thinking but biology that tells us that men and women differ physically, psychologically and emotionally. (e.g p18 of this http://www.oneworld-publications.com/pdfs/PinkBrainBluBrainchapter.pdf)
4. “And presenting as ‘womanly’ is about more than clothing; it’s about the full package of looks and behaviours”
Correct. And one way of understanding my point is to say that if over time compliance involves a shrinking number of women providing a shrinking portion of the full package then a revolution by erosion is underway.
The remark about the “honorary man” reward are correct. But I sense that the prizegivers are growing fewer and further inbetween, signalling that the gender differentiation weapon blunts over time. Which does not, of course, provide reason to stop pushing back.
youknowwhoIam
20 May 12 at 4:47 pm
You need to read Delusions of Gender. IfYouAreWhoIThinkYouAre then you can read my copy.
joymaric
20 May 12 at 8:18 pm
Thanks for the offer of a free education. I’ll readilly admit to being underschooled in this area.
youknowwhoIam
21 May 12 at 12:50 am
And thanks for mentioning nonmonotonic logic. It makes my head spin
joymaric
21 May 12 at 12:16 pm
You see, sexism happens when we observe the supposed differences between two of the sexes — female and male. And leave it there. So, yes, these differences exist but we should probe deeper by asking *why* they’re there. Are these differences innate? Or are they the result of socialisation?
We’ll probably never know the true answer and will probably always guess at it. There are a number of reasons for this: observers have biases, we tend to ask the wrong questions (even scientists) and our actions do not occur in a vacuum. Not even a baby’s actions occur in a vacuum. And it’d be highly unethical, not to mention impossible, to raise children without any outside influences so that we can study the supposed differences between two of the sexes.
joymaric
21 May 12 at 12:37 pm
Fair enough…
youknowwhoIam
23 May 12 at 4:35 am