Feminist links: Beauty, bodies, fashion, and the male gaze
Kate from the lesbian site Autostraddle:Being raised as a woman often feels like a state of subtraction: continually unhinging your parts, and then handing them over to be examined and judged; giving away your most tender pieces to a society that doesn’t love them back, to people you’ve been raised to take care of, take the blame for, keep hanging onto even when it’s clear they’re bruising the chunks you’ve let them handle. By the time I reached my twenties, I could run my hand down my body and feel massive gaps where I’d hollowed out whole segments of myself. I don’t know where those pieces are now. I imagine them broken up over time in the bottom of people’s backpacks or pockets. Maybe they have been carried off by ants, and tunneled deep into the earth.
Or, as harrisonfj0rd says,WOMEN: please wear high heels unless you don’t know how to walk in high heels in which case stay home and softly gnaw on bottles of shampoo
also please show no less than 64.87% of your boob and no more than 27.94%
stop having arms
when people ask you to smile, blowjob them
my tummy itches make that stop
i will think of new problems for you to have tomorrow
On the same note, a photoset of the pressures on young girls to conform to a very rigid societal standard of "beauty." As bell hooks said, we're taught that we must earn the right to be loved. I'd say, we're taught that we must earn the right to occupy space in the world. Note what I said about women in public space in the previous post.
Here's another datum: Anne of Green Freakin' Gables now has to be patriarchally fuckable, too. The "new" Anne is on the left, the original on the right:
Despite assertions from certain men that all of this pressure comes from the fashion industry, "which is run by women and gay men," a great deal of it comes from men - including the ones who think they're being "progressive" by telling women that their boners prefer something slightly different than other guys' boners.
And, of course, we're mocked for having "low self-esteem," too.
Supposedly "accepting subcultures" aren't oases, either. Here's a post about fatphobia toward goth women from goth men.
Even many feminists feel the need to assert that they do meet fuckability standards, too! Which doesn't help:
So it's really no wonder, sad as it is, that so many girls and young women declare that "they're not like other girls." Which is wrong on two levels: 1. "Girls" aren't a monolith; the interests of women and girls are as diverse as those of boys and men.
And, 2., femmephobia is wrong, wrong, wrong. Hate on the beauty and fashion industry all you want, but when you mock the very human desire (not for all but for many humans) to adorn ourselves, to use our bodies and faces as canvases for a personal kind of art; when you blame women for being too "frail" and "weak" to resist a ton of societal pressure; and when you call interest in lipstick or shoes "frivolous" but you never apply that word to interest in computer games or sports car racing, you're being misogynist.
Jahalath:I have been asked by dozens of male leftists why I’m into fashion, why I blog about it or spend hours putting together intricate outfits, since it is ‘inherently’ a capitalist activity.
I have also been told (unsolicited) by many men that they think my fashion is interesting and bold, but certainly not sexy- the same (unsolicted) response given whenever I chop all my hair off.
Male leftist critiques of fashion often ignore that it is a gendered form of self-expression and no more complicated by its relationships with commodification and capitalism than any other aesthetic or form of self-expression. To do many artsy things, you must buy things. Paintings go for millions in hushed auctions filled with white men, so why don’t men criticize artists who use paints, pencils, or finely crafted crayons for being sellouts?
Moreover, fashion can be a way to avoid the male gaze or to at least alienate it. There are many women into creative dressing that are told ‘you aren’t sexy, you won’t attract a boy looking like that.’ As if that should be the only point to your self-expression.
…These days, I don’t thwart male gazes completely but I come off as aggressively visible. Most strange men avoid speaking to me, which is what I prefer. They look at me in weird dresses and short hair, and they often have a blank expression because they are unable to read my body within the entitled domain of their gaze.
Being into fashion has been about reclaiming my body for myself. I lose weight because I want to fit into clothes, not because I want to be more appealing to men. I dress how I went, when I want, and ignore the men who say ‘Ainee you don’t look hot today! Your shirt is weird.’
A great reply by Rosalarian:Fashion is an art form, one we all participate in by wearing clothes, by not letting our hair grow indefinitely. But because women are conditioned to care about it more and put more effort into it, by choice or by necessity it is seen as “low art” if it’s seen as art at all, frivolous and shallow. Fashion and feminism are intertwined like the threads of a cable knit sweater.
How is painting my face more vain than painting a canvas? Seriously, what is the difference? Nobody has ever been able to explain that to me. When I paint a portrait, it’s art. When I paint myself, it’s shallow. I don’t buy that.
When I design a burlesque look, while my sexuality is blatantly on display, it is infused with a confrontational element that many people find frightening and uncomfortable. It isn’t the delicate, demure look of an object up for consumption. It stares back at you. It doesn’t care if you like it or not because it’s not about you, it’s about me. You’re the passive one in this scenario.
If that isn’t an artist statement, I don’t know what it is.
Unlocked.
This entry was originally posted at http://ms-daisy-cutter.dreamwidth.org/1957685.html. Please comment there using either your DW account or OpenID.
Or, as harrisonfj0rd says,WOMEN: please wear high heels unless you don’t know how to walk in high heels in which case stay home and softly gnaw on bottles of shampoo
also please show no less than 64.87% of your boob and no more than 27.94%
stop having arms
when people ask you to smile, blowjob them
my tummy itches make that stop
i will think of new problems for you to have tomorrow
On the same note, a photoset of the pressures on young girls to conform to a very rigid societal standard of "beauty." As bell hooks said, we're taught that we must earn the right to be loved. I'd say, we're taught that we must earn the right to occupy space in the world. Note what I said about women in public space in the previous post.
Here's another datum: Anne of Green Freakin' Gables now has to be patriarchally fuckable, too. The "new" Anne is on the left, the original on the right:
Despite assertions from certain men that all of this pressure comes from the fashion industry, "which is run by women and gay men," a great deal of it comes from men - including the ones who think they're being "progressive" by telling women that their boners prefer something slightly different than other guys' boners.
And, of course, we're mocked for having "low self-esteem," too.
Supposedly "accepting subcultures" aren't oases, either. Here's a post about fatphobia toward goth women from goth men.
Even many feminists feel the need to assert that they do meet fuckability standards, too! Which doesn't help:
So it's really no wonder, sad as it is, that so many girls and young women declare that "they're not like other girls." Which is wrong on two levels: 1. "Girls" aren't a monolith; the interests of women and girls are as diverse as those of boys and men.
And, 2., femmephobia is wrong, wrong, wrong. Hate on the beauty and fashion industry all you want, but when you mock the very human desire (not for all but for many humans) to adorn ourselves, to use our bodies and faces as canvases for a personal kind of art; when you blame women for being too "frail" and "weak" to resist a ton of societal pressure; and when you call interest in lipstick or shoes "frivolous" but you never apply that word to interest in computer games or sports car racing, you're being misogynist.
Jahalath:I have been asked by dozens of male leftists why I’m into fashion, why I blog about it or spend hours putting together intricate outfits, since it is ‘inherently’ a capitalist activity.
I have also been told (unsolicited) by many men that they think my fashion is interesting and bold, but certainly not sexy- the same (unsolicted) response given whenever I chop all my hair off.
Male leftist critiques of fashion often ignore that it is a gendered form of self-expression and no more complicated by its relationships with commodification and capitalism than any other aesthetic or form of self-expression. To do many artsy things, you must buy things. Paintings go for millions in hushed auctions filled with white men, so why don’t men criticize artists who use paints, pencils, or finely crafted crayons for being sellouts?
Moreover, fashion can be a way to avoid the male gaze or to at least alienate it. There are many women into creative dressing that are told ‘you aren’t sexy, you won’t attract a boy looking like that.’ As if that should be the only point to your self-expression.
…These days, I don’t thwart male gazes completely but I come off as aggressively visible. Most strange men avoid speaking to me, which is what I prefer. They look at me in weird dresses and short hair, and they often have a blank expression because they are unable to read my body within the entitled domain of their gaze.
Being into fashion has been about reclaiming my body for myself. I lose weight because I want to fit into clothes, not because I want to be more appealing to men. I dress how I went, when I want, and ignore the men who say ‘Ainee you don’t look hot today! Your shirt is weird.’
A great reply by Rosalarian:Fashion is an art form, one we all participate in by wearing clothes, by not letting our hair grow indefinitely. But because women are conditioned to care about it more and put more effort into it, by choice or by necessity it is seen as “low art” if it’s seen as art at all, frivolous and shallow. Fashion and feminism are intertwined like the threads of a cable knit sweater.
How is painting my face more vain than painting a canvas? Seriously, what is the difference? Nobody has ever been able to explain that to me. When I paint a portrait, it’s art. When I paint myself, it’s shallow. I don’t buy that.
When I design a burlesque look, while my sexuality is blatantly on display, it is infused with a confrontational element that many people find frightening and uncomfortable. It isn’t the delicate, demure look of an object up for consumption. It stares back at you. It doesn’t care if you like it or not because it’s not about you, it’s about me. You’re the passive one in this scenario.
If that isn’t an artist statement, I don’t know what it is.
Unlocked.
This entry was originally posted at http://ms-daisy-cutter.dreamwidth.org/1957685.html. Please comment there using either your DW account or OpenID.