On Beauty

I know I talked about this before -- this impossibility for a woman to opt out of the sex object thing; and many people agree and yet the beauty ideals are still... difficult to discuss. So let me start with a few thoughts and see how they congeal. Also, I want to make it clear up front: I understand why and how women absorb and internalize the demand for beauty. In this case, I feel that the onus is on the society to stop demanding those things rather than on women to simply get over the demand.

"Every woman deserves to feel beautiful". I saw that sentiment expressed on FB and in general media, and I kind of hate it. Because what they mean to say, I think, is that "every woman deserves to feel worthy". It's just that we only allow women to have one kind of worth, and this is the limiting part, not the narrow beauty ideal. (NB: One deeply problematic area of narrow beauty ideal is its whiteness that has spread way too much due to the Western cultural imperialism.)

And yes, the beauty ideal is narrow. It has always been! I'm not exactly comfortable with people rebelling against the limiting view of beauty as very thin and tall by proposing no less limiting version of curvy Christina Hendricks and Marylin Monroe, often sprinkled with a dose of body-hate and misogyny in the form of "Bones are for dogs, meat is for men". Leaving aside that Christina Hendricks' body shape is no more achievable or inclusive than that of Kate Moss (or any less white, for that matter), I object to the idea that women are object for consumption. "Meat", really? And that's the cry of empowerment?

Female competition sadly often goes back to the patriarchal divide and conquer mentality. If they convince women that their only worth is as objects of beauty, to be consumed by men, and that women have no worth outside of this realm, than arguing who's the fairest of them all is understandable although no less problematic. The struggle should be not to make the beauty ideal different, but to tell the world that we are not obligated to feel or be beautiful. Because when they tell you "every woman deserves to feel beautiful", they mean "You MUST try to be beautiful to prove your worth to us."

So then there is a whole ridiculous thing about models. It is often interestingly lumped with other things, like demonizing of eating disorders and transphobia. Take this article for example:

"To me, selling women's clothes using a teenage boy's body is the ultimate cynicism. It's as if the fashion industry is saying, 'Here is the perfect woman for our clothes: a boy!' " says style guru and "Project Runway" mentor Tim Gunn in his forthcoming book "Tim Gunn's Fashion Bible: The Fascinating History of Everything in Your Closet." (He is talking about Andrej Pejic, pictured above.)

(Because clearly non-binary gender constructs have no place in the world today. Androgyny boo.) Also, showing clothes on a certain body type really says little about who should wear their clothes. If you want to encourage more body diversity in fashion, it is easily accomplished. Here: HEY DESIGNERS! CUT YOUR CLOTHES IN SIZES BIGGER THAN 8! Here, done. Lack of body diversity in fashion is not to be blamed on models but lack of sizing ranges.

I don't mind that models look the way the do, as long as it is not expected of ME to look that way. I hear women complaining about magazines with models and actresses and how hard it is to not get jealous and to not hate your own body. And sure, it is hard if the expectations of beauty has been internalized, and I am not blaming them. And yet I wonder, if you see an article about a doctor, should you hate yourself for being unable to do surgery? Of course not. Different jobs, different requirements. Actresses and models are paid for looking a certain way. Just don't expect EVERYONE ELSE to want to look like that for FREE. (Because to do most other jobs? I can be the most hideous troll and a successful scientist! Or a teacher! Or a construction worker!)

And beauty is an imposition. It requires a lot of maintenance, lifestyle changes, expenses. Demanding that an average woman engages in all this extra activity and expense just to prove her social worth is unconscionable. And the irony of course is that people like Tim Gunn, who lament the anti-woman stance of fashion industry are also the same ones who engage in the whole advice regarding body flattery and creating socially acceptable shapes rather than telling women, "You know what? You are a human being with inherent worth not tied to your appearance or style or weight or interest in fashion. You can love clothes and makeup, but you are not required to; you can make yourself beautiful, but you are not obligated to, and we won't think less of you if you are ugly, fat, indifferent to fashion and not seeking male approval every waking minute."

So on balance, I feel that people who tell fat women to "create a waist" with a belt (looking at you, Tim Gunn!) or to never wear short skirts if over 40, can shove it. So can people who complain that models are too thin (their body type is certainly not common, but neither are Marylin Monroe's) and say clever things about men liking meat (because this is what you are, ladies: a product for male consumption). And maybe, just maybe, everyone should just stop telling women what to do, or be, or aspire to. Because the tricky thing about humans is that we all have our desires and interests and inherent worth, and in 2012 I think we can all agree that women are a part of humanity.

FFB: Not-Sexy Dressing

This week’s topic for Feminist Fashion Bloggers group post is sexuality, but of course I am going to cheat and talk about something slightly different: the impossibility for a woman to dress in a sexually neutral manner. We live in the society where a guy can put on a pair of slacks, a shirt and a tie, and be totally work-appropriate and professional, without inviting judgment of his sexual life. For a woman, it is not so simple – striving for an attractive or fitted look tends to lower one’s perceived status (sexy secretary, anyone?), and forgoing sexiness in favor of more somber, looser clothes spells frumpville. So it’s sexy or frumpy, with a very narrow ledge in between. The width of the ledge varies depending on the workplace, the observer, and the woman’s age and attractiveness. Talk about running a gauntlet.

And this is the thing: I love clothes. I like being dressed professionally and put together at work. What I don’t love is that while I intend my clothes to be a message about my abilities, being a lady, I cannot take out any perceptions of sex. I really am not interested in seeing people I interact with at work as sexual objects; it seems only fair that women as well as men should be allowed this opportunity. I am here to do my job, and to look like I can do it well and be awesome while doing it.

What Not To Wear is an interesting case: they often implore women to look “sexy”, with Stacy asking emphatically, “What’s wrong with looking sexy?” And my answer is, of course nothing, if that’s what one wants to look like. But there ought to be alternatives other than hassled sad woman who gave up on herself forever, you know?

 In academia, one is already looked down upon if one shows interest in fashion – and part of, it, I think is the conflation of fashion with sexualized image of women. It doesn’t have to be, of course, but sadly we live in the world of binaries: sexy or frumpy, slut or blue stocking, etc etc. So the shortcut goes from well-dressed to fashiony to sexy to vapid. The opposite is of course the stereotypical female academic who takes her work too seriously to spend even a minute thinking about clothing – and those are perceived as sex-hostile and/or mannish. Being respected and perceived as competent becomes almost impossible without personal style becoming a statement of self-denial. And we need this third thing.

You know, the thing that men have, the way of dressing that says, I am here to be presentable and to do my job, and not to be evaluated in terms of my perceived sexuality. The thing that doesn’t make people think, “Gee, she spends so much time/money/effort on dressing, she must be really vapid.” The thing where wearing low heels and masculine clothing doesn’t invite people to automatically assume that one’s a lesbian or, at the very least, “has given up” (whatever that means.) But women as a sex class are denied these opportunities. We can confine ourselves to different castes of this class, but we cannot escape it. So we can certainly talk about how women have more choices than men when it comes to clothing and workwear, but until these choices include the possibility of presentation entirely outside of the sexual dimension, the variety is not really signifying anything but profits for the fashion industry.

FFB: Woman in Her Forties

(This post is for Feminist Fashion Bloggers. This month's theme: Youth and Aging.)

(Image: Tilda Swinton wearing Haider Ackerman, in Toronto 2011) My grandmother had a number of weird and funny sayings, as grandmothers do. This is the one I've been remembering lately: "If a woman doesn't look good in her twenties, it is her misfortune. If she doesn't look good in her forties, it is her fault."

I know, I know. Quite a few assumptions here, but what I would like to focus on is the positives: the idea that as we age we not only acquire control over how we present ourselves to the world, but we also get to redefine what "looking good" is. Most of all, with all the built in assumptions, this saying resonates with me because I like getting older.

There was that thing about being young: I was unsure. I was easy to sway, I looked for male approval before female one, I fluctuated in my presentation to the world, I didn't know what I was. It is not uncommon for young people to waver as they try to discover themselves. And the issue of approval is I think germane to how we express ourselves via dressing.

Dressing for men is something women are encouraged to do: we constantly hear women's clothes being criticized as unflattering or unsexy, or what was she thinking, and she should show more skin, show off her waist etc etc. Anything to project an image desirable to a man. This is why I rarely have interest in clothes designed by straight male designers: they too often design for the male gaze, and I'm just not impressed. This is why I crack up at design competitors who break out "I bring a straight male perspective to clothing!" argument. This rare, precious commodity -- the straight male view!

There is another saying about women who dress primarily for other women. This is at least what I hear mentioned by the way of explanation of the harem pant-wearing, waist-concealing, sack-dressing fashion forward individuals. While (some) other women surely can appreciate such styling better than (most) straight men, this isn't all of the story either. Dressing in a way that is pleasing to oneself is important, sure; but so is sending a signal of "I do not dress for men". So that this dressing for other women thing? I think it often gets misconstrued as competitive, trying to impress each other. For me, I take it as a signal of "I do not value male attraction above all else." And as I get older, I see these women, and I want to be friends with them. Dressing for oneself OR for other women is a rebellion, since male gaze is such a default.

Now yes, there are plenty of young women who dress in interesting ways. But age does give one a few advantages in this area: first, there's knowing what you like after four decades of trial and error. Personal style evolves, at least for those of us who are interested in that sort of thing, and any evolution takes time. I know what I like now, and unlike when I was in my twenties, it is hard to persuade me to like things because everyone else does (not that I never change my mind, but.) Then there is an issue of income or at least patience: it is easier for me to save for high quality pieces I want rather than spend it all on shiny disposable trends. I do want to dress as a grown up, which for me translates into tailored, high quality garments. (If I ever have enough of vintage silk blouses and woolen blazers, I'll let you know.)

And finally, there is an issue of visibility. It's an old chestnut that women after forty become invisible in our culture. But invisibility also comes with lessening of the scrutiny female bodies are subjected to. Women over forty are often freer to experiment with personal style -- and many of the most amazing fashion icons, from Irene Apfel to Tilda Swinton to Helen Bonham Carter to Helen Mirren fall into this group. The social penalty for failing to cater to male gaze is lessened, since male gaze glosses right over women of a certain age, and... it's okay. After all, most of us spent most of our lives railing against the patriarchy. Now we get to do it from a different place -- from the place of strength and assurance, where our confidence is supported by a lifetime of achievement unrelated to our physical appearance, where our self-worth is unquestionable.

And I like it here, with the fabulously dressed women and timeless clothing. There is such a joy and freedom in finally knowing who you are, what you want, and what to tell those who don't like it. No longer at the whim of outside influence, we can find peace with ourselves -- and it is our doing.

What Would a Feminist Wear?

(Main post here, with links to other participants.)

Such a seemingly simple question, such an impossible answer. Not to say that there is no relationship between feminist beliefs and clothes, but rather that relationship is fairly complex, indirect, and impossible to elucidate in a few words. So please don't hate me because my answer will include a bunch of links to old posts.

1. For me, ethical fashion is a necessary attribute of feminist fashion. That is, if we believe in equality, we must also believe in fair labor practices (it's not a coincidence that so much of early women's movement and unionization were tied with the garment industry).

2. Also, I believe that personal style is there to be manipulated in order to project a desired effect. I wrote a little back about the male gaze and ubiquity of it, the fact that women are always judged based on what they wear. Opting out is impossible, and catering to expectations is not always wise (although occasionally one might choose to); however, creating a desired effect with intention is the best option there is. I wear heels a lot because at 5'4" I appreciate the extra height as it helps me to project a little more authority. I wear a lot of tailored clothes because I like the play with proportion they offer.

3. Recognizing that femininity as well as masculinity are social constructs rather than inherent qualities is also a necessity for a feminist, since the very notion of equality is predicated on rejection of biological determinism. As such, a dress or a three piece suit say nothing about me as a person, just about my sartorial choices -- and that I am not committed to performing a specific gender. I think there is value in that.

4. Finally, "flattering dressing" -- that is, dressing to create an idealized female shape -- has its place. But it is only one of many options. So I will happily wear sack dresses as well as dresses tailored to accentuate my waistline, long skinny pants or slouchy cropped pants with pleats, heels or flat oxfords, based on what particular image I want to project. Clothes have meaning, sure; so learning these meanings and using them to bolster oneself rather than mindlessly perform gender in a way one is expected to seems to be important.

5. And here're some of my favorite clothes, from on of my favorite designers. Because well-tailored jackets are important.

The Man Repeller and the Male Gaze

 (Source)

This is the second of a number of group posts from the Fashionable Feminist Bloggers community. This group, begun a few weeks ago by a number of fascinating bloggers, examines the intersection of fashion and feminism. If you're interested in becoming part of the group, request an invitation at the Google group linked above. This week, no topic!

So I assume you all know about The Man Repeller, an often funny and always incisive look at high fashion as something that is emphatically not designed to get male attention. The Man Repeller posits that proper high fashion will actually be abhorrent to hetero men, due to its affinity for things like harem pants (check), athletic socks with high heeled sandals (check) and jewelry that looks like weapons (double check). In fact, many designers make clothes that are definitely not about showcasing female sexiness.

The Man Repeller was widely mentioned as a feminist blog, and there was a debate on Jezebel some weeks ago about whether the blog is indeed feminist -- the author is clearly wealthy enough to afford some awesome designer duds, so the class criticism was raised. Another thing that was mentioned was the idea that subverting the male gaze is essentially the same as catering to it, because both modalities make the clothes about the male gaze. To which I have to say, hold your horses, ladies. We LIVE in the world of male gaze. Pretending it doesn't exist and we live in the environment where it's all about individual choice and all choices have equal consequences, is naive.

Male gaze is so pervasive that the female body itself, naked or half-naked stands in for sex -- that is, in order to suggest sex, advertisers insert female bodies into their commercials, and we are programmed to read female bodies as inherently sexual (even Lady Gaga is frequently mentioned as a sex symbol -- no pants is being read as sexualized, even though she might be smeared in blood). I would argue, however, that subverting this sexiness (like The Man Repeller and Gaga both do, like Isabella Blow and every fashion icon worth her salt used to do) is an act both rebellious and necessary. Ignoring the female objectification in hopes that it will go away and pretending that wearing a corset with a mini skirt or a pair of harem pants with several layered sweaters are essentially the same in terms of choice is, in a word, foolish.

Choice is difficult under the patriarchy: first, some choices are rewarded (having family, raising children) while others are vilified (working in technical fields, wearing grandpa trousers); second, as much as we would like to fall back on the preference and choice thing ("But if I CHOOSE to wear fifties silhouette, than it's perfectly feminist!"), preferences are not shaped in a vacuum. In fact, they are probably shaped in large part by the whole patriarchal reward-punishment system. It is always interesting to observe discussions on the internet, and how male commenters often frame their remarks in term of their sexual preference ("I don't think Gaga is sexy" or "I like clothes that make women look sexy, and this is why Tom Ford is awesome") -- it does not occur to them to interpret female behavior or dress outside of this context of trying to get male approval; and they bestow their approval or criticism whether unasked, because implicit is the assumption that male approval is important. When women blind themselves to this pervasive context, they are putting themselves at disadvantage.

I mean, I get it -- I know why one might consciously decide to appease the patriarchal norm. When one lives in an oppressive system, it is exhausting to rail against it all the time; it helps to have means and influence to do so (Daphne Guinness, Lady Gaga, and, to a lesser extent, The Man Repeller). For those of us who have to fit in, capitulation is often necessary. But let's not pretend that it's a choice freely made: I like my pencil skirts and I love my grandpa trousers, but I know when wearing the latter would be counterproductive. So I make my choices, uneasily at times, all the while glad that there are women out there who don't have to -- and who don't pretend that male gaze doesn't exist.

Anyway. Remember that Star Trek episode where there was a planet inhabited only by women, wearing short skirts and go-go boots? Yes, exactly.

Feminist Fashion Bloggers roundup

I was amazed by the variety of fashion icons represented in these posts -- I am still reading through them. I'm very pleased to participate in this blogging effort, and am excited for next Wednesday.

Christine Lagarde– Rags Against the Machine

Cindy Sherman - Mrs Bossa Does the Do

Claude Cahun - Cervixosaurus

Diane Von Furstenberg – For Those About to Shop

Elizabeth Smith Miller – Techie Style

Ellen Page – SK{ru}SH

Frida Kahlo - La Historiadora de Moda from Fashionable Academics

Frida Kahlo – Knitting Up the Ravelled Sleeve of Care

Gloria Steinem – Ef for Effort

Gloria Steinem - What If No-One’s Watching?

Gloria Trevi - Feministified

Grandmother – The House in the Clouds

Griselda Pollock - Magic Square Foundation

Hedy Lamarr - Adventures in Refashioning

Marjane Satrapi - Jean of all Trades

Joan of Arc – Interrobangs Anonymous

Julia de Burgos – Mad Dress Game

Margaret Cho – What Are Years?

Oroma Elewa - Fishmonkey

Rachel Carson – Aly en France

Siouxsie Sioux - Yo Ladies

Sydney Fox - My Illustrative Life

Vivienne Westwood - Seamstress Stories

Oroma Elewa -- Feminist Fashion Icon

(Photo of Ataui Deng by Oroma Elewa)

This is the first of a number of group posts from the Fashionable Feminist Bloggers community. This group, begun a few weeks ago by a number of fascinating bloggers, examines the intersection of fashion and feminism. If you're interested in becoming part of the group, request an invitation at the Google group linked above. Our first topic is on Fashionable Feminist icons: each of us was asked to write about a woman who, to us, is a personal feminist/fashion icon (which could be, for example a feminist with great style, a fashion person who also works on behalf of women).

I love fashion editors: Diana Vreeland, who was the subject I first intended to write about, was a fashion icon and a free spirit, a person of contradiction and taste. But there's much written about Vreeland and her rouged earlobes, so instead I wanted to talk about a much younger, newer editor: Oroma Elewa of Pop'Africana. I was super excited about this magazine because of the representations of Africa in the West are severely lacking. In the world of fashion industry, they are either non-existent or limited to shameless appropriation of "tribal" esthetics (and boy, I can talk a lot about the awful "tribal" trend and its ontological cousin, the animal print - so African! So exotic!)

Thankfully Pop'Africana has an online presence, and it is edited by a woman of Nigerian extraction, who not only edits but blogs eloquently about her world in fashion and her personal history: "When my mother is happy or playing with me, she calls me by my full name - O r o m a m a y a t u n a h i a - it means my mother's home cannot be bought in the market. My grandmother, her mother truly gave meaning to this name because her love, her spirit and her home can never be bought Period."

Fashion industry in the West often has an exclusionary air about it -- a shortcoming, I feel, too often shared by Western feminism, when most of the world is ignored, and they're concerns and problems are overlooked. To many westerners, Africa is a large monolith of Third World (a term too problematic in itself) suffering, and they only look to it for "inspiration" -- that is, stealing textiles and esthetic movements, appropriating them without giving back, focusing on how these experiences are beneficial for Westerners' individual growth and enrichment. (I already spoke a bit about one-sidedness of African representations in literature here.) Women's issues are similarly ignored, under the assumption that the generic Western feminism IS about all women, even despite its continuing failure to engage with issues other than those of white and middle-class western women. Meanwhile the role of Africa and African diaspora as movers of fashion and feminism rather than its passive objects is rarely discussed.

Well, Oroma Elewa is editing Pop'Africana to affect a change. Her photography is beautifully idiosyncratic, her articles are incisive, whether she is talking about music or fashion or deconstructs representations of Africa. Her role as an editor of such a forward yet fashion centered magazine assures her role as a fashion icon; but what about feminism?

I believe that the third wave feminism with its focus on intersectionality of oppressions -- that is, the complex and non-linear interactions between gender, class, race, nationality etc. -- was meant to remedy the unfairness of focusing exclusively on Western issues. Voices like Elewa's are necessary, and hers is clear and assured. Rather than speaking for people who can speak perfectly well for themselves, we need to listen and to pay attention. Oh, and buy an issue or two -- Pop'Africana is an amazingly vibrant magazine, with a great editorial hand.