Take Space Emma Watson

During our last class session some of our classmates brought up, the idea of women dressing for the attention of men. Followed by the idea that also women dress for themselves. These two sentences that I have started this blog post with, are two ideas that come from the double bind that women fall into. It doesn’t matter a woman, girl, young or old, in the patriarchy we live in, she is a less important part of society. Whether she dressed for herself or to have attention, to me it has heavier implications. The idea that the woman is dressed to impress men is a notion that has come from history, although sometimes it might be the case, the woman will always fall into blame because of it. She will always be judged for it.

Through this societal impression that we have been socialized into to make women objects and not to have governing over their bodies is the main reason why they will never win. And remain in a double bind.

In a more recent light, I want to talk about Emma Watson who was recently named the UN Women Goodwill Ambassador for women. She just recently gave a speech about feminism, what it means to her, as much also how it is an issue that concerns men. Emma Watson claims that this movement for equality calls for men to also step up and fight for women’s equality. It is not just a woman’s issue. In the response of this, members of the website community 4chan have lashed out at the actress and have threatened to leak, and publish her “nudes.” It seems to me that this kind of behavior from these types of men might not all men (to keep some sense of hope in the world.) One of the troubling parts of this behavior is that when someone tries to change the status quo, or maybe just try to change the narrative on an issue, in this case concerning women’s issue. They are shut down once again by men, the ones that don’t seem to grasp their privilege as men, their privilege that they are not the ones in the face of domestic violence. The ones that take up the space as Sandra Lee Bartky mentions in “Foucault, Femininity, and the Modernization of Patriarchal Power.

Comments like these:

“It is real and going to happen this weekend. That feminist bitch Emma is going to show the world she is as much of a whore as any woman.” 

What I have written is nothing new, it might be to those men that lurk in the site 4chan that maybe we should treat women with respect and just, treat them like mere human beings.

I have mentioned above that yes, we have been socialized to feel this way, as a woman I would have never have questioned how much space I don’t take. Bartky, opens this dialogue that before this article I never paid much attention to. Since my college education I have learned a great deal of even more critical thinking about what kind of society I have been born in, what it means to be a woman and live in a patriarchal society.  In the beginning of Sandra Lee Bartky’s piece she mentions the following: “the production of docile bodies requires that an uninterrupted coercion be directed to the very processes of bodily activity, not just their result; this ‘micro physics of power” fragments and partitions the body’s time, its space, and its movement.” (pg 77) Bartky later brings the idea within Foucault’s own theory of docile bodies, that us as humans have always been conditioned to be docile. Through several examples are socially acceptable and then these behaviors are normalized.

This brings me to the idea that we are part of a society that truly emphasizes how we don’t own our bodies. As people we never were conditioned to belong to our bodies. As women, this especially applies to us; we are socialized to be held to a standard of beauty, to be docile and submissive. We are not to take space and therefore serve into our role under the man. As shown by the 4chan users in this article that I have mentioned earlier, it is not right for a women to hold a feminist view, we are not to engaged and want to be treated as a human being. The misconception of the ideas that spread about feminism is another problem of its own. It is their ignorance and privilege that brings them to that idea that woman should be in that subordinate to men. We are to hold ourselves in a manner that doesn’t disrupt the status quo and should just not do anything about it.

Men’s rights groups believe men are also discriminated against and that all men are not the same, When confronted they claim these stances. There is no need for this group to claim and only further this war on women. While there is violence against men, and the ideas of masculinity could be an addition to hyper-masculinity behavior that can lead to violence. It shouldn’t allude that they are oppressed, for recognizing men their privilege, and holding the majority role in society completely gives them the life’s advantages.

I come back to my main point; women will always find themselves in a double bind. There is not a positive outcome, women are being killed, raped, taken away our reproductive rights in the hands of male privilege. When a young woman wants to include men in this important discourse, and hopefully have progressive change in shifting and gaining equality of the sexes, the world treats her with disdain and is met just as fast with misogynistic comments— I should not generalize the world and all of the population, but this group of men clearly can’t see past their own privilege and cannot see how much power they hold. I don’t know who these users on 4chan might be, but I know that with that kind of attitude we will never progress. 

Women are still being attacked and belittled for being women today. Not wishing to end in this pessimistic note, I will remind myself: we need feminism today and that my friends, professors and classmates care about it and other major groups of people do care about women's issues. Not just the most misogynistic and vile part of the Internet that is 4chan.

I have attached Emma Watson's speech below. 

Linking Gender Defenders, Transgenders, and Bisexuals (with some cool art/comics)

I felt this was appropriate, in the sense that if Gender Defenders would target trans people, they would be the cause of many of the things this picture illustrates. Drawn by Elias Ericson.

            From our past few class sessions, our class has focused on various readings that pertain to transgender people and how society handles the concept of being transgender.  One concept that stuck out to me most was in Kate Bornstein’s book Gender Outlaw, which was the concept of those who use strict ideas of gender to terrorize those who fall outside of our society’s “gender norms” (male and female).  These “gender terrorists” are referred to by Bornstein as “Gender Defenders”, and both Bornstein and I both agree that they do more harm than good for our society as a whole.  

            Before diving into why Gender Defenders are so harmful to our society, I want to look back at what Bornstein defined as a Gender Defender.  Before giving this group of people their designated name, Bornstein calls Gender Defenders “gender terrorists”.  She states that “Gender terrorists are those who bang their heads against a gender system that is real and natural; and who then use gender to terrorize the rest of us,” (page 71-72).  From what we have discussed in our previous classes, as well as what a majority of open-minded individuals can understand, we are aware that there is more to gender than just the strict male/female orientation that our society impresses on us to follow.  Therefore I see there is no surprise that there are these Gender Defenders; those who go through life unwilling to accept the possibility of a man deciding he would rather present himself as a woman, and vice versa, and all in between.  However, just because I understand why there are Gender Defenders and what has influenced their thought processes in our society, doesn't mean I believe their behaviors are justified.  

            I believe that these Gender Defenders are very harmful to our society for a multitude of reasons.  Firstly, these individuals are ignoring and suppressing a portion of our population that has the same basic rights that we all do.  By ignoring any transgendered individuals and refusing to accept that there is more to gender and sexuality than the gender binary, Gender Defenders are shutting down crucial conversation that needs to happen everywhere about any and all trans* issues.  Furthermore, I got to thinking about how some of these individuals who disregard transgendered individuals may be likely to disregard the rest of the LGBTQ+ community, which brings up a completely new social aspect to the situation at hand regarding the general scope of gender and sexual identity.  Those who stick to the gender binary are also likely to have a hard time understanding anything besides heterosexuality, which further creates a divide and even hostility between aggressors and those who fall anywhere else on the sexuality spectrum besides identifying as straight.

    A comic showing how being different

 from societal norms can isolate someone. Drawn by Emiliu.                             

            What’s a real shame is that when members of the LGBTQ+ community have preferences and different tolerances for members of certain sexualities or gender identities.  Two specific instances come to mind; the first being Bornstein’s example of lesbian separatists refusing to acknowledge transgendered women as women in their “women-only” spaces, and the second being the ongoing misinterpretation and blatant disregard of bisexuality by straight and gay members of society.      

            Regarding the first example, in Bornstein’s book she mentions that “women inhabit ‘women only’ spaces to heal from the oppression of their number by the larger culture, by men in particular, and because they don’t see us as women, we’re perceived as the other side of the binary: men,” (page 82).  Even though these are lesbians turning away trans women, they can be seen as Gender Defenders as they are choosing to not acknowledge these men who have crossed over and identify as women.  They (the lesbians) are defending the idea of adhering to the gender you are born with, and that is a problematic notion because there are many people in the world who identify differently, and additionally there is the whole topic of intersexuality that could be investigated to further the argument.  I feel that in order to clear up that tension, people in general should just focus on whatever gender someone is presenting themselves as at the particular present moment, and not focus on what they were born with or what they may have presented themselves as last week or even yesterday.  Some people change when they please, and therefore should feel comfortable doing so knowing that they will be held in the same regard as a man, woman, or other. 

            Referring back to my second example, I want to talk about the struggle that many bisexuals go through, because I feel that at times it emulates the difficulties that many Trans people might face.  I found this very interesting video on Upworthy about a bisexual woman, Scarlet Saint, who spends roughly ten minutes dispelling common bisexual myths by applying her knowledge on the subject and her personal experience as a bisexual individual herself.  What stuck out to me the most was her myth number 1, which was the notion that people believe that bisexuals are just indecisive and/or confused.  Scarlet goes on to talk about her experiences coming out as a bisexual to people, and how she is sometimes met with just blatant denial.  That, or people will try to apply their own impressions of her sexuality, trying to police her by implying that they know what she is and is not.  This sort of action of others trying to dictate what someone is or isn’t reminded me of how Gender Defenders use the gender binary as a sort of mold to try to push transgendered people into.  Not everyone fits into a neat and tidy gender binary, or even a sexual binary, and I believe that the more steps we take to educate people about the many different gender identities and sexual orientations in our world, the easier it will be for everyone to accept everyone for being themselves.  

Just a little sweet/funny comic about acceptance.  It would be nice if a trans* person was included, but I think the point is made all the same.  This comic was created by Cassian, and there are many more comics like this one (as well as the ones previously mentioned in this article) that can be found in this Buzzfeed article dealing with the struggles of being queer.)

On Being Trans

TW: periods, penises, dysphoria

If you didn’t know or realize already, I personal identify as transgender. My identity is pretty complicated, because I don’t identify specifically as a transman, or FTM. I identify as non-binary, specifically as genderfluid.

            What the heck is genderfluid? Well when I was in 9^th grade, when I started questioning my gender and exploring different identities, I didn’t really know where to start. I knew I sometimes had gender and body dysphoria, but it wasn’t all of the time. I didn’t wake up every morning and stare at my body in a blind panic, or worse, avoid mirrors all together. Sometimes I felt (and feel!) perfectly content in body. Sometimes I really like my boobs and think my hips are the cutest things on a person ever. (Keeping in mind I also have a lot of socialized anxiety about my weight, which manifests itself in tears when trying to find formal clothing). But other times nothing is okay. I wish I was flat-chested, I wish I could grow facial hair, I have anxiety attacks when I’m on my period (to the point that I’ll completely ignore it for 12-24 hours at a time. This is made much easier by my discovery of the DiveCup®), and I want a dick. Is it still penis envy if you’re dysphoric? I don’t know, other people’s penises are weird, but mine wouldn’t be.

Moving away from dysphoria and back to the story, when I was in 9^th grade, I was convinced I had a multiple personality disorder. I knew that transgender within the binary was a thing, and I knew I was not that, so I made something up that seemed to fit, although I knew it still wasn’t right. I named the gay man inside of me Jon, and know you know where KJ comes from. I finally googled enough that I found other terms for what I was feeling. Without the internet, I don’t know where I’d be. Probably still confused about liking a girl and a boy at the same time. (I was 10. I don’t think I’d heard the word bisexual yet, and there I was. Thanks, Google.)

From 11^th grade up until about 6 months ago, I identified as genderqueer. In "Transgender History", Stryker defines genderqueer as “People who resist gender norms without ‘changing sex’, but this is not always the case” (Stryker 21). This term was easy for me because it’s somewhat of an umbrella term. I identify as queer in terms of my sexuality for the same reason. Identities are confusing and hard, so genderqueer was the most used term that basically identified me as “something else”. The non-binary has been a comfortable place for me as I explore my gender identity. Stryker talks about gender neutral pronouns, pointing out that they aren’t right for everyone. But I started using gender neutral pronouns when I got to college, and I feel like they fit me best right now. I use they/them, but I have friends who use ve/vir and ze/hir. To be honest, I don’t mind when people use he/him for me, but I haven’t explored that part of my identity fully and it’s not something I’m going to ask people to use for me right now. My identity as transgender is a journey that isn't finished, however. 

Susan Stryker defines transgender as “movement away from an initially assigned gender position” (Stryker 19). Assigned gender is determined by a lot of things, first of all sex. “Sex refers to the reproductive capacity or potential—whether an individual body produces one or the other of the two specialized cells necessary for our species to physically reproduce itself” (Stryker 8). Gender is assigned based on whether you have testes that should produce sperm or a vagina that presumably leads to ovaries that produce eggs. This system doesn't work perfectly, there are plenty of people with a mix of these qualities, and plenty of people with all the “right” parts that are infertile. Sex is determined when the baby is born, but other gendering/sexing characteristics appear around puberty.

Morphology, or “The shape of the body that we typically associate with being male or female” (Stryker 9), can be pretty damning for trans individuals along with secondary sex characteristics. I have big boobs and big hips. No matter how hard I try, I’ve only been mistaken for a cis man once or twice in my life. These are things I want to change about myself through exercise, but as with many of the aspects of my identity, I have to sort out where those impulses are coming from. Do I want to be thinner because of societal stresses to take up less space, or do I want to be perceived as more gender neutral (or morphology neutral, in this case)? Do I want to look more like a man because I would have more advantages that way, or because it sucks when people assume I’m a cis woman? I occupy a space of privilege as an AFAB trans person. I constantly have to question myself to resist upholding or affirming the patriarchy with my very existence and transformation.  

The point of this blog is to hopefully put a personal touch into the readings we’ve had so far in Bodies. I’m not 100% comfortable talking about my body and trans status with people, let alone people who aren’t close friends, but I couldn’t imagine talking about anything else. Being trans is complicated. Being a human being is complicated. I feel like we’re all unsure of ourselves. The Tumblr community and the wonderful queer group of friends I’ve surrounded myself with here at Allegheny have been the most loving, supporting, and helpful people. Both in navigating my identity and in general. I guess if you want to ask me questions, feel free, but I might get shy if you ask me in person and I don’t hear super well.

Have fun exploring your own identity! I hope this class can be transformative for people. If you’re interested in more personal anecdotes about being trans, Google is your friend! Tumblr tends to turn up a lot of porn when you search for… well, anything. I would personally recommend that as well, but I’m academically recommending Google. I found this article a couple of days ago that really hits home about an agender/non-binary person. It's really beautifully written and includes a supporting mother figure. There's also a photo gallery here of genderqueer and other non-binary identified people that is definitely worth checking out.

Good luck!

The Feminist Movement: For Men and Transgender Alike

                Julia Serano, author of Whipping Girl, grasped my attention when she pointed out certain problems pertaining to trans women caused by pseudofeminists. Serano herself is a trans women; someone “who was assigned a male sex at birth, but who identifies as and/or lives as a women” (11). She has experienced firsthand discrimination from being a sexual minority, and was shocked about how much of this was coming from women who claim to be feminists. Serano is setting out to try and put an end to the degradation of trans women, and I think a huge part of this movement involves the need for feminism to progress even further. It is most likely very difficult already for a trans woman to come out and openly identify as a women, but without the support of other people it can be nearly impossible for some.

About a year ago I read the book She’s Not There by Jennifer Finney Boylan. This book was one of the first things to really open my eyes to what transgender means. Like Whipping Girl, it was written by a transsexual about the difficulty of her situation and how people reacted to her transformation. To anyone who does not know much about what it means to be transgender or who is quick to dismiss transgender individuals as being legitimate, this book can really change one’s mind. The problem with transgender discrimination is that people do not understand the issue and cannot relate, but hearing a real life example in this way makes a huge difference. In the book Jennifer talks about when and how she realized that she did not feel right as a boy and instead identified as a female. She was already married with children by the time she came out, although she secretly identified as a girl since she was just a kid. She shows how people treated her different when she came out, and how many did not quite understand why she changed her sex. Seeing all the hatred Jennifer experienced made me realize how in the dark most people are about transgender individuals.

In discussion of transgender individuals, Serano brought up the term oppositional sexism, or “the belief that female and male are rigid, mutually exclusive categories” (13). Simply put, it says that men and women are opposites. This type of sexism leaves out anyone who does not exactly match the definitions of feminine or masculine, especially gays, lesbians, transgender people, and so on. This is an interesting concept to me because although I was assigned as a female at birth and still identify as one, I do not feel that I fit the definition of feminine. A large portion of my wardrobe is made up of men’s clothing, and I do not always act proper and submissive like many people expect of a woman. It goes to show that there are no set characteristics unique to only men or women, but that either gender can have any variety of feminine and masculine traits. Putting an end to oppositional sexism is something that the feminist movement is making progess in doing.

For a while I have been thinking about what it really means to be a feminist, so when I read parts of Whipping Girl, I felt like my questions were brought to the surface. I often hear people saying that feminists hate men but also look down on women who appear too feminine. After reading portions of Whipping Girl I came to relate this definition with the term ‘pseudofeminism’. So what is feminism really? I found Bell Hooks to have the clearest and most concise definition for this term. She claimed that “feminism is a movement to end sexism, sexual exploitation and oppression”. Feminists should not only support women who were assigned as female at birth and have continuously self-identified as female. Anyone who is against sexism, regardless of how feminine or masculine they appear or what gender they identify as, has the support of true feminists.

              Feminists have made huge progress since the movement began. Especially in the past few years we hear more and more about feminism. In fact, just this past weekend Emma Watson delivered a speech on her feminist theory at the United Nations. The video I included above is just a brief segment of the speech, the whole speech and pictures can be found here. Watson is a well-known actress from the Harry Potter series, and a role model for many. What people do not usually know is that she is also a UN Women Goodwill Ambassador. In her speech she focuses on gender equality and shows that feminists are not man haters, but rather that they want to include men in the feminist movement. She discusses the idea of oppositional sexism in her own words by saying that men and women do not have distinct and opposite traits, using as example from her childhood of how she was assertive and in control, a trait general associated with masculinity. Watson wants to truly make a change in how feminism is poorly viewed, as well as show how important gender equality is. What this new view of feminism shows us is the no matter the gender, we should all be equal. If we take this to heart then we can end the misery for most transgender individuals, and allow for them to be openly accepted in society. We can also put an end to the bad reputation surrounding feminism by including every individual no matter what their gender identity.

"Docile Bodies" and the Pursuit for Impossible Bodies

In the past couple years magazines and advertisers have come under fire for how much they alter photos to sell products. As a result there is also a new trend of making videos showing the transformation photoshopped photos undergo before they are put in magazines. This video shows a woman who is prepped for the photoshoot with extensive hair and makeup, and then altered even more by Photoshop, by the end of the process she looks like a completely different person.

But how does Photoshopped pictures relate to “Foucault, Femininity, and the Modernization of Patriarchal Power”? The section of the article that really got me thinking about these Photoshop videos was section II, where Bartky talks about exercise.  I was struck by her observation that dieting is a form of disciple that makes the body into the enemy. I can recall countless diets that a various family members and friends have tried out throughout the years and just how often these diets made eating restrictive, and difficult. I remember most of my family going to weight watchers will I was growing up and just how often the process of tallying up points and managing how many points they had left made eating stressful. I was also reminded of the several diets that I have attempted throughout my life, and how whenever I was on a diet, suddenly my body did become the enemy, and eating become difficult and painful, as I had to strictly monitor and restrict what I could and could not eat. Not to mention that following the diet plan or not, eating often felt shameful and considering what to eat always require a lot of before hand planning.

However, what really got me thinking about those Photoshop videos was the comment about spot-treatment, and how we have been taught that it is possible to focus on and exercise one particular part of your body, such as your stomach. Bartky points out that spot-treatments are scientifically unsound. This made me question how often we as women feel that we need to strive for an image or idea that might be impossible to reach. For example, no one will ever look like that woman at the end of that video, the original model, and looks almost nothing like the woman at the end of that video. That woman is not modeled after a person, she has been created using technology and there is no way anyone will look exactly like her. How often are we monitoring and changing ourselves to try and look like or conform to an image that is impossible to reach?

owe

 In section IV when Bartky talks about all the beauty rituals we undergo because it is expected that women just want to or are required to do these things in order to be a women; I was thinking about the articles we read for Tuesday’s class about being a Gender Outlaw. Barky at the end of the section points out that makeup is often celebrated as a form of expression, or art. However, unlike typical forms of art, like watercolor, when a woman chooses to not use makeup she receives backlash for not making herself look more feminine. There is a lot of disgust towards women who do not present themselves in a feminine way. For me this adds a new layer of thought to people who are Gender Outlaws. Part of being a “docile body” is that you learn to inscribe gender on yourself from a young age, not only through expression, but also through body language. Through the amount of space you take up and the way you walk. 

These actions and postures are taught from a young age and are often done subconsciously, because of that they can be hard to change. We prescribe gender on to almost everything, how someone looks, how they talk, their body language, the way they treat you. Because of this being a Gender Outlaw takes on a new level of difficulty. Although an individual make identify as a Gender Outlaw, and may present themselves in a gender-neutral way, the rest of the world is going to prescribe a certain gender to them. If that gender is girl than they will be expected to participate in being feminine. As Bartky says “femininity as spectacle is something in which virtually everyone woman is expected to participate in”. If you do not participate, you are incorrectly being a woman, or even perhaps incorrectly being human.

     However, I was thinking that even if one is a Gender Outlaw there is still a lot of body discipline that goes into living and presenting as someone who does not conform to either girl or boy. This discipline of course is not routinized or pushed on you by society the way that femininity is, however, I think it does point out that escaping the tendency to police and alter your body is almost impossible. Changing the way our bodies look and being aware and conscious of how we sit or talk is a large part of how we are raised and how we live. As Foucault pointed out we, regardless of our gender, are regulated by society. From a very young age we are taught to regulate and discipline ourselves. Because of this I think it is currently very difficult and counter intuitive for women to trying and make their bodies fit a certain mold. It is also almost impossible for us to not participate in some form of regulation as it is what we have been doing since childhood.  To change this pressure and regulate our bodies to a certain standard we have to change the system that creates this pressure. We have to change society so that we do not feel as though we always have to monitor and change ourselves to fit in.

What's a feminist?

On nearly every social media outlet recently I’ve came across a countless number of articles, videos, and interviews that seem to be asking a similar question: what does it mean to be a feminist? Or in general, what is a feminist? It seems that we pay a lot of attention to what celebrities are claiming they are feminists, or even more so who is claiming they are not feminists. Explanations for pro-feminism and anti-feminism range from the very controversial “Women Against Feminism” movement stating: “I don’t need feminism because equality of opportunity ALREADY exists” (via twitter)[link] to Emma Watson’s recent speech as a U.N. Women Goodwill Ambassador promoting the “HeforShe” campaign that encourages one billion men and boys to advocate for ending inequalities [link]; Watson states, “I decided I was a feminist and this seemed uncomplicated to me. But my recent research has shown me that feminism has become an unpopular word. Apparently I am among the ranks of women whose expressions are seen as too strong, too aggressive, isolating, anti-men and, unattractive.”

There seems to be a general misunderstanding of the word feminist, and with that, there are a countless amount of misconceptions about feminists attached to it. Feminists are labeled as man-haters and lesbians who want to be men, and are on a mission to eradicate the entire male species and rule the Earth! Although some lesbians are feminists, and some women may have delusions of grandeur, these misconceptions are offensive and just plain wrong. In addition, there is the belief that feminists are only women, and that if a man is a feminist that means he must exhibit feminine traits, and is likely gay. The confusion about what makes a feminist a feminist lies in how we define and interpret the word. Let’s turn to a pretty reliable source—the dictionary:

fem·i·nism noun \ˈfe-mə-ˌni-zəm\: the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities

fem·i·nist nounˈ/femənist/ : a person who supports feminism.

Seems pretty simple, right? Looking at these definitions give us an understanding that feminism has everything to do with unity and equality for both men and women and nothing to do with wanting to be a man or be superior to a man. If you believe in equal rights for men and women you are a feminist (according to Merriam-Webster and a lot of other sources). So why is it that so many women are rejecting feminism?

Seriously?!

While reading Whipping Girl by Julia Serano, specifically Chapter 19: "Putting The Feminine Back into Feminism", she address many issues she has with the way we think about femininity in relation to feminism. On page 343 she states, “We must move beyond seeing femininity as helpless and dependent, or merely as masculinity’s sidekick, and instead acknowledge that feminine expression exists on its own accord and brings its own rewards to those who naturally gravitate toward it. By embracing femininity, feminism will finally be able to reach out to the vast majority of feminine women who have felt alienated by the movement in the past.” This statement is powerful to me because it takes back a word that is so harshly misused and judged. When we think of the word feminine, we think of how it compares to masculine, and how it is inferior. I believe that we don’t think of embracing feminism because of the negative experiences that we’ve had that push us away from doing so. To use myself as an example: I grew up playing baseball and was the only girl on a team of all boys. After practice, I would race this one boy and I would always win. He would beg me to race just once more because he couldn’t stand the thought of being beaten by a girl. This experience was empowering, yet also conditioned me from an early age to think that although I might win, I’m not supposed to. Because I am biologically expected to lose, I must be a dyke. Instead of embracing the fact that I could paint my nails and strike out a boy, I was constantly reminded that although I was good I would have to choose a new sport eventually and play against other women, so it would be more fair.

We are constantly reminded of the ways in which femininity is inferior to masculinity, and never the ways it can be a powerful means to celebrate womanhood and fight for equality. Most anti-feminists claim that they are not feminists because they love what it feels like to be held by a man, cared for by a man, and how much pride they take in pleasing men. I think that these attributes should not be considered anti-feminist, and I strongly believe that the word “feminist” itself is what confuses so many women into believing that they must be a certain way. The feminist agenda is quite the opposite--we can celebrate the many differences we share as women while simultaneously believing in equal opportunities for both genders and all genders.




Actor, director, and activist Joseph Gordon-Levitt recently shared his take on feminism [link], and why it’s important to self-identify as a feminist. Gordon-Levitt says, “It seems to me that it’s mostly an issue of semantics in that it’s the word “feminist” that people don’t like; it’s not any of the principles…it’s really just an issue of how you define the word, and if people want to use a different word, I think that’s perfectly fine." He goes on to say, "What the word feminist does do is acknowledge the very long history of the women’s rights movement.” Instead of using the word “feminist”, can we can use “equalist”? Oh wait that’s not a word. But if it was, as Gordon-Levitt points out, we would be forgetting the history of the women’s right movement, and the fact that to this day, women are treated like second-class citizens in many ways.

Feminism is not just the belief that women and men should have equal rights and opportunities—it extends to racism, classism, sexism and a handful of other isms. Feminism represents all of the peoples who were oppressed and still are, and reaches far beyond women’s rights. Feminism merely reminds us that it is absurd that just five years ago the Fair Pay Act that called for equal pay amongst the sexes was signed into law. To believe that equal opportunity exists among sexes pushes us further away from the goal of living in a world where one gender is not inferior to another. The question we shouldn't be asking is: "Are you a feminist?" rather "Why wouldn't you be a feminist?"

Stop claiming; Start caring.

I can't remember the last day I didn't wear any make-up. Not this week. Not last. Maybe once or twice this semester. Maybe not. I also can't remember the last day I consciously thought about putting make-up on, or tried to look "special" or "pretty" or whatever. Usually I just aim for awake and/or human.

And although I'm being facetious, that's exactly what Sandra Lee Bartky is getting at in her chapter "Foucault, Femininity, and the Modernization of Patriarchal Power" of The Social Construction of Women's Bodies; femininity is required for women to be taken seriously, but femininity is not implicit in femaleness. Femininity is constructed, no, it is chiseled. It is choked. Women are held a much higher standards than men in terms of their everyday appearances and social behavior. 

To women, I ask: in re-claiming femininity, what are you claiming? Is claiming enough, or must we restart altogether? Does "claiming" still recognize an androcentric system? Should we be using different, more drastic language? 

These are big questions, I know. I do not think claiming is enough. We need a stronger vocabulary. We need to erect a new feminine. By recognizing that the "choice" to be feminine to is implicitly controlled and made inferior by male dominance, one must realize that "claiming" feminine as-we-know-it is insufficient. We must work on defining feminine without dichotomizing it with dominance. Secondly, we need to stop attacking or judging other women (and non-women) for not adhering to the system.

Bartky focuses on the ideas of Michel Foucault--who emphasized society's production of docile bodies or bodies complicit to social expectations--and applies Foucault's ideas to the unique and underrepresented experiences of women. In Foucault's prison design Panopticon, prisoners were visible from a guard's tower with the threat of potentially being watched at all times. This possibility forced the prisoners in a "constant state of conscious and permanent visibility" (Bartky 79).  Through this allegory, Bartky relates how women are likewise imprisoned by internalized social expectations of acceptable appearances and behavior, and how women must negate the natural processes of their bodies in order to remain culturally relevant. 

Alternative solution: let's all wear scary masks

Through countless examples of daily female altercation of appearance, Bartky proves that being born female does not equate to being born feminine, highlighting the pressures of the modern female to“construct a “feminine” body out of a female one” (Bartky 86). Society today has callous expectations for women and the body is seen as the enemy. Women are expected to uphold standards from slenderness to meekness, fighting fiercely against natural inclinations. Even the creases of an expressive face can cause unsightly wrinkles that "subvert the disciplinary project of bodily perfection;" therefore, women should suppress their emotions to stay young, coy, and docile (Bartky 81).

Inspired by Julia Serano of Whipping Girl, particularly of her chapters on femininity, I ask, in claiming femininity, what are we claiming? In class, with the guidance of Serano, we discussed the inevitable "Catch 22" that women face with their appearances in daily life. If women dress up to go out, it is presumed to be for the attention of men and they are either mocked for being slutty or blamed "looking consenting"; conversely, if women put less effort into their appearances, then they are viewed as sloppy or careless or gross. Is it anti-feminist to choose to dress up for men, or for whatever damn reason? Or does any choice fail to subvert the system?

Although women can make day-to-day personal choices about their appearances, participation in this society is not a choice. It is marketed as a choice. Women are thrust into this system of meticulous scrutiny.  Make-up is marketed as expressive and artful and frivolous, but harshly implies that "a woman's face, unpainted, is defective" (Bartky 85). Female, without the painted feminine, is defective. It's exhausting to me how Fausto-Sterling's Sexing the Body illustrates how massive the influence of the rigid male/female dichotomy is on our culture, yet "female" as a category is necessary but not sufficient. In claiming femininity, what are we claiming? The illusion of choice?

In Bartky's perspective, traditional femininity is enslaved to the male gaze. Women may dress up for men, or in competition with other women, but to be taken seriously at all, a woman must dress up. Traditional femininity is the modern-day foot binding of stilettos, it is "a spectacle...in which virtually every woman is required to participate" (Bartky 86). WHAT REALLY IS femininity when it is unprompted, unrestricted? What is femininity when it is not being contrasted with dominance, power, and male?

To me, it seems like "claiming" is not sufficient if what we're claiming is shaped by male dominance.

And why is this system being perpetuated at all? By law, women are not required to wear make-up, to dress up, or to act submissive. Bartky explain that there are no authoritarians enforcing these cultural ideals; there are strong influences from visual media, parents, and social circles, but nothing forcing this upon women--"the disciplinarian is everyone and it is no one is particular," or in other words, it is "institutionally unbound," and it is largely self-regulating (Bartky 86-89).

This. Should. Sound. Absurd. WHY would women participate in this rigid regulation? According to Bartky, the lack of clear authoritarians administering these social "rules" helps add to the illusion that dress-up is only harmless and creative and voluntary. 

You too are beautiful

In my psychology junior seminar on morality, we have been discussing similar self-regulating systems, particularly how propriety morals and interpersonal morals are taught and how they perpetuate in society. There are certain social rules we uphold: don't cheat on tests, don't park in handicapped spaces if you're able-bodied, don't shoplift. Most of the time, people are concerned about "appearing" moral, rather than actually "being" moral. They are also more concerned with getting caught. These systems are compatible with the Panopticon; that is, when people are reminded that they are being watched (and could face consequences for immoral acts), they are more likely to exhibit moral behavior. Even when these "reminders" are superficial. People are more likely to cheat on exams in dimly-lit rooms than a well-lit ones; researchers proposed that a darker room creates a false sense of anonymity that catalyzes cheating. A darker room seems less monitored. Studies show that people are even less likely to cheat when there is a large decal of an eye in the room; while a picture of an eye clearly isn't doing any watching itself, this visual reminder prompts cheaters to feel more self-conscious about their immoral behavior. The eye acts as a metaphor for the watchtower of the Panopticon. This article from The New Yorker recaps some of these studies in morality and surveillance. 

Society self-regulates interpersonal morals like "don't cheat" for the better of a collectivist community; a cheater rips off the hard work of others; a cheater spoils a fair system; a cheater ensnares innocent workers; a cheater creates tension and distrust. Everyone is brought down by a cheater, and that is how the self-regulating system is perpetuated.

But a woman who doesn't wear make-up? What does she steal from society? What does she detract from other women? What injustice does she cause? 

She causes an injustice to men. If femininity is defined SEPARATE from men's views, if it DOES NOT contrast men's power, than it refuses to ENFORCE male as dominant. Although there is freedom in the way women dress, there is a platform for creativity and self-expression, there are practical components, appearance is NOT without male influence. And by influence, I mean chokehold. 

So how can women stop self-regulating this system? Here are some fun tips:

• stop putting down other women
• don't call people ugly
• stop caring about what other people wear
• don't wear stuff you don't want to
• be nice