In our first week, several of us here at The Pursuit of Harpyness posted a number of things indicting popular areas of supposedly feminine interest which we find problematic from a feminist viewpoint, namely: expensive handbags, high heels, and cosmetics. Although I am no Kreskin, I expect that we’ll continue to discuss similar issues from time to time.
Some good discussion has ensued, and for that I am/we are grateful, but I’ve also have seen a lot of defensiveness and qualification about these items. Your heels aren’t that high. Your bag was really a quality piece and totally worth what you spent. You, as a professional, have to present a certain, cosmetically-enhanced image. You don’t feel oppressed by these things; in fact, you enjoy them!
Every one is entitled to her own opinion, and a holding an opinion different from another’s does not infringe on anyone’s rights or lessen anyone’s choices. Arguing about who’s opinion is “correct” is a waste of energy, anyway. Humans have the unique ability to justify anything they care to. But I’m not in this to justify my own behavior, or merely provide a forum for others to justify their own. We’ll all do it anyway, to some extent. What I want is to dig deeper, think harder, and, well, “pursue my harpyness.” I’m not there, yet. I’ve yet to meet anyone who is.
Our FAQs state that we welcome comments which follow certain guidelines, but that comments like “But I [x], and I’m a good person!” are unhelpful, and in fact antithetical to what The Pursuit of Harpyness is about. Whether (or not) you wear make-up, heels, or carry a fancy purse has no bearing on your value as a person, a woman, or a feminist. There is no contest for Feminist-er than Thou, and in fact, infighting about minutiae does the movement little service.
In my post, I copped to using make-up because 1) it’s true, and 2) I wanted to make it clear that I really don’t think myself “better” (or, for that matter “worse”) than other women. I have insecurities about my appearance. No-newsflash at 11. I didn’t itemize what I use or belabor the point because 1) again: IT’S NOT A CONTEST and 2) I didn’t want the comments to turn into a place to swap make-up tips. There are plenty of places to do that already. It’s not about drawing a line about what heel-height is okay, or how many/which products you use, or which handbags are worth the expenditure. Discussing these nuances is emphatically not the point.
The point is that whatever we do (or not), we do (or not) for a reason. I am interested in interrogating the reasons I (and other women) do things that I know are damaging to my body, my mind, my sense of self. Using cosmetics is one of those things. There is nothing inherently feminist (or anti-feminist) about cosmetics, shoes, bags, or any thing else, in and of themselves. These things derive their meanings from their contexts, and unless you arrived at our blog through a wormhole into another dimension, the context you live in is Patriarchy.
As women, we do what they must to make their individual lives better, happier, and more successful within those confines. That might mean taking part in, even choosing and/or learning to enjoy, things that are based in their fundamental oppression. If you “do it for [your]self,” or aren’t interested in men’s attention, or you know-all-this-already-and-like-it-anyway, well, bully for you. YOU ARE NOT EXEMPT FROM THE PATRIARCHY AND THE MESSAGES IT SENDS TO EVERY WOMAN ABOUT HER PLACE IN THE WORLD.
You can choose to embrace or reject the trappings of femininity as they are defined in/by the Patriarchy, and you can even choose to “reclaim,” “subvert” or “deny” them in some fashion, but you cannot choose to be outside of the Patriarchy. There is no Outside. To believe otherwise is solipsistic, or mere vanity.
If you’re defensive about your use or embrace of these things (which I maintain are meant largely to distract and/or control you), I’d like for you to think about why. I welcome you to comment, thoughtfully, about why you’re defensive. About what that means. I do not, however, welcome your unqualified defense, as I have yet to read any such statement that doesn’t aim to shut down critique, and hence, thinking.
I don’t expect–or even particularly want–you to agree with me. If I didn’t want feedback, challenges, and discussion, I wouldn’t share my thoughts. I’m not perfect; I’m not particularly interested in being perfect. I am interested in lining up my actions with my philosophies, and I am interested in taking part in a discussion with intelligent, self-aware women about how they negotiate their own way down that precarious path.
Well, JD, my comment was a bit flip because obviously at this point tenure is hardly in Butler’s eyesights. But I do have some similar objections to her ideas about methodologies of subversion, yeah. In a lot of high-falutin’ academic (and what I would call literary) feminism, I start to get frustrated that people seem to have lost sight of, you know, helping the actual oppressed. I mean, say what you want about Mackinnon and Dworkin but no one was worried that they weren’t interested in helping women in this same way.
I like how you softened to “some conceptions of” to avoid pushing my buttons. In a totally sexy, subversive way of course.
unpossible — To a certain extent one can choose it, but there is an nonconsensual element to it as well. I.e. I didn’t start out using my sexuality to get ahead, but at some point it became easier than trying to dismantle the sexual aspect of the relationship while at the same time trying to use it to my own ends. does that make sense?
Also this is mainly a thought exercise, I am actually not running around giving blowjobs in exchange for raises. Just wrestling with the tensions because actually some forms of power ARE available to women in patriarchy (in very constricted and patriarchally determined ways) and it’s never been clear to me whether it is acceptable to embrace those forms of power, while knowing they are only possible in a larger patriarchal context.
@labeled: Has self-deprecating been used yet? I can claim that one.
I used to get endless shit from my old employer for never wearing makeup, to the point where they would order me to go to the makeup counter and have someone apply it. I wish I had spoken up about how uncomfortable it made me, but I didn’t. I also didn’t start applying makeup myself. Am I a “better” feminist now? No. There is no “better”. I am more aware (not self-aware but aware of external patriarchal influences), and constantly aware that all my choices, from loving my handbag to shunning makeup to hating heels to being a single mother will be judged within the sphere of behavioral/cosmetic “acceptability” created by a patriarchal society.
Re: using one’s sexuality.
Early in our lives, patriarchy took our sexuality. As JD says, we didn’t start out this way; there most definitely IS a nonconsentual element to it.
That being said, if you’re not part of the solution you’re part of the problem. I see it in a nuanced way.
no, not to seduce you P.Soul (SEE I JUST CAN’T HELP IT MIGHT AS WELL USE IT), just because one of my criticisms of Halley is that I think she can sometimes be a little reductive about feminism, which i take to be a very big tent (big tents are the only way i can get myself invited to any of these parties. you should see how big my catholicism tent is.)
@ JD Regent: Awww, I pictured you hypnotizing the menfolk with mesmerizing cleavage, and then getting them to give you raises and bonuses “under the influence”! Seriously though, I definitely know what you mean about not choosing it to begin with, but the fact that it’s a person-to-person issue (as many of the other “advantages” are not) gives you the option to change the situation once it becomes apparent. Another problem though is that once you do notice the sexual aspect of the relationship, it can feel like the choice is between victim and vixen – either you take advantage of them, or they’re taking advantage of you. Uncomfortable either way.
Krushchev, way up there you said “I was raised to understand sexism as specific comments or actions from individuals, never as a systematic thing… No one likes to think that they’ve been an unwitting participant in their own oppression.”
Which I kinda of want to trumpet around and wave banners for and such, because it’s SUCH a huge thing to make the mental shift from “sexism is how Bad Dudes are” to “the world is set up to fuck me over.” It is profound. Profoundly disturbing, but also profoundly necessary, if you want to fight it.
OMG you guys I heard J. D. Regent has a rilly big tent she gives blowjobs in!!11!!
PhDork: It IS disturbing. It’s also how I was taught to understand just about every form of oppression. And again, without understanding that these are not modes of behavior that vary from individual to individual, but attitudes that are ingrained in just about everything one encounters, people are going to get defensive about it.
Also, this wasn’t something I really began to grasp until I started reading what you harpies had to say on this and other online forums (also college helped a little). So, you know, thanks.
@JD: Oh, I considered taking shelter in your Catholicism tent but it would have gotten in the way of my numerous casual abortions.
I think a lot of people are very reductive about feminism, and some of them call themselves feminists! I know that in past conversations we have talked about some of the issues rising here – I just think that a lot of the discussion about “feminism” and “feminists” seems to run through old sawhorses (say, about whether feminists hate sex or not, whether they are censors, or whether they are “just like” religious wingnuts or not) without questioning assumptions, and feminisms like Butler’s (and I suppose Halley’s even if she doesn’t want to call it such for… well, no reason) were born of such surface critiques, to me. And they do involve a sort of flipside one-upmanship of “being a better feminist” conundrum PhDork presents above.
@PilgrimSoul (way up in the thread, re: “feeling” oppressed) — I’m not very good at these abstract philosophical discussions, so I have an honest question here: How does one measure oppression — or, more particularly, its absence — without the concept of “feeling”? Must I rely on someone else to tell me when I (or a group of which I’m a part) is no longer oppressed?
P.soul — i think some of it comes down to whether, like PhDork, you consider patriarchy to be the “master narrative,” and how much work the concept of intersectionality can do. There is also the question of progress, how to measure it and what to do with it, and whether it is a terminal condition to social movements.
@Kivrin: Material conditions are a pretty good way to tell, for example, independent of feeling. It’s not an accident that women are paid less for equal work, that a ridiculously high percentage of black men are sent to prison.
(And you seem to be doing just fine in this abstract discussion!)
@JD Regent: I do more or less agree with PhDork. I get very militant about defending the importance of gender in certain not-to-be-named areas of the internet because I see people wielding intersectionality as a means of shutting down discussions about gender – hardly what I think bell hooks et al intended, for starters – but I don’t kid myself that there are not other factors at play and that power is a complicated thing, that it gets wielded differently in different contexts.
I’m not sure what you mean about progress as a “terminal condition,” but I do think it has to be a goal. Otherwise, what the hell is the movement moving about? Is it just good old Hobbesian struggles for the top of the mountain? I refuse to believe that fully.
By terminal condition I mean do we make the movement less relevant by winning battles, or what happens to the movement as the goalposts change.
I just think the movement changes. I have some sympathies for the argument that power seeps into the cracks of anything you manage to build, and the role of the movement post “goalpost” is to keep its eyes on that encroachment.
@ Kirvin: as P.Soul notes, material conditions are where it’s at. Not only hard data, which is excellent for defending your views and hard to argue away, but you can also start by thinking of where material conditions (start with your own and go outwards to others’) and cultural narratives don’t jibe.
A top-of-my-head example: Cultural narrative says “Motherhood is blessed and perfect and the best, most important job in the world!” You observe (or are among) mothers regularly getting the shaft, being mocked, dismissed, expressing their struggle, doing the scutwork, being taken advantage of, et cetera ad nauseum. If it *really* were the best job, I bet a lot of dudes would want it. If it were *really* regarded as the most important job, we might have better (or any) family-leave policies, day-care, health insurance, flex-time, or, you know, pay.
(Just to be clear, I am NOT saying mom-ing isn’t rewarding in many ways–just that those ways are not usually material. Macaroni necklaces excluded.)
@Pilgrim Soul: Ah, good point re: material conditions. I should have thought of that, since I’m pretty empirically-minded myself! (Hence my perceived difficulty with abstraction, ha!)
@PhDork: More excellent examples — thank you!
For me, the conversation isn’t so much about whether or not wearing make-up is bad, but rather about how we can change the social value of certain words, qualities, or objects that are viewed as masculine or feminine. Within patriarchy, masculine objects are often valued as more positive or neutral, while feminine objects tend to be valued as negative or not neutral/aberrant. I think that any argument which states that an object is good or bad, right or wrong continues a line of thinking which puts masculine and feminine objects into a hierarchical structure in which masculinity is privileged. Saying make-up and high heels are “bad” ignores the point. The point is, they are related to female qualities, and since female is “bad,” thus the objects are. We can’t change this value system by NOT wearing make-up or by NOT acting in a way that is deemed feminine, any more than we can change our biology (with the exception of gender reassignment, which I’m leaving out of the argument for now.)
The task, then, is two-fold:
1. To break down gender stereotypes as assigned by patriarchy. To reveal that was is viewed as masculine/feminine are not necessarily masculine/feminine, but rather social constructs. To make clear that qualities, objects, or behaviors are not gender-specific, and to allow biological sex to be decoupled from gender.
2. To work toward a values system in which the value of feminine objects, behaviors, and qualities is equal to that of masculine objects, behaviors and qualities.
These goals are not likely to be achieved within our lifetime, if they can be achieved at all. However, I think the only way that we, as women, can achieve a more positive and valued position in society is to continue the efforts to stress that women and “feminine” things have value, are important, are to be respected, and are also to an extent socially constructed ideals that do not always (or even usually) bear out in reality.
Oh, I wanted to add: women aren’t the only ones who are confined by gender stereotypes or by a value systems which privileges “masculine” over “feminine.” When you consider how lack of socially-constructed masculinity in a man translates into teasing, bullying, lack of self-confidence, etc., I think it becomes clear that the hierarchical value system of masculinity over femininity hurts everyone — not just women.
Katie, I don’t think anyone was having a conversation about “how wearing make-up is bad.” Indeed, my rejection of that bad/good language was pretty much what this post was about.
And I don’t think anyone here will disagree with you about how Patriarchy Hurts Men, Too.
I will have to disagree that rejecting make-up (or whatever) will have no effect on our value system. It is precisely our choice to accept or reject something–individually, and more crucially, collectively–that results in changes to values. They don’t change themselves. They don’t exist outside of human behavior.
I might be coming in a bit late on this post, but I just wanted to let everyone know how much I appreciate all this. I’ve read almost all the comments and just find it to be such a learning process for me.
I know nothing about feminism; it’s never been a topic that has been discussed around me, and even in school (I’m a senior in college) I’ve only discussed the ‘glass’ ceiling that women hit and how women will, sadly, not make as much as men.
What I’m saying is that I’m a silent lurker here. I don’t know much about the topic, but I’m educating myself, and in due time I will finally comment! Thanks everyone!
I bought into The Patriarchy and my portfolio’s down 50% since August of 2007. The Patriarchy really does suck, as a social construct and as an investment product within an IRA.
Hi, by the way. I love the blog. I promise I’ll make serious comments sometimes. I just need humor to avoid dealing with reality. I cling to it.
I for one welcome lurkers, and jokers, and even midnight tokers. Hope you’re doing well, MG.
Katie, I totally agree with you that “feminine” qualities are devalued in patriarchy and that part of the struggle must be neutralizing those qualities, at the very least.
But makeup-wearing (among all the other ways in which women perform femininity) is a component of the social construct of gender. So while we may not dismantle patriarchy by forsaking that, and other performances of femininity, recognizing that they are, indeed performances rather than inherently “feminine” IS a necessary part of tackling patriarchy.
Reality being…? The devaluation of your Cock Portfolio?
Hi PhDork. I don’t toke at midnight; what do I look like, a peasant???
It’s good to read some intelligent discussion that doesn’t regress to mass admonishment. As time progresses, I shall gain confidence in my ability to mentally hang with you all.
Yes, SarahMC. My Cockfolio, if you will.
I have been thinking about this issue a lot recently. At my law school, I head three feminist clubs and yet I am easily one of the more “decorated” women on campus. I speak my mind on the patriarchy and sexual conformity in class, lead awareness campaigns on sexual consent and color my hair blond and my eyelashes black.
This is who I am. I aspire to be beautiful because of the positive feedback I receive, because I know I could have settled for just being nice to look at and strove for more and it feels powerful. Yes, it is not real power. My beauty will fade and so will the admiration. But then, I still have my mind, my voice, my ideas.
I can’t apologize for liking the trappings of the patriarchy because right now, they are working for me even as I rail against inequality.
I feel like the important thing is not necessarily that we, as women, DON’T wear makeup or heels, but that we’re questioning it. The fact that instead of putting on outfit x and makeup y every morning, I stop and ask myself, “What does this outfit say about me? Do I dress this way because society wants me to? Do I dress this way because it’s what society DOESN’T want me to?” says more than the actual clothes do.
Or, for another example, I went through a phase where I didn’t shave my legs for a few months because of the Patriarchy. After a while, I caved in and shaved. But I realized at that time that I was shaving my legs because I, personally, preferred the feeling of smooth legs, not because they’re considered “sexy” by some outside force.
Are these preferences ingrained into my head because I grew up in a patriarchal society? Maybe. But, as a feminist, I choose to question society. If I wind up agreeing with the general consensus, so be it.
Ah, so this is where the feminist Jezzies gather. Just found this site from a Feministing link the other day and recognized pretty much all the blogmistresses as commenters I like to read. Anyway…
P Soul, I understand your wariness of intersectionality, to a point… It is often used to try to blur lines and de-emphasize important points, but a lack of intersectional analysis is what I believe led to many Feminists of color abandoning or never joining the “mainstream” feminist movement and seeing it as a movement for middle class white women. An excellent example of this being how mainstream feminism is adamantly for access to abortion while many women of color have found abortion nearly forced upon them. Not the opposite side of the coin, the may still be pro-choice, but the common pro-choice platform barely takes into forced sterilization some minority women may encounter. And it leads also, for trans feminists (such as myself) to feel heartily included in some venues, and pretty violently rejected in others. I think there are definitely feminist issues that are experienced by most women and mostly only women, but so many oppressions are a tangled web between gender, sexuality, race, class, ability, religion etc… My feeling is what we all need to do is keep our minds open and our listening skills up so we can take into account the experiences of others as it is easy (as I’ve seen on many blogs) to react defensively and all of a sudden it’s just a back and forth recrimination-fest.
Anyway, I read many of the main feminist blogs and I’m such a fan of the writers here from seeing them on Jezebel that I’m excited to see how this blog develops.
Fantastic post! I’ve been reading since this blog started, but hadn’t yet felt moved to say anything. I think this post speaks to things discussed elsewhere in a way that cuts to the heart of things. We often get sidetracked in tangential discussions, rather than dealing with the issue at hand.
I myself do things that adhere to/perpetuate the current standard of “femininity” (e.g. shaving my armpits, wearing lipstick when I go out). And while I do most of them for “my own reasons”, I am always conscious of the fact that their foundation lies in the patriarchy. I would never have *thought* of shaving my armpits if female hairlessness wasn’t taught to me. I wouldn’t dislike the paleness of my lips au naturale if I hadn’t learned that color was “preferred”.
As you said, there is no separating ourselves from our patriarchical culture. My only hope is to try to teach and maintain neutrality with my nieces and nephews (and thoretical future offspring). Not that I think they will be exempt, but I’d like to instill the notion of questioning the “standards” as early as possible.
I LOVED this post. I tried to follow all the comments, but there are so many! It’s a sign of a fantastic, stimulating post.
After reading your thoughts PhDork, my friend was telling me about a sexist encounter she had- she only had time to tell me this:
While chatting with her former boss she was introduced to another business man who was looking for someone in HR to employ. His comment to her: “It’s so shitty, all 4 of my HR girls are on Mat leave- can you BELIEVE it??” She thought he was kidding. I guess from the rest of their conversation he really wasn’t as it degraded considerably from there.
While she was reporting this ‘chat’ with a colleague (female) of hers at her work- her colleague basically had this to say: “well I can see his point- taking maternity leave is not a good career move for women and hurts the company” Her colleague thought her point was a feminist perspective.
My response to my friend: “But WHY does your colleague feel that way? and WHY is mat leave a bad career move for women?”
I think often many women who haven’t read feminist books, readings or taken a women studies class have a watered down, misguided and backlash-influenced perspective of what feminism is. This article is EXACTLY how I feel and what I want to say to women who proclaim: “I had breast implants for ME and not for society”
Awesome.
Mireille: To clarify, I’m not wary of intersectionality qua concept; I am wary of the way it sometimes gets wielded. I am fine with it questioning the primacy of gender in all situations; I am not fine with being told that the presence of other power dynamics somehow negate gender altogether, which I hear a lot. A very facile example – the old Hillary-Obama internet wars, in which for some reason the obvious relevance of race in the national discussion of this candidate for many folks negated the notion that Hillary’s candidacy could have been affected by gender norms.
Also, welcome! Good to have you.
I love this site. It’s been fun for me to really explore these ideas and at the end of the day own up to what I do or some things I wasn’t even aware I do because of the patriarchy. I was never really interested in studying feminism to any degree. I grew up in a small town in the middle of nowhere with an older brother who taught me to hunt and fish and do ‘boy’ things. So naturally growing up I had more guys for friends. The only time I was ever inspired to wear make-up and heels was when other girls were going to be around, or the few occasions I felt like reminding them I was not one of the boys. Now, I think perhaps in spite of my profession, I’ve been trying to educate myself and really find insight and inspiration. So thanks ladies… I will be trying to find my inner Harpy as well
Pilgrim – An excellent example, and I think now I understand exactly what you mean.
[...] E sobre o quanto esta magreza é desproporcional. – Sobre salto alto, sobre cosméticos e sobre como todo mundo está no balaio do patriarcado (em inglês. Os três são partes de uma mesma discussão. Aliás, recomendo este blog inteiro [...]
[...] little things around the house with their technical wizardry and manly know-how. Like I said in my last post, we can justify anything, if we want [...]
[...] The Pursuit of Harpyness: There is no “Outside the Patriarchy.” – [...]
[...] and girls have different needs; the world treats them differently, since there’s no “outside the Patriarchy“. I’d teach my daughters how to assert themselves and insist on the same privileges [...]