Monday, February 1, 2010

Growing Up Feminine -- 20 Years Later

I read all of chapter 2, waiting for her to get to the really good stuff. Then I realized that the chapter was over. Oops. My initial reaction, which I wrote in the margins at the end said, "This chapter is dated, re: lipstick feminism". The point has been made by several other ladies here that the research and information in this book is dated, so I don't think I have to prove myself on that claim. However, I'd like to mention the one part of the chapter that I thought was really interesting, before I talk about what I *wish* had been in this chapter. What I wish she said about being feminine in 2010.

In talking of Naomi Wolf, author of The Beauty Myth: How Images of Beauty are Used Against Women, E F-G touches on what I felt to be one of the only points from this chapter that still feels like it makes sense in light of the experience of feminism and femininity that I had growing up, and more importantly, that my generation has had since 1996 (when I was in 6th grade and this book came out).

"Wolf echoes the complaints of generations of feminists who, from Mary Wollstonecraft to the present, has criticized the ways that feminine fashion keeps women in thrall to men. Simone deBeauvoir, in The Second Sex, especially deplored women's disadvantage in a culture in which they must always look young and beautiful, while men could grow old in the security that the character and power etched on their faces would only enhance their appeal to the opposite sex." (39)

I read that and thought, yeah! Look at drastic increase in things like botox and plastic surgery, or just that often the mothers of teenagers look like teenagers themselves. I wish this chapter had explored some of the implications of what's called "lipstick feminism" or "sex and the city feminism" for lack of a better term. It's this kind of "feminism" which I think was trying to revive the ideals of feminism, but make them more palatable to women who like to shop, wear makeup, and wouldn't ever dream of going braless outside of their house.

The tagline is all about "empowerment". It's supposed to be empowering to be both sexually aggressive and disdainful of men at the same time. I'm not entirely sure who it is supposed to be empowering though. I say that because I used to live that. I bought into this idea of feminism which suggests that real "freedom" is the ability to sleep with anyone you'd like, at any time, for any reason, regardless of whether or not you even know or care about the man. Something I heard in college that I really internalized for many years was this: "Men should be like Kleenex. Soft, strong, and disposable." Your girlfriends are your loves, the ones who know your heart; men are just people you have sex with." How many women of my generation have taken this to heart?

While the pendulum has swung from "let's all wear flannel and drive fork-lifts and who needs a man" feminism to "let's all walk around half-naked and use men for sex while wearing skirts and heels" feminism, I don't think that the latter is an improvement over the former.

What I'd love to see is a feminism, and a femininity that allows women to be women. Who sometimes like to wear dresses or skirts, or who always love them, or who can't stand them. Who sometimes wear makeup, or always wear makeup, or hate to wear makeup. Who understand that there are more important things in life than lipstick, and 500$ handbags, and putting yourself first. But who also understand that there is something irreplaceable about the feel of a summer sundress and that "just came from the salon" sensation.

In essence, what I'm advocating for is a type of religious feminism. One that helps women to see that their value and dignity as women comes not from their waist size, or hair color, or shoe style, but from being made in the image of God, as a woman. That's true femininity. Everything else, all of the makeup, and dresses, and all of it, is just icing on the cake. Pretty icing. Fun icing. Icing that is an avenue for bonding among women. But icing just the same.

That's what I wish this chapter had been about.

4 comments:

  1. I agree that this chapter was fairly disappointing. I got to the end and wondered exactly what point she was trying to make. As I flipped through the pages again trying to figure it out, I came to the same conclusion as you, Sarah - what she needs to advocate here is New Feminism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_feminism for those who are unfamiliar with the term). Of course, I don't think that term was even around when she wrote this...

    These are the two quotes which made me recall New Feminism:

    "Feminism does not like differences between women and men - at least not those which disadvantage women." (36)

    "... if the "natural" desire to look attractive is so important as to justify differences between women and men, then the claims to absolute equality fail." (38)

    I think the New Feminist understanding that men and women are equal and yet different is the key to tempering the feminist claims to absolute equality, which EFG points out can at times be quite hypocritical.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I was also greatly disappointed in this chapter. She spent so much of it re-capping an episode of Geraldo (is he even still on television?) and never really got around to any kind of a point.

    A few thoughts...
    1) My mother would never have let me out of the house if any part of my undergarments were showing.
    2) I have always been rather modest and would probably have been embarassed as a teenager (which I was in the 90s) to be seen with a bra strap showing.
    3) I never felt the need to change clothes or apply extra makeup once I got to school. Maybe I was comfortable with who I was or maybe I just had a mature enough relationship with my parents to know and understand what was acceptable dress and why. Trust me, I rebelled plenty as a teenager, but never about clothing.

    Oh, and since the chapter was so wholly un-enlightening, I think it would have been far more entertaining if she had touched on shoulder pads. The bulky shoulderpads of yester-year intended to make us ladies appear more broad-shouldered and hence equally as powerful in the world as our broad-shouldered male counterparts. Aren't we glad they're no longer in fashion? =)

    ReplyDelete
  3. I too felt entirely unenthused about this chapter. I sat down this weekend to go over my notes and underlining on it, and found that I didn't really have much to say. I had begun the chapter excited to discuss, as you and Elizabeth echoed, something akin to New Feminism, but was sorely disappointed. I found the trite notions that all of our fashion is 1. a response to our mothers or a reaction to their criticism (what?); or 2. an attempt to enthrall/gain power over men abolutely ridiculous. Why such a focus on power? Why such a silly chapter about how shopping brings women together? Sarah, I love your take on femininity--one that simply allows women to be celebrated because they were made in the image of God. I've been thinking a lot about how being a Godly woman brings glory to Him. He doesn't care if I wear a dress and heels, have a slim figure, etc. The focus for women should not be so formed by their outward appearance, but by their inner morality.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Echo Maggie May...I couldn't say anything more about it than Sarah did...

    ReplyDelete