“Unless we accept that women are biologically programmed to engage in beauty practices, then they need to be understood as cultural practices that are required of women. All practices required of one sex class rather than the other should be examined for their political role in maintaining male dominance. ”
-From Beauty and Misogyny:Harmful Cultural Practices in the West by Sheila Jeffreys. (p. 30)
Reading this text now… by golly there are so many ideas that are clarified; and this only in the first two chapters.
bleatmop
Mystro
Dead Wild Roses 
11 comments
December 8, 2012 at 11:41 am
cafeaulait13
Now I have to read this book too!
LikeLike
December 8, 2012 at 11:53 am
The Arbourist
@cafeaualait13
My reading of the text is coming along, I’ve just embarked on chapter 3 – Transfemininiy. Interesting stuff. As I read B&M I am experiencing what happens when I read Chomsky or Zinn: outrage, sadness and indignation all rolled into one tight ball of edification.
The book is available online if you want to preview the pdf, I do prefer the print edition though. Not a big fan of extended reading of text on a monitor.
LikeLike
December 8, 2012 at 11:55 am
cafeaulait13
Free Feminist literature! Thanks!
Now I have to cry and rant all at the same time.
LikeLike
December 8, 2012 at 12:56 pm
Reneta Scian
A concept very much intertwined and related to the topic you are reading now, for reading later is ‘Femmephobia’ – disparaging or hostile behavior towards femmes (women who present femme), and femininity. Femme as a gender expression is valid, but deeply intertwined with cultural issues in the way in which women are treated. The people over at skepchick.com discuss this at length when you’re ready to read into it, and such.
LikeLike
December 8, 2012 at 4:16 pm
The Arbourist
Being female is the ticket to the oppression that Jeffreys is discussing.
The disdain for femininity is justifiable as playing the accepted role in the patriarchy adds to the strength of said system.
LikeLike
December 9, 2012 at 10:39 am
Reneta Scian
Certainly, disdain for supporting the concepts within gender constructs as defined by the patriarchy yes. The problem I am referring to isn’t femininity or masculinity… The problem is codified gender associations, and the denigration or elevation of people by which “codified traits” they exhibit, and the belief that there is any sort of dichotomy of such traits. Within it is the expressed idea that they are, and should be “mutually exclusive” traits (proper femininity and masculinity) which therefore is the “noose” of patriarchal gender roles. Also the “femme” I am referring two is mostly in reference to the GLBT community.
Not all constructed traits act towards this end and people should be free to express themselves as they like without being marginalized for it, assuming that such act aren’t marginalizing themselves. Femmephobia isn’t a product of the “deconstruction of gender” it’s bigotry and bias towards traits codified culturally as feminine and those possessing them, whether there is no actual link between the two or not. I possess traits of both genders if you culturally codify them. I have long hair, and on some infrequent occasions I wear a skirt, or dress. I am generally shy, reserved, but I am not a doormat. I stand up for myself, and I for the rights of all women, and believe in forging gender equality.
There is nothing inherently feminine about many of my traits that other people would codify as such, nor anything inherently masculine about them. But the problem with femmephobia, about being progressive. Telling anyone that they may not, can not, and should not possess traits that are codified as feminine though is asinine. That is what femmephobia is. Femme, is also a term generally codified by the lesbian community to represent a specific mode of expression. This expression, in at far as I have seen it isn’t patriarchal femininity, but something else entirely. Do you see what I mean? Saying you are a woman and you are shy is a non-issue. Saying you are shy because you are a woman, is an issue.
http://www.tressugar.com/What-Femmephobia-22725637
http://skepchick.org/2011/12/guyliner-murses-bromance-and-femmephobia/
http://johanna-hypatia.livejournal.com/153753.html?nojs=1
There are other articles on this subject by people with more experience articulating them than me, but these were a few I read myself.
LikeLike
December 9, 2012 at 1:01 pm
The Arbourist
@Reneta
That is how Patriarchy works. The categories are Man and not man. Thus, people who are considered the norm, men and everyone else.
I’m unsure that this distinction makes much of a difference in the final analysis. There are desirable qualities that are valued in society and those that are not. The genesis of said traits does not embody a different reaction except when they go against the norm.
There is nothing about any particular trait that is masculine or feminine until it is exposed to the soup of cultural expectations and norms. It is in society we assign preferred traits to people based on their sex, thus the dichotomy, thus the imbalance etc.
I agree, but the opprobrium does not come from feminists but rather the structure of society itself. Possessing feminine traits puts one at a disadvantage in society, it is the way the game is structured.
I think so. I do not see where we disagree, thus your defense of the concept stands as it makes sense through the lens of feminist analysis.
LikeLike
December 9, 2012 at 9:28 pm
Reneta Scian
@Arbourist – I see, that makes more sense now. I guess in some degree I didn’t understand you from that comment, and it seemed a little vague towards that end.
How similar is that to what Jeffreys writing discusses? It’s been a little while since I read any of that stuff, and I don’t remember it terribly well and my initial impressions were quite bad, thus I kind of avoid reading them. I don’t have good memory these days. Considering her stance on some aspects of feminism, some of my previous reads I didn’t think she went that deeply into it from that angle, but I don’t know for sure.
A lot of the issue I am speaking of specifically happens within queer spaces, especially in lesbian spaces. Obviously, misogyny is everywhere, but this is a GLBT community specific variant of it. No doubt from internalized oppression against women, and the oppressive nature of classical female roles, and the way femininity is seen as derogatory. They are critical and condescending to femmes because of perceived femininity and often aren’t patient or willing to evaluate that further, and because of that same phenomenon are also critical of trans women. Some feminists are guilty of this, and it emerges quite frequently because of the way culturally femininity (or things falling under those labels) are coded. Femmes (Lesbians who dress and embrace a modified feminine way) get the brunt of it. But I have also been on the receiving end of it as well, for some of the reasons I mentioned. I have a broad sense of style, and some of the clothing I like is also coded female. But I wear what I like, within reason (meaning I dress conservatively). Generally though, most days I don’t have to worry about it.
Thank you for clarifying that though, the statement just made me a little “itchy”.
.
LikeLike
December 10, 2012 at 12:43 pm
bob
As a side note, I love fashion and movies, and over the years have noticed a trend of sorts.
Forum posters (and gamers, I played WoW for a while) seem to have an obsession with ultra-femininity.
Angelina Jolie’s jaw is too square, she is called “Mangelina”
Jennifer Aniston isn’t a 10, she is called “Maniston”
#1 supermodel, Gisele Bundchen, is often accused of ‘looking like a man’
When wowfaces.com launched, the most popular ‘hottie’ on my server looked like a (and sorry, can’t think of a better word) slutty anime character (she was playing it up, could see her bra and everything).
And from the gaming forums I have read, the guys seem to have an obsession with either the ultra-fem (anime like girls, miranda kerr, other virginal’ innocent’ porno stars) and the ultra ultra latex suck your cock in a split second type…
————-
I really find the emphaiss on ‘ultra-feminine’ to be irritating. Its like, its not enough to be beautiful, no, a woman has to look like fucking Bambi to be considered attractive!
LikeLike
December 12, 2012 at 8:31 am
The Arbourist
@bob
I propose that attractive = submissively fuckable. And thus the ultra-femme is desirable since awkward wow dudebros demand attention for the E-peen and are unlikely to get it from women who are not so highly trained in patriarchal norms.
LikeLike
December 12, 2012 at 10:32 pm
bj
Yep! There was one guy who used to hassle me constantly about ‘looking like a man’ back in the day. Turns out he was from Pakistan, and was sexually frustrated in the *extreme*.
I wish I had the knowledge back then about Pakistani sexism that I do now – I would not have taken his comments so seriously and fucking hated myself and how I looked.
LikeLike