“
Pain is an essential part of the grooming process, and that is not accidental. Plucking the eyebrows, shaving under the arms, wearing a girdle, learning to walk in high-heeled shoes, having one’s nose fixed, straightening or curling one’s hair —these things hurt. The pain, of course, teaches an important lesson: no price is too great, no process too repulsive, no operation too painful for the woman who would be beautiful. The tolerance of pain and the romanticization of that tolerance begins here, in preadolescence, in socialization, and serves to prepare women for lives of childbearing, self-abnegation, and husband-pleasing. The adolescent experience of the “pain of being a woman” casts the feminine psyche into a masochistic mold and forces the adolescent to conform to a self-image which bases itself on mutilation of the body, pain happily suffered, and restricted physical mobility. It creates the masochistic personalities generally found in adult women: subservient, materialistic (since all value is placed on the body and its ornamentation), intellectually restricted, creatively impoverished. It forces women to be a sex of lesser accomplishment, weaker, as underdeveloped as any backward nation. Indeed, the effects of that prescribed relationship between women and their bodies are so extreme, so deep, so extensive, that scarcely any area of human possibility is left untouched by it.”
— Andrea Dworkin, Woman Hating
bleatmop
Mystro
Dead Wild Roses 
16 comments
August 24, 2013 at 9:05 am
Jymn
I don’t know. Women I know today are stronger and smarter than men. They are not victims. Question: don’t women dress that way to impress each other? Do men really care?
LikeLike
August 24, 2013 at 9:47 am
The Arbourist
@Jymn
This claim requires evidence.
Women, as the subservient class in society, dress in a particular way to keep the dominant class from performing violence upon them. Look up the conception of Male Gaze and Objectification for more details.
LikeLike
August 24, 2013 at 12:15 pm
syrbal
I know men who engage in similarly painful pursuits in the quest for male beauty. And while certain things in the alleged quest for feminine beauty and acceptability, are sometimes dictated to please men; I honestly do believe that in both genders are motivated to appeal aesthetically to each other AND to themselves.
Ideally, this is a light-hearted thing, a sort of play-activity; but of course, we all know it is not that way more often than not. The quest to label every behavior definitively as one thing or the other ALL the time leads to inaccuracy in analysis of the said behavior.
While objectification does happen, I suggest it happens in BOTH directions and while, historically it has been more damaging to the female half of the human race; it is not the entire story. I find that people like Dworkin sometimes insist SO hard on the acceptance of an ideology that that in and of itself becomes oppressive.
If I would cast off male ideas of what my femininity is to be, why would I turn around and be told what it was to be by a female ideologue?
LikeLike
August 24, 2013 at 12:44 pm
The Arbourist
@Syrbal
So if the aesthetic is based on a the corrosive idea of a patriarchally approved gender binary which is harmful to both sexes, as long as both participate its okay?
Really?
If we could somehow disentangle the good stuff from what currently exists then I would be more in favour of what you propose, as of yet though I have not seen that happen and thus continue to reject the roles that patriarchy has deem ‘acceptable’ to us.
Again, so it goes both ways, does it make it any less wrong? Also, which part of the story is missing? Would that missing part somehow invalidate much of feminist theory as it stands today?
I would not know what femininity would look like without it being defined as the inferior position in society vis-a-vis men. We would be living in a much different time and place and that is all I can really venture to say with any sort of certainty.
LikeLike
August 24, 2013 at 1:12 pm
syrbal
First of all, that makes quite the assumption that ALL aesthetic considerations are patriarchally based. I reject that as something to be automatically accepted as totally true. Second, as I said, I am a bit tired of being TOLD by anyone how to decide to look/be/think/live….whether it is a patriarchal asshat or a feminist who likewise wants to define MY life. Either one telling me to toss my own choices in favor of their choices FOR me pisses me off to the max.
Some of “feminist theory” as it stands today, in my opinion, could use a bit of invalidation…the automatic assumption that is it right because a feminist said it as is dire a logical error as the former presumption that it is right because a man said it.
I DO know what femininity looks like to ME and I don’t define it as inferior when it is a choice I made for myself. If none of us can ever define ourselves outside of ANY ideological strait-jacket, then freedom is impossible for anyone…male OR female.
The constant either/or set up by rancorous argument over whether or not something is patriarchally based achieves little in the long run. A better paradigm is a HUMAN based ideal….something acknowledging the drives all share as human beings regardless of gender. To constantly make one gender or the other an unacceptable “other” achieves nothing. As soon as something stops examining actual desires, feelings, choices of the individual and substitutes an ideology? It becomes as tyrannous, in my opinion, as the worst the patriarchal history of the last five or six thousand years had to offer.
That is one of the reasons so many women, especially young ones, refuse to be called feminists….because they have seen what my generation endured fighting first men and the male established prerogatives and then fighting women who suddenly based the definition, first, of “feminist” and then of “feminine” on ideas that were at least partially purely reactive instead of proactive.
LikeLike
August 24, 2013 at 1:12 pm
jymn@novuscom.net
So, you’re saying women are victims?
LikeLike
August 24, 2013 at 1:26 pm
The Arbourist
@Syrbal
Getting rid of the gender binary would be a good start, as preconceived and societal sanctioned stereotypes are harmful to everyone involved.
I would venture that the amongst the reasons young women do not want to be called feminist is because patriarchal society covertly and overtly rewards those who would rally to and defend their subordinate role in society. The system rewards those who play the game.
Is there a revolution against an established order that does not necessarily have to be reactive in nature? When you are fighting social norms playing by the rules reinforces the system and Order that you are trying to change.
I just finished reading Dworkin’s book and I would have to say that I do not entirely agree with what she says, however many of the broad strokes she postulates do resonate with how things historically and otherwise have worked out.
LikeLike
August 24, 2013 at 1:29 pm
The Arbourist
@jymn
Errr no. I am saying that they are part of the subordinate class.
LikeLike
August 24, 2013 at 1:52 pm
jymn@novuscom.net
You give women too little credit.
LikeLike
August 24, 2013 at 1:57 pm
The Arbourist
@Jymn
As a class in society, their subordinate status has little to do with my esteem of women.
Just curious jymn, what are you looking for here? A serious discussion of what the post is about requires a certain prerequisite of knowledge about feminism and feminist theory. I’ll point you again in the direction of finally feminism 101 if you’d like the background necessary to make a relevant point.
LikeLike
August 24, 2013 at 6:20 pm
Moe
Arb – I agree with Dworkin (and you), but I also think this is an area where generational differences are starting to come into play . . . . for women of my age (read “old”. Really.), every word resonates. But it’s probably a little diffferent today – the differences having to do with why we do what we do. When I was young it was about ‘catching’ a husband and you were rejected if you didn’t play by those rules of appearance (which corresponded with behavior).
Back then WE were the merchandise. Now we’re the consumers – for our friends at Revlon et al, though, it’s all the same. Gotta move that product.
LikeLike
August 25, 2013 at 12:58 am
syrbal
I think the things Dworkin says need said….her analysis of how and why things are done is vital information. My issue is when her ideas become not descriptive data for free individuals to use at their choice, but prescriptive.
And yes, some young women may be indeed rewarded for “playing the game”, but my own observations tell me more of them dislike the “punishment” at the hands of their alleged sisters for not playing the new game to the prescribed rules.
Women being treated like misbehaving children by other women will not make a revolution succeed. What is needed is not a feminist revolution, but a humanist one….that recognizes and addresses the true needs of BOTH sexes, instead of arguing as if there is one bone and two dogs.
LikeLike
August 25, 2013 at 9:06 am
The Arbourist
@Srybal
That is the heart of the matter isn’t it. Well said. I’m really not sure where the answer lies other than to say that it is not along the way of much of 3rd wave feminism. I’m a huge fan of the focus on intersectionality, minorities and gender. What troubles me is the “this is how my feminism looks” individuated atomized stuff that may be temporally empowerful, but does nothing for advancing the status of women as a whole.
I know this betrays my second wave grounding, but I do believe that a set doctrine of some sort is necessary to mobilize and coordinate support. To be effective as a social movement and change the power structures of society a common set of ideas is necessary for any group that desires social change.
I’d like to think that is possible but despair when I see the amount of sanctioned inertia on behalf of dudes who have no interest in changing the status quo and moving toward a better future for all involved. Power is never shared freely – it must be wrest from those who would seek to monopolize it and maintain the status quo.
This would be an ideal end and I hope we get there soon.
LikeLike
August 25, 2013 at 11:14 am
syrbal
Well, my age and training betrays me, perhaps — I analyze and what I see is that the gender war is a dodge in a way. Not that discrimination isn’t real; but the real desperation of men stems from being financially pressured. The real stratification of our 21st century will be economic and financial…wealth will determine power. Most of the wealth IS in the hands of men, of course; this makes me think that the tumult of misery that will be required to overthrow plutocracy may at once be the best chance for people of both genders to lay a new foundation.
LikeLike
August 26, 2013 at 10:20 am
Moe
For all the continuing gender inequities out there, I believe correction is in our near future. Right now, there are more women than men in our medical and law schools.
I also believe that when we see women with power and in large numbers, that will mean enormous changes in the larger society – legal, civil, social.
The feminist movement of the ’70 feels like yesterday to me, just like Stonewall. Progress is speeding up in spite of the efforts of our dying patriarchy to stop it.
LikeLike
August 26, 2013 at 10:22 am
syrbal
I surely hope so!
LikeLike