A number of respected (and beautiful) feminist bloggers have responded to this diatribe today, and I'd like to add my name to the list. For those of you who don't really want to read the "article" (I don't blame you, it's long and awful), Feminist Anonymous has taken it upon her(?)self to declare that all physically attractive feminists are not actually feminists. She cites specifically The Apostate (for daring to wear a bikini top!), Jill at Feministe ("the original Fake Pretty Feminist"), Natalia Antanova (who is "pretty for a feminist"), and Renegade Evolution (a sex-worker and feminist whom everyone hates because "she pisses people off when she waves her tits in their face"). All of these women are well-spoken, thoughtful feminists who also happen to be blessed with convetional beauty. However, FemAnon failed to mention the other bajillion feminists who are also pretty and therefore not feminists.
We can't can't a break can we? First we're not pretty enough. Then we're too pretty and allowing ourselves to be objectified and calling it empowering. Then feminism is just a means of allowing "ugly women access to the mainstream" (Drug-Addled Gas Bag, Rush Limbaugh's infamous quote). Then, it turms out that those of us who either a)care about our appearances, b)are blessed with genes that allow us to be "conventionally attractive", and/or c)post pictures of ourselves so that readers can put a face with the words; we're not really feminists at all!!!
Wait... what? FemAnon's version of subverting the male gaze is to the Patriarchy what Satanism is to Christianity. She still acknowledges that all the important tenets of the Patriarchy stand and must be upheld, but in her twisted view of subverting it, she's merely turning all those things on their heads. She still worships the Patriarchy, just backwards.
Women, and feminists in particular are always too much or not enough of something. We're too pretty, not pretty enough. Too athletic, not athletic enough. Too smart, not smart enough. The list goes on and on, but the one thing that all of these criticisms have in common is that they are made from the point of view of the male gaze. By stating "UNTIL WOMEN ARE NO LONGER SEXED UP THEY WON'T BE SEEN AS HUMAN BEINGS BY MEN ." you acknowledge and promote that a woman's worth lies entirely in her looks and that in order to be taken seriously we have to be ugly or merely "presentable" (but only if you work in an office). As a feminist, you are not allowed to wear lipstick, tight jeans, have boobs, or own any makeup or high heels because by virtue of doing or having any of those things you are not adequately subverting the dominant paradigm.
No ifs, no ands, no butts either.
FemAnon's philosophy is:
If an ugly woman posts her picture on her blog, she is being transgressive. But a pretty conventional woman doing that is performing the exact opposite action. If you're going to show off your looks to gain approval from men don't call yourself a feminist.
This is me. I like to think that I'm pretty. I put a lot of effort into my physical appearance, but contrary to what some people might think, I'm not doing it for the benefit of the male gaze. While my boyfriend appreciates my red hair, I've had it for longer than I've known him and I keep it because I like what it says about me: I'm loud, confrontational, powerful, and sexy.
It's been insisted in the past that the reason I look the way I do is because I want to put on make-up and pretty shoes and allow myself to be objectified, then call it empowerment (by someone whose Feminist library consists of one book and only one book, you guessed it Female Chauvinist Pigs -- a fine work, but one's entire feminist philosophy cannot come from derriding other women who want to be pretty). I was told that because I do that, I'm not really a feminist, but rather someone who wants to look pretty but also believes in equal pay for equal work -- you know, cause since I spend time on my appearance, I'm automatically doing it because men like it and my entire worth and personhood is based on what I look like. I've also been accused of beign a bad feminist because I wear and sell Mary Kay products, but excuse me, if you've ever read anything about Mary Kay Ash , it is undeniable that she was a feminist. (The whole reason she started Mary Kay Cosmetics is beause she wanted women to have an opportunity to define themselves financially. You don't get much more feminist than that! Moreover, Mary Kay Independent Beauty Consultants are strong, beautiful women who believe that they can support themselves and their families and bring some sunshine into the lives of other women in doing so. I just want to give a shout out to all my MK gals! You ROCK!)
People like to put each other into boxes. We're either A or B, and there is no C. This kind of binary viewpoint is what makes sexism, racism, ableism, sizeism, and any other anti-person-ism you can think of so powerful. You are either beautiful or a feminist. You are either successful or a woman. You are either polite or black. You are either smart or in a wheel chair. You're either in control of yourself or overweight. False dictomies like these are created and enforced and prejudices are maintained. And when people try to insist, for instance, that there are no pretty feminists the only thing being accomplished is the continued reinforcement of this prejudice.
For your information, FemAnon, and anyone who agrees with her, a woman's worth is not entirely in her appearance. In fact, most people have several layers to themselves that include their appearance, personality, intelligence, work eithic, personal honor and integrity, and a number of other things by which they define themselves . I am a feminist because I seek to define myself as feminine, successful, strong, and beautiful and any attempt to subvert my definition of myself by redefining me according to the male gaze is anti-feminist. Period.
Good day to you, FemAnon. Don't forget your hat.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: A note on conventional beauty and feminism (and assholes).
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/8167
Weekly Feministing Newsletter
Feministing RSS Feed
Her article was too disgusting for words. Your post made everything better. :D Thanks for posting. :D
Jesus, that is a serious hate-tank over there!
Her comments remind me of a lot of the talk of how "real feminists don't fuck men", etc.
She really comes off as either a truly mean spirited person or someone who should not have gone off their meds.
I haven't read the article yet (I'm about to) but I'm happy to read what another conventially attractive feminist has to say about defining herself. Very nicely put.
I haven't read the article, and I'm not sure I want to. Is FemAnon as derisive of men who care about their appearance? Men's beauty products (oops, sorry, GROOMING products) are a pretty big industry these days. I suppose all those guys with Crew in their hair are "just gay"? Or maybe it's okay for men to be attractive because...because I don't know why. (I tried to think of something clever and failed)
Wow
I liked my post on conventional beauty better, I think I'll bring it here!
I co-sign what MaggieF and Rachel you were soooo on point.
"Feminist Anonymous has taken it upon her(?)self to declare that all physically attractive feminists are not actually feminists."
That's a big steaming load. Also immediately reminds me of claims that homemakers and SAHMs (even if temporary) are not feminists.
If she limited herself to this,
"If you're going to show off your looks to gain approval from men don't call yourself a feminist."
and her IF holds true, I'd be willing to understand why she is upset, and disagree.
I have a dumb question: are women like Feminist Anonymous "really" feminists? I would hate to believe that acceptance of views like that, lead even feminists to have views like this:
"Hey, if that's feminism, you people can have it."
Because if even feminists can be driven away by e.g. feelings of alienation as a person of color for being ignored or disrespected, one can understand why the general public, and privileged men like lawmakers, have no desire to even listen to feminist arguments if they feel threatened. I believe John McCain is going to die of old age, and completely unchanged. Reading what is written about him online will not help.
I thought this was a great response.
Also, the thing about her hating on The Apostate's bikini top... how in the hell did she construe that as NOT being subversive? By telling her to cover up, she's illustrating exactly what that picture is meant to combat: the assumption that the female body can only be viewed in a sexual way, and only by men.
FemAnon, help yourself to some context please.
"If an ugly woman posts her picture on her blog, she is being transgressive. But a pretty conventional woman doing that is performing the exact opposite action. If you're going to show off your looks to gain approval from men don't call yourself a feminist."
I'm curious, who gets to determine which women are ugly and which are pretty? Does FemAnon arbitrate the appropriate beauty standards for feminists, who does she just rely on conventional standards, which you would think/hope she would dismiss?
Not to mention this brings up much larger sexual issues. If a woman is attractive, is she allowed to have any sort of sex life, given that current inequalities prevent her from avoiding potential stereotyping and sexism, even in a 100 percent feminist relationship? Do "attractive" women have to completely give up their sexuality because someone else might co opt it?
Finally, no matter how conventionally attractive someone is, someone on the internet will always be willing to call them ugly, especially if they happen to be female. Claiming to be a feminist and then posting a picture of yourself immediately puts you at risk of being degraded and insulted by trolls, no matter how pretty you are. I never use pictures of myself in avatars or on blogs, even though I'm not ugly, because it seems almost inevitable that I'll get negative derision or "positive" harassment.
Great response Rachel and I agree with you. That article pissed me off so much but it's not the first time I've heard it said that women have to be unattractive in order to be feminists , it reminds me of feminists who think that women who enjoy sex with men aren't proper feminists.
Kat, I think FA describes what it is to be a "pretty" feminist when she says:
"I've never met a real feminist who was pretty. I have met women who were naturally conventionally good-looking and were feminists, but they didn't try to accentuate their looks too much or play dress-up."
She seems to think that being "pretty" directly corresponds to actively trying to appear attractive and sexy. In FA's world, you can be "conventionally good-looking" and still be a feminist, but slap on some lipstick and your card gets put through the shredder. Which is idiotic (for the reasons Rachel stated) I completely agree with you that "pretty" is not a black-and-white issue. My boyfriend disagree all the time about the attractiveness of people; it all comes down to preference. If she doesn't understand that, it is just... incomprehensible.
And I just have to give you major kudos for this:
"no matter how conventionally attractive someone is, someone on the internet will always be willing to call them ugly, especially if they happen to be female."
That FA doesn't recognize that makes her argument all the weaker. FA's argument more resembles misogyny than any feminism I've ever heard, that her feminism is about labeling and punishing women rather than elevating us. I'm grateful to people like Rachel who are able to articulate a reasoned and thoughtful response to this tripe.
Is there any sort of background on the players that I should know? Has FemAnon spoken out on these subjects before? She looks like she only has a few posts on her blog. Who are some of the other bloggers she calls out? I'm not very familiar with many of them.
I'm surprised she even identified as a feminist; her black/white way of thinking, and her eagerness to label other women as "whores" doesn't seem particularly feminist to me, even using a pretty broad definition.
You know, Diablo Cody, who I love, said that when she was a stripper, she was told she was too ugly to be a stripper.
And when she became a successful screenwriter, it was because she leveraged her looks to get people to make her movie.
Her response--wtf?
Some men treat me like they think I am beautiful (including my husband.) Many do not.
See, that's the whole problem with the male gaze, femanon. It shouldn't be about them. It should be about us.