In this article from what another commenter here termed the “Daily Hate Mail”, Anna Pasternak continues the long-standing tradition of shaming women who don’t conform to the traditional model of Western womanhood. I know that similar articles have been covered here before, but the definition of femininity that Pasternak promotes here is so constraining and, for most of us, erroneous, that I couldn’t resist the opportunity to pick it apart.
She opens her article by recounting a couple of her dating experiences with men who are clearly insecure when faced with a woman who is successful in her career. A doctor tells her that she is “not in touch with her femininity” because she doesn’t “flirt or wear much make-up”, and a “successful, high-profile entrepreneur” tells her that she is “so in control [that it’s] scary”. Instead of pointing out the rather obvious fact that these men are trying to hide their own insecurity with their moralizing, Pasternak takes their comments to heart and embarks on a quest to embrace her “core femininity” (which translates here as retrograde ideas about what it means to be feminine).
Firstly, Pasternak and a friend deem self-sufficiency as an unfeminine trait, blaming even such seemingly harmless tasks as making their own travel plans and setting up Christmas trees for their feelings of unease. I booked a plane ticket today, and I don’t feel any more or less feminine now for doing so. By declaring that making decisions for herself and her children on her own is “unfeminine”, she promotes the popular anti-feminist notion of the proper woman being childlike, which seeks to make adult women constantly and wholly dependent on men. Even in 2008, helplessness and subservience are still being promoted as facets of “proper” femininity.
Also, she tries to give her readers beauty advice but contradicts herself so much that the piece becomes incoherent. Her wardrobe consultant, Kira Jolliffe, gives her some actually good advice, like wearing clothes that make you feel attractive whenever possible as opposed to just for special occasions. However, she falls into the double bind of dressing “femininely” (which she never really defines) without any visible effort.
Jolliffe’s other concrete piece of advice is for women to use “really expensive body cream” in order to get in touch with their bodies. Personally, I prefer other, less costly methods of getting in touch with my body, like jogging, dancing around my living room in my underwear, and masturbating. Sure, if expensive body cream is your thing, I won’t deny you the pleasure. However, I can’t help but see the explicit suggestion of an “expensive” beauty product as the tool for establishing a positive connection with one’s body as suggesting a dependence on the product (along with the assumption that the readers can afford said body cream). She also recounts a conversation with a cosmetic surgeon about the supposed need for women to “get in touch with their soft side” that results in Pasternak receiving Botox injections.
Her conclusion parrots the words of many an anxious anti-feminist that women must be passive, compliant, and loathe to compete with men, Under the guise of self-actualization, Pasternak promotes a vision of what it means to be female that denies the needs and goals of real women and cultivates an unhealthy dependence on men and products (notwithstanding the fact that the money earned from her career is necessary to procure the products she deems necessary to attract the men upon which to depend). Jolliffe tells her that “femininity is about authenticity”, but Pasternak is arguing here that all of us who are not happily passive, submissive, and domestic women need to deny our true selves and conform to that definition of femaleness.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Another Article that Shames Women into Accepting Traditional Gender Norms.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/8706
Weekly Feministing Newsletter
Feministing RSS Feed
Oh, God, people fucking suck. I can't believe people actually believe this stuff.
So in control it's scary? Someone is a bit insecure.
AAAAAAAAAAAAGHHHHHH!
What a shitty article.
Quote:
"Working full-time, making every decision, paying every bill, driving myself everywhere, booking tickets for holidays, lugging the Christmas tree in - it's all completely de-feminising."
De-feminising? I can do all of those things and not feel de-feminised. And what does it mean to be de-feminised, anyway? If you are a single, working mother, it might be EXHAUSTING, and tough, and stressful to have to do everything yourself, but not de-feminising.
And maybe that's PART of the problem--maybe Pasternak is confusing her stress and exhaustion with her lack of femininity. What she needs is what ANY HUMAN, male or female, needs when they are working so hard that they have lost touch with THEMSELVES (not necessarily their femininity--and what IS femininity, anyway?????)
But maybe she needs a little TLC for herself--a vacation on a tropical island? A day to lay in bed? A great meal? Sex? Some support from friends and family? A maid? (WAY better in my book than Botox or expensive facial cream).
Instead she tries to improve her wardrobe, with advice that is so confusing my eyes were crossing, then get some Botox and some cream, and go on a date and attempt to be "softer" and "more feminine." PUKE. Just sounds like more stress to me.
Hmmm...and don't you just love the pic of the anorexic model next to the article?
Oh god does the daily hate mail never end?
What gets me is, why is all this onus on 'dating failures' focused on women? what about men? Why do women always have to change?
grrr
What I find particularly disturbing about the article is the doctor who cites Russia as a bastion of perfect femininity, when we have been hearing stories like this one for almost 10 years now: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92621334
No no, Idanceinmysleep, women never masturbate! We're far too delicate and genteel for such dirty activities. We need a man around to get our rocks off-- maybe, perhaps, if we're lucky, this time, before he gets his and falls asleep.
But shit, it IS cheaper than body lotions. :)