MY NAME IS HAPPY AND I AM A FUN FEMINIST

Actually, despite the title of this post, I am not writing to confess to a giddy love of lip gloss or to admit to pandering in any way to expectations of female subservience or to equate lip gloss with female subservience.  But I have been writing and re-writing a post on femi-ness ever since I wrote a defense of Twisty's exhortations to examine one's own behavior in this area.  Now that femi-ness has become a renewed topic in the femosphere, it seems like a good time to publish this.   

Having recognized that feminist self-analysis is appropriate in this area, I can think of three categories to think about:

(1) Am I conveying an image of frivolity, helplessness, and vapidity? And if so, by whose standards, and does it matter? 

Condemning individual choices in isolation (like wearing high heels) is overly simplistic and unfair to women.  Nonetheless, I think it is possible to cross a line where one is doing oneself, and perhaps other women, a disservice by playing into expectations of the passive-sexbot/little girl persona that many people associate with "femininity."  Paris Hilton comes to mind.  Everything about her persona screams feminine powerlessness (from the flimsy delicate materials she wears to the stilettos to the teeny handbags to the relentless and expressionless posing to the little-girl voice).  I am referring, by the way, to Paris's public persona (for which she is ironically earning big bucks and amassing a large degree of personal power).  It is crucial to note that I am not referring to the three-dimensional human being behind that persona.

On the other hand, why should other people's judgment of whether our femininity conveys powerlessness or stupidity carry the day?  There does seem to be a strain in our culture that associates any degree of female beauty with being merely decorative.  The beautiful woman in the third-row of your history class couldn't possibly be extremely bright as well as beautiful, could she?  The woman with the huge rack couldn't possibly have anything important about her besides her chest, right? 

So while there is part of me that wants to frown at Paris Hilton, there is also part of me that cheers when a woman who is beautiful in a conventional (but strong) way is also a serious contender to become President of France.  I also appreciate the work of feminists like the bloggers at Feministing who, as I wrote previously, make the important point that "women can and should be able to have and enjoy their sexuality without  being reduced to or wholly defined by it -- just as men do."   

How does this line of thinking affect my choices? Well, today I am wearing a lime-green, boiled-wool, cropped jacket; a black skirt that goes to my ankles with a slit in the back that goes about half-way up my calves; nylons, three inch black chunk heels with gigantic silver buckles; a gold bead neckace that hangs to the top of my collar bone; gold knot earrings; a plain gold wedding ring, a stainless steel square watch with a maroon strap; some light make-up (under-eye concealer, blush, maroon lipstick, and some mascara); and straight shoulder length hair without bangs. This is pretty typical of how I dress for work.  I am at peace with this.  I have no sense whatsoever that my make-up or my nylons or my heels, while conventional, diminish me in any way or play into outdated gender roles.  I just don't.  I don't think my attire is especially feminist but I also don't think it is especially contrary to feminism.   

(2) Am I doing a disservice to myself by spending too much time, money, and angst on achieving a feminine look?   

Hmmm . . . this one is a little trickier for me. On a daily basis, I can easily get ready in less than 30 minutes, including time to shower, shave my legs, and apply make-up.  Heck, I could do it 20 minutes if I didn't keep stopping to hug my dog while getting ready in the morning.  I also only shop for clothes twice a year. 

On the other hand, I spend money on make-up and anti-wrinkle creams.  I also spend money and time on the occasional wax and on dye-ing my hair every 12 weeks.  There is also no doubt that I seem to putting more time and money into maintaining a certain personal appearance than when I was younger, and more time and money into my apperance than my husband. But this is hardly the focus of my life or a symbol of some underlying neurosis.

Now,  there have been times in my life, mainly in my teens and early twenties, when I have been neurotic about my weight or overly concerned with my appearance.  This was largely in response to so many other people focusing on how I looked when I was that age, an experience that I think is common to younger women.  The irony for a lot of women is that people keep making a big deal about how you look, but then if you become concerned about how you look (in response to these reactions), you are considered a typical representative of the frivolity and vanity of your sex. 

Fortunately, a feminist consciousness can lift a person out of that self-critical self-absorption by providing a sense of perspective that other people's opinions of how you look or should look are not the be-all and end-all.

(3) Am I making life tougher for other women by upholding conventional beauty standards that are expensive and perhaps psychologically painful?

By wearing make-up and heels, am I  putting more pressure somehow on women who would rather not wear these things? Hmmm . . . again maybe I'm wrong, but I tend to think not.  It may be different in other parts of the country and in other circles, but there are plenty of professional women where I live who aren't particularly feminine in a conventional sense. You can be kind of butch here and still be professionally accepted.  I know plenty of women who wear pantsuits, flats, short hair, no make-up, no jewelry, or variations thereof.  These women seem to carry it off and manage to look both elegant and professional without playing into conventional standards of femininity.  A lot of it seems to me to be a matter of individual choice and style.  I honestly think there are parts of the world, including my little corner of it, where women truly do have options about how anrodgynous or feminine they want to be.  Of course, since I opt towards the femme-y side, I have no way of knowing whether my less femme-y colleagues are taking crap for their appearance without my being aware of it.

Another issue is that traditional standards of femininity may be tough for many women to meld with a corporate look. For example, I bet it would be a lot more challenging to meet conventional standards for someone who is not white, or someone who has big boobs, to give just a couple of examples.  Indeed, for all of us women, it is more of a fine line to walk than just throwing on a standard coat-and-tie uniform like the guys and thus managing to convey an aura of power that is consistent with our sexuality without even thinking about it. 

I am not sure what individual women can do about that.  Does addressing this problem mean casting off the personal style I have developed and eschewing nylons and make-up going forward?

I think more important than how I choose to dress though is how I choose to treat other women.  Do I treat the new lawyer with the massive breast implants and the tight sweaters as seriously as my other colleagues?  Do I avoid being seen with the androgynous looking lawyer down the hall? Do I make unwarranted assumptions about these people based on how they look?  I hope that all the answers to these questions are "no."  But to me, I think that's where the rubber meets the road, far more than whether I toss on some lipstick in the morning. 

FINAL NOTE:  I have struggled with this post, but am putting it up mainly because it seems timely and I am tired of tinkering with it. My thoughts are very much in flux on this, however.

Comments

[Mermade]

I began wearing makeup at the age of 12. Ironically, my aunt, who is a self-described feminist but also worked at Clinique for many years, was the one who formally introduced me to the world of makeup. While I wish that she would have waited to give me makeup until later, I feel very blessed than I have a woman in my life who balances her feminist believes with her love of makeup quite well. However, I regret to say that I am addicted to the stuff. I feel "less attractive" when I leave home without it, which is entirely un-feminist (and un-Christian) of me. I think caring about your appearance in no way indicates a woman is "less feminist" than other. However, it is how you see yourself without it that matters. As of now, I am struggling with seeing myself as beautiful without the foundation, concealer and lipgloss.

[Elizabeth]

Just wondering if you purposely mentioned shaving your legs and if that is something you have thought about - in high school it was a big deal for me to stop shaving my legs and I got called "forest legs" and people made other mean comments. I don't know where they got forest legs by the way. Anyway, I know to shave or not to shave is a big deal for a lot of feminists/women. For me it was one way to say, even though I probably feel like it looks better with shaved legs and armpits, that is an oppresive culture telling me that (the same way they tell me to be skinny, wear make-up, etc) and I'm not going to do it. I'm used to it by now but even in college it was a struggle...

I never quite understood the deal with the shaving, but then I've always had a peculiar aversion to body hair. On men as well, which is probably why I gravitate towards asians or swimmers ;)
-CT

Actually, after thinking about this for a moment (thoughtful post btw, Happy) I don't personally feel you should worry too much if you choose to make an effort to look nice, be that via exercise, make-up, tailored clothing or what have you. For better or for worse, people respond to appearances...anyone who has worked in sales or probably anything dealing with face to face interactions can tell you this, first impressions especially. I think it's human nature to respond more positively to an attactive person. I was a bit of an ugly duckling when I was younger, but as I've gotten older and my appearance has changed I have noticed the difference in how people respond to me up front - both men and women. Attitude has a lot to do with it, but someone who is well turned out and has a healthy or youthful appearance is in most cases going to get a more positive initial reception then someone who looks like they do not take care of themselves, or (and I agree it's kind of unfair) someone who is ugly. That's an advantage if used properly. Like I said, maybe not fair or anything, but I think that's just reality. Might as well roll with it.
-CT

[mythago]

I just don't.

It doesn't help to handwave and decide 'well, if I like it, I'm not going mess it up with feminist analysis'.

[Sydney]

I remember in 7th grade, my friend asked me, "Do you not shave your legs because you're trying to make a feminist statement." I was completely mortified, ran home and asked my mom to buy me a razor. I guess I must have missed the shaving bandwagon as it came by because it never even OCCURRED to me that I was supposed to be doing it yet. I must have just been a bit slow in that regard, since NOW my friends all tell me that they started shaving in 5th or 6th grade. Oops.

Was that directed at me, mythago? Would you prefer that I conformed to your standards?
-CT

[Denise]

My whole life I have always been extremely "Femme". As a child I loved Barbie Dolls, playing dress up, styling hair, and admired the beautiful
and glamorous old-time movie actresses. As an adult I have long flowing hair, wear make-up, wear fashionalbe clothes, love babies and cute little animals, etc. and I am still as "girly' as ever !
However, from a very young age I have also been a militant feminist.
It's funny I have never seen a contradiction between being a Feminist and being "feminine" and have always been shocked to learn there are
those who do create a false dichotomy between the two !
Perhaps it's cultural. I have always thought that America is a particularly "macho" culture. I feel there is a rampant devaluation of the "feminine" in the dominant American Culture. Whether you are a man or a woman extolling feminine virtues is greeted with scorn.
Growing up in the United States I have never really been encouraged by anyone outside of my family to be feminine. The Feminist complaint that women are encouraged to be feminine has never rung true for me. I always get the impression that feminity is frowned upon and one who exhibits feminine characteristics is viewed as weak and vapid. "Being Pretty" = "Dumb", "Liking Clothes" = "Silly", "Being Generous" = "Pushover", etc.
And in my experience a "masculine" woman is always seen as superior
to a "feminine" woman. Needless to say that it is the same with men.
My mother's homeland is Italy and the Italian culture has been the biggest influence of my life. I always grew up with the idea that motherhood, family life, and glamour were great joys and certaintly not meant to be viewed as burdens. And that being "feminine" is not a mark of inferiority.
Perhaps Europeans have more of a love of beauty and aesthetics in general. I know that my cousins in Italy are always shocked at how American men and women seem to put such little effort into their everyday appearance. Everyone views the world through their own
cultural lens.
This is just my take on things but just to reiterate I have never
understood why a Feminist woman could not also be a "Feminine" woman and also be PROUD of it !

[Arwen]

I think there's a huge topic of class in this whole discussion which I don't see often addressed.

Where I was growing up, women wore stretchy black pants or jeans and sweatshirts. For fancy, there were sweaters with (hideous to my eye) applique. For really really fancy, a dress. I grew up with poor people: there was a serious danger to being too femmy, because then you were probably a "hoor" who was "putting on airs" &/or was trying to "sleep her way up".

Teen girls pulled their jeans up with their coathangers and did their hair in claws and slathered on 17 coats of Maybelline, sure: I'm not saying there wasn't a fundamental insecurity of female-ness, nor a fundamental *class* insecurity, where you're trying really hard to look rich: nor am I saying that there's not patriarchal spin on all this. But femmy is not, to me, just a matter of gender and leave it at that; it's bigger and deeper and more layered than whether Paris Hilton's image is an example of whoring your way to god almighty as the gold standard of female beauty. Her icon is way more layered than that.

What Paris Hilton is, is rich. Born into money. She's an idiot because she can AFFORD to be an idiot: look at that show where she runs around being a moron. Is this *really* about women? From where I'm standing, it's about class: "Lookit her, those goddamned rich people are morons; it's okay we're poor, because at least we're not broken in the head." Hilton is for schedenfreude.

Sexism? Sure. It's Paris Hilton and not Roger Gotrocks. To me, though, Hilton accomplishes two rather big things: first of all, she proves that money innoculates from the consequences of being utterly useless, and is therefore sort of a threat: but she also suggests that money isn't everything, unless you're willing to go all Flowers for Algernon.

I mean, it seems to me that the world over, "style" is about what's next to impossible to achieve unless you're rich, and that tends to reflect on class. The femmy woman thing seems to me to come out of a class where women didn't have to work - real work, mind you, not our fancy-pants intellectualism - and therefore were ornaments to their menfolk. Yeah, it's patriarchal that women are the primary ornaments, but haven't you all noted the rise of the rich meterosexual man?

I don't imagine the rich/poor thing is going away soon; but I do imagine that having a wife to be taken out of the closet looking unsuitable for working in the lower classes will become less representative of wealth for men, and men'll start having to worry more and more about hairplugs and raquetball and losing a few and having their cuticles done and their hair just so. And more butt implants and pec implants and whiter smiles and waxed backs and waxed fronts and the whole ninety yards. I mean, this is *happening* in male beauty culture: they have their own youth-i-fying product lines and Body Shop couture coming along.

I mean, now, it's these strange hair streaking techniques and from hell botox and lifted faces and surgery surgery surgery. This shit screams money, not beauty. People look damn odd after all that work is done.

Youth is more easily kept if you're not working class. If you're not spending all day every day on your feet, working 10 hour days, and bussing on the way home, to eat simple carbs in craptastic salt sauce for dinner. So of course youth is going to be a gold standard: poverty ages the heck out of people.

[Arwen]

(( Hence, you put on makeup for a job interview to look more "professional". Good makeup is not cheap.

I suppose, then, that I see Femmy women as making more of a money statement than a gendered statement. A perfectly understandable necessity in certain spheres; I'm not dissing femmy women at all of any class. But regardless of what the upper classes DO with style - make it gender neutral, whatever - they're still going to be "hobbled" from manual labour, "high maintenance", and expensive. ))

[N2]

Just curious Happy, why do you feel that it's more difficult for someone who's not white to meet conventional standards of beauty in the corporate world? I've often heard the opposite in terms if Asian women particularly, because apparently they tend to be naturally smaller built (and smaller boobs!), have straight hair etc.

I don't see dressing up/ grooming as unfeminist as long as
1)I don't spend too much of time on it (I also take about half an hour to get ready in the morning).
2)Don't spend too much money on it
3)Don't wear clothing/shoes that are physically uncomfortable. So in spite of being kinda small i hardly ever wear heels.

The issue of my affecting other women by adhering to beauty standards is more tricky though. Supposing another woman feels pressured to look better/thinner/more femme-y because of me, do i owe it to her or womankind in general to fight against these standards? Or is that a form of "dumbing down" in the realm of looks and unfair to me. After all, in any other area, if your competence threatens others it's hardly your problem. Why should i be penalised because i just happen to have the type of look that is generally deemed attractive? I'm just thinking aloud. This is something i'm really confused over as a feminist.

[N2]

Oops the previous comment was me- N2.

[Arwen]

In regards to your outfit, Happy (which sounds beautiful), what I read is:

"I wore today a beautifully coloured expensive jacket that will not be stained by my toil; shoes that suggest I will have an opportunity to sit down; a skirt that suggests that I do not have to run; nylons which suggest I will not be somewhere rough that they might be ripped, and facial adornments which suggest I will not be sweating overmuch. I am wearing a necklace and earrings that have value but have not been pawned."

I want to be very clear that I find nothing in any way WRONG with you wearing this statement. I have my own versions, although even my "fancy" stuff is wash n' wear. I also wear heels, on occasion, when I am not running after my kids: they are a symbol that I get to sit the hell down. *g*.

So, why do monied women tend towards fashions which express succinctly and without prevarication that they cannot be immediately pressed into manual labour? Or, if they're Paris Hilton, any labour of the intellectual or physical sort at all? She *wins*, by presenting this utter vacuum of ability and still taking all the money to the bank. Phew.

Yep, there's sexism boiling up in that stewpot, but with so many other variables of race and class and access that I don't think it's possible to talk about destroying that which is "femmy". We won't all opt out of something where that something is, in essence, tribal ornamentation. You're not going to see all women give up heels for flat shoes and stop shaving their legs and suddenly have the beauty standard stop being so bloody oppressive. It'll be there, and be oppressive because it is inaccessible; it'll just morph. BUT: we can interrogate the *differences* between the male uniform, which screams "I'm not shoveling crap all day but I may still be able to punch you out", and the female uniform which screams "I'm not shoveling crap all day and I probably cannot punch you out due to my wardrobe".

There are GOOD things about the femmy rich wardrobe. Things like lime-green boiled wool jackets. And deep, sensual colours mixed with an aesthetic eye. Multiple textures of beautiful fabrics laid in opposition or collusion. Things that sparkle. Things that shine.

There are BAD things about the femmy rich wardrobe. All of which we know.

But it's femmy rich women who are going to make the wardrobe of rich femmes less vacuous and damaging. Not those of us (like me), who have neither the time, the money, nor the aesthetic ability to pull it off. I have noted, for example, the excrutiatingly long, debilitating, and manicured nails are disappearing. Good work, femmes!

[Winter]

I'm afraid I'm getting increasingly disturbed by this whole discussion and will probably have to work out that disturbance in a blog post of my own. But here are some of the thoughts going around in my head:

Feminists critical of femininity (and I include myself in that group) insist that feminine feminists should analyse their behaviour. I guess that's ok as far as it goes, but are we saying they should beat themselves up for the rest of their lives agonising over whether the desire to wear lipstick oppresses other women, or do we really mean we think they should stop wearing lipstick and become like "us"?

Does all this mean I don't have to analyse my own behaviour because I go about in jeans and big boots and don't wear makeup?

Does this mean I can pat myself on the back for being a superior feminist when in fact all I'm doing is dressing in a way that makes me comfortable because I would cry if you tried to make me wear a dress. Does this mean I don't have to analyse my own gender issues (such as tantrums about dresses)? Despite the fact that I don't feel feminine (on the inside), I know I have quite a feminine manner and this disturbs me. I want to get rid of it. Do I have to analyse this sense of disturbance and revulsion, or am I just being a "good" feminist?

Moreover, why should I be free from having to analyse the way my own gendered appearance adheres to feminist and lesbian norms of appearance? Why should I be free from analysing the fact that my appearance gets me kudos from lesbians and feminists and status within the groups I inhabit? In my opinion, I receive FAR MORE status for my appearance than I would get if I was a feminine woman and I don't think I've ever been expected to defend my behaviour.

Also, if the ultimate aim is the destruction of femininity, what have we got to put in its place? Anyone got any ideas because I think we've been through this before in the 1980s when lots of feminists and lesbians were alienated because they felt they were being pressurised to confirm to an androgynous (read masculine) model. How is this any less oppressive?

Why would the destruction of femininity be any less oppressive than its preservation? How could we avoid imposing a different set of no less oppressive norms on women?

Are there any possiblities for viewing femininity as something other than always opression and oppressiveness?

What aboout men who are feminine? Where do they fit into the analysis? It's not like "femininity" is the exclusive preserve of women.

[Winter]

I do think we all have a duty as feminists to analyse and protest the way gender norms are used to oppress women, especially when tied up with capitalism, but the general bent of feminist discourse on this subject is making me anxious.

Do I feel oppressed when I see a feminine woman in lipstick and heels?

NO.

And now for the really hard and horrible truth, which I hate to admit to myself. I don't feel oppressed because there's a little part of me which feels superior to feminine women; there is a little part of me which thinks "poor thing," how can she walk in those heels? Why does she waste time on makeup when could be free free free.

I know it's wrong and I'm not in any way free. I am just as constrained and shaped by gender norms as she is, even if they are feminist and lesbian gender norms.

What bothers me is where my illusion of freedom and superiority is really coming from.

[Pips]

I completely agree with N2 - that "I don't see dressing up/ grooming as unfeminist as long as
1)I don't spend too much of time on it (I also take about half an hour to get ready in the morning).
2)Don't spend too much money on it
3)Don't wear clothing/shoes that are physically uncomfortable."
It concerns me when women spend a lot of money on expensive/unnecessary clothes or beauty treatments that they can't afford because they need that to be validated. Or feel they can't have sex or go to the shops without shaving their legs/putting on make-up. Fashion etc should be treated as a fun pursuit, as decoration. It should not be a serious part of your life that takes time and money from other things, or stops you doing stuff. If that happens, you are curtailing your own freedom just because you are a women.

[The Happy Feminist]

I haven't had a chance to go through the comments that carefully this morning as I am trying to polish up something for a deadline, but here are some initial thoughts:

(1) I DON'T think this is a matter of deciding between being "attractive" and "well-groomed" versus being butch. In lawyer-land, there are plenty of women who are not femme-y at all but seemed who seem pulled together and nice to look at.

(2) I agree with Arwen that the class angle is important. But I think that lawyers (and other professinals) of both sexes symbolize with their attire that they are not manual laborers. So I think symbolizing with one's clothes that one is not about to hop into a ditch and start digging is more about saying, "I don't dirty my hands because I'm a lawyer," not "I don't dirty my hands because I'm a helpless female."

(3) It is a matter of principle to me that I will never refuse to do any necessary manual labor just because I am wearing a skirt and heels. This doesn't come up too often but I have been known to hop on a ladder to change a light bulb or to lug heavy boxes around the office as necessary. I have never found my dress more constricting than a man's in this regard. And again, none of us lawyer-types, male or female, are hauling trash or digging ditches (although we do lug heavy trial bags around).

(4) I understand that some people think that feminine dress is more uncomfortable than non-feminine dress. This is contrary to my personal, subjective experience. I think jeans, even baggy jeans, are the most UNcomfortable garment known to humanity. I like the way jeans look, but I can never abide wearing them (something about the heavy material combined with a button and a fly; no matter what, jeans always seem tight to me). I am not deliberately trying to be contrary, but to me it's a lot easier to throw on a skirt on the weekend than to throw on a pair of trousers. (Of course, if I could get away with wearing pijamas, I would, but so far I haven't found any acceptable garment that equates to the comfort of pijamas. Skirts probably come the closest.) And no, I don't find heels or nylons especially uncomfortable (except that nylons are annoying to put on). Skirts also tend to be far more forgiving than trousers if one's weight fluctuates.

(5) I don't feel any particular pressure to be femme-y. The most pressure I feel is this #*(!)! social requirement of wearing jeans on the weekend. I do find myself wearing jeans just so I don't get flak from people for wearing a skirt, and this is the closest experience I have to conforming against my will (as opposed to conforming consistent with my will).

(6) Mythago says in response to part of my post about my clothing: "It doesn't help to handwave and decide 'well, if I like it, I'm not going mess it up with feminist analysis'."

I KNEW someone was going to say that. I figured I would describe what I wore and wait for comments. Because I honestly am not seeing the feminist issues with this. My feminist analysis I guess is that I don't think my attire conveys powerlessness or helplessness. I don't think anyone would look at me and say, "This is someone who is afraid of a mouse and spends all her time shopping." I just can't wrap my mind around the notion that high-heels are hobbling (at least the very tall, chunky ones I like). My experience with heels is that they make me taller and more imposing, and I don't recall every hobbling or tottering in them. It strikes me at times as almost perverse to read the worst possible thing into footwear or make-up. Same with make-up -- I don't see it as problematic in a professional setting unless one looks like one spend hours piling it on, which would then perhaps convey the idea of being more concerned with one's appearance than one's job.

Another thing that I struggled with in this post is the idea of parsing out exactly how much more burdensome my grooming is than a man's-- unless you're spending an hour putting on make-up or plucking your eyebrows, it strikes me as an awfully nitpicky calculation. If I just cut out the waxing and hair-dye-ing, I would be equal to any guy. I would challenge any male lawyer to a race as to who can get ready the fastest. I think if I pushed, I could be showered and out the door in 15 minutes.

(7) Minor point. Someone mentioned nails. I have never had my fingernails anything but short and unpolished, so this isn't an area which I can really analyze.

[The Happy Feminist]

Winter, your comment is a super-interesting look from the other side of the femininity fence.

Your comment has a lot of meat to it, but I wanted to mention three things:

(1) A feminine manner is certainly worth analyzing. This is an area to which I have given a lot more thought than my appearance. With dress, I have pretty much gone with the feminine flow, but with manner, I have ruthlessly eradicated a lot of my old habits -- the submissive head tilt, the ending of senteces on a questioning high note, etc.. My goal has always been to get rid of those things that seem demeaning, rather than those things that simply say I am female as opposed to male.

(2) Is all expectation of conformity in dress necessarily a bad or oppressive thing? I have always liked the idea of NOT drawing attention to myself by dressing differently than other people, because I want people to focus more on what I say than how I look. (Of course, I recognize that we inevitably DO make assumptions about each other based on looks, but conformity is my strategy for trying to downplay being judged that way.) I also think it is a good thing that people are expected to meet certain professional standards of dress, as opposed to slogging looking like you've just rolled out of bed. And I think it's good that people are expected to dress "up" to some degree as a sign of respect on special occasions (like going to court, or going to someone's party). But I think we can conform to certain basic standards without giving up our right to self-expression through dress (such as, say, having a tatoo, for example).

But I think forced conformity to show allegiance to particular gender politics (whether those politics are consistent with traditional femininity or whether those politics are the opposite) can be unnecessarily or unfairly oppressive. (Painful memory of young adulthood -- being treated with utter disdain by my totally anrogynous childhood heroine and her girlfriend, most likely due to my velvet handband and gold-knot earrings. Made me want to grovel and say, "But I love and admire you!" which thankfully I didn't.)

[The Happy Feminist]

Just curious Happy, why do you feel that it's more difficult for someone who's not white to meet conventional standards of beauty in the corporate world? I've often heard the opposite in terms if Asian women particularly, because apparently they tend to be naturally smaller built (and smaller boobs!), have straight hair etc.

I was thinking of that dreadful incident when African-American Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney was criticized for her hair. And I was also thinking of people I know who have complained about the difficulty of fitting a big chest into a power suit. I am sure there are plenty of other problems experienced by women who don't fit certain norms in terms of size or ethnicity. Unfortunately, I can't speak to the experiences of Asian women in particular, although I'd invite anyone with insights to weigh in.

[Natasha]

Wow. There's a lot of really good points in this thread.

As for what Arwen said, I really agree: a feminine/ femme-y wardrobe has a major element of class/resources behind it. I used to work in a newsroom, but at the time I was saving like crazy to pay off student debts so I could leave and do what I really wanted. I didn't go to the hairdressers in 9 months; I had one pair of shoes; I only wore black and brown so my few clothes would go together and not stick out amongst all the suits. There was no point in wearing a suit, as all my female colleagues did, because wearing an ill-fitting, cheap suit in that context would've had an even worse effect than the young-girl look my cotton tops and trousers gave me. I noticed that women's suits are more distinctive than men's, and those who did wear them had more of them than men and wore them in much quicker rotation than men.

But what bothered me most was the swagger and poses the men could perform in their suits (hand in pockets, or feet up on their desks, or leaning against a wall), which gave the impression: Man Thinking; Give Him Space. I had no pockets to put my hands into, and the one time I put my feet on my desk everyone asked me if I was 'feeling okay'. I also saw that young men could put on a suit and immediately be cast as Man Journalist. For the women, there was a real difference between what those in higher positions wore and what more junior women wore. And many of us women expressed our age in our clothes - the younger of us wearing tighter, more colourful materials. I see that the effect was we were perceived as journalists-in-training or young-things or young-women, very different from the ready-packaged Man Arrived stereotype the just-out-of-college young men in suits fell into.

I had a really strong impression that work 'costume' affected my ability as a woman to be respected. To work within the framework - and get well-cut suits and proper hair - was beyond my budget. One time when I did get my hair superbly cut I was so shocked by the extensive comments - you look really 'sleek', you look so much 'older', you look so 'professional' - I saw how much my appearance had affected my status and authority at work.

p.s. In principle I see what Happy is saying about the importance of some dressing-up for work. I s'pose what I'm saying is it is more expensive for women to do it than men; and I know for a fact I was paid less than my male 'equals' - only by a bit, but less nonetheless.

[MissPrism]

Happy, thanks to your total-honesty-in-blogging policy, that's the first time I've truly believed someone telling me they find high-heeled shoes comfortable!

[The Happy Feminist]

I am definitely going to have to do a follow-up post -- so many good points in this thread.

The more I think about it, the more I realize I am not giving myself enough credit. I think I HAVE thought this stuff through a lot more than I've realized.

The problem women face is that femininity has been culturally understood to stand for subservience or helplessness or frivolity. So our choices seem to be to go along with that understanding, or to be more like men. But the latter option can seem a bit demeaning too -- as though we don't like being female and want to try to be more likw our male betters. (The early 80s dress-for-success look comes to mind.)

So when I think about my self-presentation, two goals come to mind -- to present myself as competent and powerful, but ALSO to make it clear that I am not trying to be one of the boys. My most flamboyant choice (the super-high chunk heels) are both an effort to be more physically imposing but also a statement that I am not trying to emulate the men around me. (Oddly, during my intentionally butch pre-adolescent period, I would always get super-pissed off when people mistook me for a boy.)

I think it is valuable to try to meld a female look with conveying impressions of power and self-sufficiency. Weirdly, one example who comes to mind is Catherine Zeta-Jones. I can't quite figure out how she does it, but even though she is super-glamorous and super-feminine, she conveys this sense that she is totally confident, supremely talented, and very much an agent in her own pleasure rather than a mere passive object of male desire.

[will]

Interesting discussion. Virtually everyone agrees that clothing and appearance sends a message.

My very simplistic thoughts:

I would think that the most important thing to do is to be yourself and dress in a manner that makes you happy. There is a danger in conforming to other people's expectations, whether that is that you shouldnt dress just to make men happy or you shouldnt dress to make other women (or feminists) happy.

[Natasha]

I think it's a good ideal, Will - and I think it's true that if I'm happier I'm more effective at work. But the problem is we don't work in a vacuum - the responsibilities and respect I was given unfortunately did depend on other people's impression of me, in which suit/not-suit was a big part. It meant that as a (young) woman I was behind before I'd even begun.