I with you on this one, Jessica. I read the post and it drove me batty. I mean, if you take her reasoning far enough, then really if we were good feminists we would not ever wear clothing around the house, and we would never wear anything but the ugliest, least fashionable clothes we had when we were out in public (except at work, since, by her standards, it's okay to compromise if it's an issue of eating), and even wearing bras -- even if your boobs are so heavy it's physically painful not to -- would be highly suspect and might make you "less" of a feminist.

This is just as bullshit as people who say feminists "should" be more feminine because it gives us more influence, or makes people pay attention to us, or whatever. I always thought feminism was about autonomy and choice, and that you could be ugly, plain, average, or drop-dead gorgeous and STILL be a feminist no matter how you looked, or how rich you were, or who your family was, or what kind of pizza you liked. Silly me.

dude, lip gloss does not equal breast implants.

Maybe molly needs the weekend as well

god, thats the same crap ive had to deal with for years. most of my freinds were of the crust punk persuasion, and even tho everyone around me looked like that, i still embraced my inner drag queen with outlandish make up and clothing. now, i dont like the idea of "normal" makeup or nude makeup cuz i figure why wear it at all if its not going to be really something. but i dont care if other women wear it! never should any type of woman be excluded from a feminist group for any reason (especially if she proclaims she is feminist)

on the same note, once i actually got told that i wasnt feminist because lots of men are attracted to me. it was even said to me on a day when i didnt wear makeup or anything. by her standards, if your the least bit attractive and receive male attention then well you just cant be feminist. its a shame that the most shit ive ever gotten for being myself is not from sexists or mainstream type standards but other feminists

I rather disapprove of approaching feminism as a religion. Anyone going about with a "more feminist than thou" attitude and claiming you're less of a feminist (or not a feminist at all) because you do something they personally believe is not feminist should note that the same I believe this, therefore everyone else should, too attitude is also very popular among anti-choicers and fundamentalists (and we all know what reasonable people they tend to be.)
Furthermore, I find it problematic to say don't embrace the feminine because it enables the patriarchy, because rejecting all things classified as "feminine" doesn't really work unless there's something to replace those things with. After all, if we all start acting and dressing in a "masculine" way because "feminine" things feed the patriarchy, are we not in essence confirming the notion that all things "feminine" are inherently undesirable? Frankly, I think we have more than enough of that attitude already.

I like wearing make up because I can and it's fun. I wish it were socially acceptable for men to wear make up without being make fun of too. Men in eyeliner... *drool*

C-Bird, I'm with you there. Floating through my mind is an image of a beautiful, eyelined Johnny Depp... yummmmmm...

y'all must love jared leto these days then, huh?

First thought: it pays to ignore people like Twisty and Molly. They're trolls, just trolls with blogs.

Second thought: dictating another person's choices about their body is about as anti-feminist as it gets.

But I bet you don't love Jared Leto these days, Jessica, as he hates all blogs.

"I think that blogging should die a sudden death. It's just ridiculous. It's like a playground for four-year-olds. People say and do things in the world of blogs that they would never do in real life, and I think it's a false experience."

Jared needs to lighten up. So does Molly. Maybe deer ticks infesting her unshaved legs and armpits have infected her with encephalitis. That ain't empowering.

Are we running out of room on the feminist bus? Gotta start kicking people off?
Bullshit.

Wow, for some reason this of all things is what has finally motivated me to post on this fine, fine site. I remember being told I was a “bad feminist� back in the good ole days (aka the early 90s) because I shave. I can’t believe this debate is still raging.

Before anyone assigns clear-cut social meaning to any act I wish people would take a step back. If shaving inherently = oppression, why do men shave their faces? Why do men and women from many cultures around the world dating back at least 5000 years into the past shave? Body modification is one of the truly universal aspects of human culture and it can be done for a million and one reasons - religious, social, you name it.

Yes, clearly we should all evaluate the origins of our own socially constructed values system surrounding things like “female beauty�, but then we also need to evaluate our own feelings and values surrounding these cultural beliefs. I have decided that my own personal line is related to health. Shaving does not affect my health and so to me this is a personal choice based on my own attitudes and aesthetics. Genital mutilation, foot binding, plastic surgery have a lasting and detrimental impact on my health and my body’s ability to function normally and so it moves out of the realm of aesthetics and into a new realm that I find much more worthy of serious discussion and consideration.

If someone claims that they like lip gloss, it might not reflect exactly the image I want young girls to see, but really that’s okeydokey with me. Part of what I’ve been fighting for my entire adult life is the right to make my own choices about every aspect of my life – work, body, mind, and soul. If they say they want to get down to a nice thin 80 lbs so they can be attractive, then perhaps a discussion about damaging social attitudes about the female body is the right thing to do. Is it really so difficult to see the difference? Even in the most extreme cases we need to be careful about placing value judgments – there is a fairly strong human drive to be “attractive�, where do we draw the line in determining when something is coerced versus chosen and who gets to make that distinction?

dammit! she posted a comment about something i said and now her site isnt letting me sign in to post a response.

i agreed with her on some things but damn is she snarky and holier than thou ish

Whenever I read stuff from a feminist about the need to purge people from the movement for wearing the wrong clothes or makeup or shaving their face or armpits or legs or wearing heels or having hetero sex or getting married or raising kids or being male or being transgender or going to church or not being politically active or not recycling or watching male sports or driving an SUV or drinking or not drinking or smoking or not smoking or buying a girl a doll or a boy a toy truck or listening to rap or thinking Johnny Depp is cute...

...I think of people who are pushing 40 who still base every life decision around displeasing their parents, and have somehow convinced themselves that this means that their parents have less control over their lives, and not (as reality would have it) more.

As a man, I'm already in the business of subtly and unconsciously telling women what they are and are not allowed to do with their lives, every day. I am already complicit in that system. Feminism is how I try to get the hell away from that kind of thinking.

Cheers,

TH

I had to sign up for an account just to commend you on this post - and the site in general.

Shaving is rape porn. What the fuck IS that?

Everybody can look however the fuck they want to look.

I also take issue with Molly's post, but I hope folks will refrain from lumping Twisty's original post in with Molly's as if they were making the same argument. Twisty was, as I interpreted it, commenting on the practice of explicitly marketing / labeling beauty products, fashion / hair trends, and shopping (which are expensive, and time-consuming, and do eat away at women's resources) as inherently satisfying, "feminist," and empowering (and Jill agreed with Twisty's analysis of this, so far as I could tell). Twisty's post was thoughtful, Molly's was divisive.

Charity, I agree. I heart Twisty.

I don't agree with the particular post in question, because it was in large part a personal attack, which is never constructive, and because it did seem to call for something of a feminist Gestapo to go around and make sure no purported feminist was engaging in a host of private activities which Molly finds unacceptable. (I also thought her account of her atheist wedding was rather risible, and perhaps further evidence that she's too grimly literal-minded about some things). I do, however, think that lively and even heated debate about fundamental questions is a sign of a vibrant movement. I think many of the points Molly raised are worth considering or pursuing; it's just too bad that her focus was at least as much about denouncing Jill as it was about articulating her vision of feminism and why certain practices are simply inconsistent with it. But I don't necessarily agree that feminism, or any other movement, has to try to be as inclusive or broadly-defined as possible.

Heraclitus, I agree. And I believe that's what Jill's original post was about--a nuanced (and honest!) look at certain "feminine" practices and how she reconciles that with her feminism. Molly's was a personal attack.

I think Molly's wedding sounds fabulous, and I'm absolutely in favor of feminists living their ideals like that.

I also think there's nothing wrong with a feminist wanting a traditional wedding ceremony, for whatever reasons she has (e.g., to please her mother, because she's religious, because she simply wants to look pretty and be adored for the day, whatever). If I ever get married, my wedding will likely fall somewhere between the two extremes (for instance, I think I would like for my hubs-to-be and me to walk down the aisle together, rather than him waiting for me to be presented to him at the end -- and I'm cutting the line about giving the bride away). And I think that's fine too.

I think Molly sounds like a really cool feminist, and I applaud that she really and truly lives her ideals through and through. I think she also needs to understand that people can interact with our imperfect world in different ways than she does, and still also be really cool feminists.

I know Twisty is a popular and talented blogger, while Molly perhaps isn't as well-known, but I thought that Twisty's post was every bit as divisive. And, like I complained at Feministe, Twisty singles out only certain types of "feminine" practices, like makeup and marriage, while sparing things like knitting and nurturing children.

*hugs all involved parties*

There, now everything is better.

right?

It is so dangerous, as I'm sure everyone knows, to assume for even a second that we are in such a high moral position that we can attach labels/assumptions and/or truly know someone else's experience. Isn't that part of what this is all about? Shucking labels and refusing assumptions?

I know the deep pain, sometimes I listen to Foreigner unironically and dress in Hawaiian shirts and think I'm losing my aging hipster credentials.

Step away from the shirt and hand over the hipster card...slowly...

Well, Vervain is exactly right: it's no different from how certain religious people have adopted a holier-than-thou attitude. It's not about religion, or about women's rights, but about the person's radicalism of choice. Radical Christians rant about singing in church and unapproved sexual positions; radical feminists rant about clothes and, well, unapproved sexual positions.

Seems to me that the most feminist thing anyone can do is to raise strong daughters who are willing and able to stand up for their own rights as people (regardless of whether they shave, wax, or whatever), and sons who think such women are hot (regardless of whether...).

If we accomplish those fundamentals, it won't matter how we dress etc.

"and sons who think such women are hot (regardless of whether...)."

Or better yet, sons who don't care if women are "hot" but instead love them (or not) for who they are.

I think that this tripe is contributing to a schism between the moderately feminine and the buchies. I say this is the reason why feminism is waning in washington right now. How are our policies supposed to be plausible if there's a split over something so stupid as the "Feminist look" There is no specific look becuase there are a lot of different looking women who are feminists. Let's get back to the issues and leave this superficial balderdash alone!

Mike, your comment actually reveals the root of the problem. The split you refer to exists on the Internet, and maybe in the academia; I've been meaning to ask Jessica for months what gender studies professors think about the sex wars nowadays, but never got the chance to do so.

On the Internet, every radical troll can do a bad hatchet job and Random Bird some blogger, even someone as big as Jill. This gives the appearance of a split, even though I'm going to venture a guess that Jill's traffic exceeds this of Twisty, Biting Beaver, and Women's Space combined.

It's not a schism. It's a radical fringe hijacking mainstream libfem blogs and getting treated a lot more seriously than they should be.

I like wearing make up because I can and it's fun. I wish it were socially acceptable for men to wear make up without being make fun of too. Men in eyeliner... *drool*

Posted by: C-Bird | October 12, 2006 04:08 PM

C-Bird, I'm with you there. Floating through my mind is an image of a beautiful, eyelined Johnny Depp... yummmmmm...

Posted by: The Law Fairy | October 12, 2006 04:18 PM

Don't forget nail polish...something about a dude with slightly worn-off nail polish and hair with "product" makes me a happy girl!

I just want to point out that makeup isn't strictly female territory, and I'm not talking drag queens, either. Consider the fact that men like Tom Brokaw, Arnold Schwartzenegger, or indeed any outwardly "macho" man who happens to work in the modeling, music or entertainment industries wears makeup whenever they appear on camera. So it's not just women who wear it, nor is it strictly feminine territory.
Personally, I think it would be nice if all men felt free to wear makeup if they wanted to. But then, I'm another one of those who digs guys in eyeliner, so maybe I'm biased. But it would make for a prettier world...

What frustrates me about these situations is that I see people like you, and the folks at Feministe, acting more like the feminist police than the radfems you so like to lambast.

This thread and the ones at Feministe are full of mocking Molly and Twisty's priorities, as if thinking about the beauty rituals enforced on women is the height of stupidity. What does this remind me of? It reminds me of the trolls who go to mainstream feminist blogs and say, "What about the women dying in Darfur? What about life expectancy? What about starvation? What about bird flu? God, can't you girls talk about anything important?"

More than one person misinterpreted and overreacted, here. Jill wrote an introspective piece about how she deals with being what some might call a "fun feminist". Molly misinterprets her introspection as an endorsement of "fun feminism", and writes her own introspective piece on how she strives to make her life match her ideals. And then everyone else misinterprets Molly as taking on the feminist police mantle and trying to steal your toys.

There oughta be a Godwin's Law for feminist arguments. The longer it goes on, the probability that one person will accuse someone else of trying to take her "feminist card" approaches 1.

ok denise, if you didnt read molly's piece to be "every feminist should do what i do or there really not a feminist" then good for you. but everyone else on here did (to one degree or another, i know im oversimplifying). and thats what we're talking about. its a blog, we can talk about whatever we want, not a U.N conferance

It reminds me of the trolls who go to mainstream feminist blogs and say, "What about the women dying in Darfur? What about life expectancy? What about starvation? What about bird flu? God, can't you girls talk about anything important?"

...who can be distinguished by the fact that they don't really care about the issues. Anti-feminists didn't just decide one day to say "Can't you focus on income equality?"; they don't believe income inequality exists. They saw liberals make that argument successfully and started imitating it.

The same, by the way, applies to concern trolling. It's not that the average conservative is really concerned about the Democrats' electability; it's that he imitates moderate Democrats who make electability-based arguments for moderation.

If feminism is about removing the power of a woman's appearance to her worth, then a feminist should never use a woman's appearance as a weapon (besides the fact that it's just plain mean).

Right fucking on Jessica.

-Mike

I would love to see the day when a feminist woman can wear as much or as little make up as she likes and no one makes any judgements of her based on that.

We've got to stop attacking eachother over silly things like the amount of hair on someone's legs, we've got real problems out there to fix.

If someone wants to talk about "going along with the patriarchy", there is nothing the patriarchy likes more than feminists fighting among themselves!

Someone needs to tell Laura Kipnis that beauty is power and is empowering.

Try getting your eyelashes noticed when you are wearing a burka. No need for mascara there.

Granted, in a burka, and while covered from head to toe, you won't have to wear makeup aka "the trappings of patriarachy!" (yes, I'm being sarcastic), but neither will you have to manifest all that empowering beauty.

"Someone needs to tell Laura Kipnis that beauty is power and is empowering."

I think you are comletely clueless.

Sexuality can be empowering or victimizing. Sexuality as prescribed by Cosmopolitan is victimizing for women and men because it conforms to patriarchal standards and is often used to manipulate men. Sexuality that women own as prescribed by Feministing or Bust (especially before they needed money and therefore got all fluffy) makes women agents not victims.

This does such a disservice to the feminist community as a whole by alienating a significant population who feel excluded and unwelcomed by a movement they believe in and wish to support. How is that helping anyone? To me it's akin to telling someone who's bi-racial they have no business campaigning for civil rights because they're not black enough.

To be honest, all this talk of a feminist split is exaggerated on the internet. I can't claim to regularly be involved in feminist groups/activity because there really isn't much of that in my area, not for lack of trying, but I have been to a few ladyfests. There are loads of different types of feminist there - fat and skinny, short and tall, gay and bi and straight, butch and femme and everything in between. And nobody cares what you wear. Nobody comments on whether you're hairy or unhairy, or whether you're wearing a flowery dress or jeans-and-a-shirt. Apart from maybe the odd "wow that top is really cool, where did you get it?". It's a really supportive environment, and there is no division based on how you look.

Long time reader, first time commenter. I haven't read all the comments surrounding this article, but has anyone mentioned that when women tweeze, pluck, shave and wax body hair they are taking their bodies back to a prepubscent state? Think about that a second: A PRE-SEXUAL body. Am I the only one who finds this creepy? That most males in our society prefer us looking like sexy (add make-up here) LITTLE GIRLS with big breasts? A completely unnatural/fantasy like state? A combination of what they like best about little girl bodies and what they like best about women's bodies. And we as women buy into this! Men & women (!) are repulsed by female leg hair but nobody says anything about how society rejects and is repulsed about women in their "grown up" state. Am I the only one who finds this weird? That society seems to want to infantilize/reduce us and take away our power? Like when women way past girlhood are called "girls". It's like society can't take women at full strength or something.

And the saddest thing to me is that women are buying into this warped thinking.

And some men don’t like “little girl� bodies but, rather enjoy the softness of female skin and how that sensation is often heightened by hair removal. Legs shaved or not, there is nothing about my body that is remotely pre-pubescent or infantilized. I’m a grown-ass woman. Incidentally, my mother and grandmother’s most direct ancestry is strongly African despite centuries of being in America. They are, naturally, almost devoid of body hair. In to what, exactly, are they buying?

I am very grateful for blogs like Feminsting, and Pandagon, and Feministe. I enjoy Twisty’s blog as well and as much. In local activist and feminist circles I have endured the back-handed compliments and derision regarding my choices about personal appearance. It is always interesting to take not of the tone and politics of the high school cafeteria, re-cast in the context of defining “real� feminism. I’ve already dealt with the fundamentalist charges of not looking “feminist,� enough since my first extra-curricular Feminist Literature group in college. Meanwhile, I’d chosen to do a book report on “The Handmaid’s Tale� in the 8th grade.

I’ve longed since moved past offense or the offering up of lengthy explanations about what I wear and why. Suffice it to say I have thought a great deal about every aspect of the beauty myth and indoctrination and still arrived at my own conclusions about what works for me. And I refuse to engage in a circular debate that I find, frankly, pointless. I’ll acknowledge, however, that I probably had an advantage having endured the “What is Black enough?� debate for most of my life. A friend of mine often jokes, bitterly, “You can’t get 15 like-minded and right-thinking Black folk in the same room to strategize for the revolution because ten minutes into the conversation we’re arguing about who does and doesn’t eat pork.�

This shit is pork. There is never finality to these debates and they never create definitions or resolutions. The arguments move in concentric circles and, in my opinion, succeed only in distracting us all from an elemental truth: As long is this debate rages only among the comparatively well off, educated, and by-and-large majority culture women in one of the wealthiest countries in the world, it is without a whole lot of merit. And I’ve heard all the pointes made about how debate is healthy, vital and a sure sign of a movement‘s relevance and vigor. Again, pork. Until many more women are at the table, participating actively in this discussion, it serves no tangible purpose other than to establish a hierarchy within the feminist movement. In junior high school the same teacher who gave me Margaret Atwood also pointed me toward Audre Lourde. I won’t bother paraphrasing her. I’m sure you all know the quote I am referencing by heart.

Why so defensive? Have I touched a nerve?

If men prefer you to shave your hairy parts then they aren't accepting your body as a woman's - plain and simple. Girls have soft hairless skin, woman have skin with hair on it. Do I really need to say more here?

If your ancestors aren't shaving or whatever then their not buying in! Great! How you "buy in" is when you follow along the rest of society and don't accept your womanly body as is but MANIPULATE it to this unnatural hybrid of half girl/half woman.

If this type of discussion for you is "pointless" why participate? It's important enough to me that I feel I would like to raise awareness around it. That's why i'm here. To get women thinking about it instead of automatically reaching for the razor next time their in the shower.

And what if one woman decides to abandon her beauty ritual and instead now spends that extra time writing her congressmen about women's issues or stuffs envelope for a domestic violence fundraiser...still think this is all pointless?

Wow. Do you really believe that on a feminist blog you're the only woman in who has ever made the connection between hair removal and pedophilia? Really? Call me naive if you will or, perhaps, overly optimistic but I think it's pretty safe to assume that on a blog called "Feministing" the vast majority of women who read and post have given quite a bit of consideration to the myriad aspects and connotations of beauty rituals; myself included. When did I say that I shaved my hairy parts for men's approval? When did I say that I shaved my legs or other hairy parts? My point in mentioning my mother and grandmother was not simply to illustrate their lack of body hair but to point out that having body hair is not, necessarily indicative of womanliness. But, hey, if you really feel that the major difference between your body and the body of a pre-pubescent child is the amount of hair on it- get down. I've never seen you naked so for all I know you're absolutely right.

The rest of my post was not addressed specifically to you, but rather my addition to the ongoing debate that has permeated this, and so many other blogs I enjoy reading. Not that it matters as it's readily apparent that you didn't read my post anyway. If you'd read it you would have understood the context in which I call this kind of argument "pointless," just as you would have noticed that I did not call it pointless on its face, but rather pointless because it involved far too few women and reached no conclusions. If you'd read it you might have addressed one of my salient points instead of grasping at the example of my family, and offering an argument against the hair removal you assume I engage in.

It's all gravy baby. I'm relatively new to these blogs though I hope to post again. And I like your fire even if I think it is misplaced. I understand what you're saying and respect the passion with which you've said it. But if don't ascribe to the hierarchy that the patriarchy has constructed, I'm certainly not going to ascribe to anyone else's. I believe that hierarchy is, inherently a tool of the patriarchy. Shave your legs or don't. It's all pork to me.

It's silly, but I would like to make it clear that I don't think that all men who like shaved legs are potentially or latently pedophiles. I don't approve of many aspects of the beauty culture I've been raised in and I'm not going to pretend women are the only members of our culture that it affects.

Whoa and condescending too!

yup so sue me I'm only responded to what interested me about your post.

I'm just making an observation and trying to get people to think...why are you taking this so personally?

Besides your insults what exactly are you adding here?

You're lecturing women who self-identify as feminists on leg-shaving and ignoring the actual statements of someone you're responding to, but I'm the one being condescending. Was it the "It's all gravy baby," comment? I'm really not trying to insult you or be condescending. It's an expression I use all of the time as do most of my friends. It's applied in a completely unisex manner and is generally used to ask for a truce. My sense of humor doesn't translate well in the forum format. Apologies.

As for what I'm adding, I'm pretty sure I'm tossing yet another hat into the "I don't think that leg-shaving or lip-gloss wearing is necessarily indicative of being a bad, unaware, or culturally irresponsible feminist" ring.

Nobirtron, please go back and look at my initial post. Was I lecturing or making an observation? Hmmm? Seems to me your the one doing all the wordy lecturing. You, maybe because your insecure *gasp!*, decided to turn my post into a personal attack on you. Not sure what that's all about.

What I do know is that I'd rather shave my legs with a dull butter knife dipped in battery acid than continue this dialogue with you. Good luck to you, I'm moving on.

Rant begins:

The basic message I've gotten from some of these comments is that there are some girlies who like their girlie toys, and play with them like good little girlies. Apparently, these are the kind of feminists that psuedo-feminists boys are comfortable with.

Also, it's BAD BAD BAD (and MEAN!) to express an opinion that strays from the herd - but it's bad to make feminism a religion (unless of course, it's to inject more patriarchy compliance couched in empowerment language). But no matter what, it's not okay for "radfems" to disagree with this Feminism-As-Patriarchy-Compliance Religion, but it IS okay to ridicule, insult and lambast (behind their backs, natch) these "radfems".

Here's someone who says it better.

http://amananta.wordpress.com/2006/10/13/enough-already/

A snippet:

"Small hint - feminism doesn’t make you popular and it isn’t about soothing you and pretending all your personal choices aren’t political. So when you post a sob story about how awful it is that someone actually pointed out to you the inconsistency of your actions and you get hundreds of comments of support talking about how horrible it is that there are these evil feminist scum who actually HAVE SOME STANDARDS AND CONSISTENTLY STICK TO THEM and people are soothing you and reassuring you everything is okay, it doesn’t matter how much you conform to the patriarchy, and you shouldn’t listen to those hung up prudes, maybe that should set off a few little warning bells for you. In any case, if you want a reputation for being a bold, cutting edge freedom fighter, try not bragging about how much you dress like The Man wants you to dress and act like he wants you to act."

But, I don't want to be labeled a mean, nasty buchy, anti-sex, ugly, fat, etc etc etc radfem, so I take it all back. Let's forget all this nonsense. Let's all be like random bird and post about how much booze we can chug! That's more *FUN*.

/rant

I am increasingly embarrassed by my generation.

so many words in vain, don't you people have more important things to discuss than who comments about who's make up..i can't beleive it.
Jack1978