On the Politics of Stilletos

The shoes, not the knives.

In a conversation about an article discussing Michelle Obama's appearance and apparent level of self-acceptance over at Shakesville, the fact that she wears flats rather than high heels was brought up as a sign of her refusal to kowtow to societal expectations of what a professional woman in the public eye looks like. It was then mentioned that she is six feet tall: my height.

And that got me thinking about the funny way that heels fit into our society's policing of women's appearances. On the one hand, they are seen as a symbol of femininity--and particularly the feminine ideal that has been constructed by men and imposed on women, whether we find it appealing or not. In fact, I'd say that heels, along with makeup, are the first symbols of imposed femininity that get tossed out the window in a show of defiance by feminists who wish to reject society's expectations for women. In a way, they've become shorthand for submission to those expectations, for appeasement of the male gaze. And there's some truth to that. But then we get to the other hand: if you are a woman above a certain height (5'9", 5'10"? Certainly once you hit 6' it's a given), you are too tall. You become threatening, unladylike. And there ain't no way that you're going to wear high heels without catching serious flak for it. "Why do you need those? You're too tall as it is," is a common one. Some people will even tell you that you aren't "allowed" to wear anything higher than a running shoe. High heels become something that proper women, appropriately feminine women, get to wear. When you wear them, it's emasculating. You just have to hope that one day, you'll be lucky enough to find a man taller than you--because, apparently, that is the natural order of things and, for many men, having a female partner who is of equal height to or taller than them is a fate worse than death--who will grudgingly accept your excessive height, so long as you stick to flats.

I've take enough crap over the years for my height that height issues have become a deal-breaker for me. I tend to be attracted to smaller men (in fact, I feel downright threatened by men who are significantly taller than I am and have never managed to date one for long), which means I've ended more than a few relationships because men just couldn't deal with my size (or other aspects of my physicality: I'm also quite muscular for such a slim build, and just plain don't fall into the "delicate flower" ideal).

And then, one day, I decided I didn't care anymore. I love the way I look in heels, and I love the way they make me feel--towering, powerful and yes, sexy. And I bought my first pair of 4-inch stilletos. I was in a new relationship at that point, and actually took my 5'9" partner shoe shopping with me. His enthusiastic reaction to my choice--largely because he could see how amazing they made me feel--was one of the big cues that this was a relationship I wanted to stay in. We're getting married next summer, and damned if I won't tower over him at the wedding.

Since then, I've bought several pairs of high heeled shoes. And every time I well them, I still feel that little thrill of rebellion, and I still think I look like I could take over the entire world when I stand in them in front of the mirror. For me, high-heeled shoes are a way of magnifying and owning my height and my power as a tall woman who is beautiful on her own terms. To throw my stilletos out the window would not be a rebellion or an affirmation of my independence from patriarchal norms (though I don't for a moment disbelieve that it is that for a great many women); it would be submission. It would be just another way of sitting down and shutting up, of being a nice girl and fading into the background, of not rocking the boat. And I refuse to do that.

I think that stories like mine bear remembering when we start talking about the politics of women's appearance, especially in terms of conformity and defiance of social norms. One woman's total submission is another's glorious rebellion, and vice versa. If we keep the nuances in mind, if we remember that every woman's relationship with her body and appearance is an intensely personal one, then maybe we won't be so quick to judge other women's choices. And maybe we can look at those stories, those little personal victories, and celebrate them.

Bits & Bobs

Here's a round up of random things I found interesting today, as I continue to avoid going back to work on the epic of a post I have brewing:

---

The old spectre of appearance policing within the feminist community has reared its ugly head again, and some interesting shit is going down both over at Hoyden About Town--a very worthwhile place to visit, by the by--and Shakesville in response to an opinion piece by one Monica Dux, who seems to think that non-conventionally attractive, hairy lesbians are bad for feminism's image (because, you know, it's a brand and we need to pay attention to what sells). Women on both sides of the appearance question--those who reject feminine beauty standards, and those who don't, at least not entirely--are talking about how it feels to be judged for their appearance, and there's a fair amount of judging going on as well. I don't have too much to add, as I think this whole business of presentation policing ultimately doesn't do anybody any good, except that somebody at a bigger blog than mine seems to have come to a similar conclusion: lookee.

---

On another note, I love that the CBC is broadcasting results/news from the Paralympics with the same frequency and giving it the same prominence (first item on the hourly news) as they did with the "regular" Olympics. It's encourage to hear these amazing athletes getting the coverage they deserve, free of obsessive discussion of what exactly their disability is or other such fetishizing and othering bullshit.

---

While flipping through the Hoyden archives, I came across this bit of brilliance from earlier this year. While I get the impression that trying to discuss anything with mAndrea is a little like arguing particle physics with the cat (I mean, shit. Her entire stated purpose for writing is to sway people to her one true path of feminism through her amazing powers of logic, and then she admits the following, "The extent of my study of logic consists of reading a couple webpages"? Really? Lauredhel is right: that is just desperately bad performance art) the arguments that many of the posters put forth--especially tigtog and Lisa Harney--are sheer brilliance, and I want to keep them forever and ever as a reference to make use of the next time I end up arguing with an anti-trans* arsehole.

---

And finally, I saw a girl on the bus today wearing a shirt that said, "I'm just pretending to be gay for all the social benefits." It made me laugh in a way that snarky t-shirts seldom do, because it was just so...pointed...and smart.

Another one? But you said...nevermind.

Okay, so apparently all it takes to get me writing again is the public declaration that I need to step back and do some thinking and therefore may not be writing much. Awesome.

This is just a quickie (omg! double entendre! She's letting that evil sexuality taint her already--a lost cause, this one), to say how much I love THIS.

It makes me happy. So very happy. Even if there are actually people who think this way in all seriousness--which, really, ought to frighten me more than it amuses right now, but what can you do?

Part II is here.

The Assholes Ride Again

So, I realize this post is rather late to the party, but it has some points I'd still really like to make, so I'll throw it up here anyway. I should really stop putting half-finished things in 'drafts' and then going AWOL for days on end.

----

There's another interwebs shitstorm brewing. This time, it's about a rather problematic cartoon being used to bolster anti-porn arguments by Nine Deuce and Heart. Belledame's got a good play-by-play and lengthy comment thread going on here, so I think I'll skip the summary. A lot has already been said about the numerous problems with the cartoon itself, and I'm really more interested with ND's and Heart's responses to other people's concerns about it.

Briefly: I didn't immediately read the cartoon as racist, transfixed as I was by the no-way-in-hell-this-is-feminist representation of a dumb blonde in the centre of the image. That's likely due to my own frame of reference--I've been on the receiving end of that stereotype enough times to be hypersensitive to it, and it immediately called to mind this gem of a "feminist cartoon". I saw it as soon as it got pointed out (even if some of the men's features read as "white", the whole light=good/dark=evil dichotomy is obvious and has been closely tied to racism for a long time). I think it's offensive for many reasons: it's misogynist, misandrist and dehumanizes sex workers--a real winner.

Onwards.

What really gets my goat is the way that both Nine Deuce and Heart (but especially Heart) reacted to others' politely-phrased concerns about the cartoon. There was no stepping back and re-evaluating the image, not even any acknowledgement that such concerns were worth considering. There was no real discussion. Instead, the whole post devolved into defensive ass-saving and, "but, but, but I can't be a racist, I married a black man!"

In other words, it got personal.

This is the point where I saved the post as a draft and left myself the following notes for when I took it up again:

-closed-minded non-intersectionality
-grandstanding
-it's not all about you, you fucking jerks
-image vs substance
-grrrrrraaaaaarghhhh

That sums it up rather nicely, really.

To elaborate: my first point* refers primarily to Nine Deuce, as the whole "i removed the cartoon as the thread was getting derailed by concerns of racism" thing really irked me. Just because you're fighting for the rights of one particular group of people doesn't mean you get a free pass on offending/dismissing another group. If, say, POCs (or anybody else) respond with concerns about something they identify as racist on a feminist site, it's probably a good idea to actually listen to their concerns and make room for a bit of anti-racism in your work as well. Telling them that their concerns are invalid or are a distraction--not so much. Besides it just being rude and dismissive, it alienates women who are also feminists ; from a purely pragmatic point of view, alienating your allies or others on your side is just poor politics.

The rest is largely directed at dear Heart, but certainly applies to miss I-have-the-giantest-brain-in-the-whole-wide-world as well. Any feminist or otherwise socially/politically motivated writing is going to have a bit of the author in it: we write largely from our own experiences, and we certainly have unique perspectives on our particular cause. I'm not suggesting that there should be no personal aspect to anyone's blog, because that would make the whole business a bit faceless and creepy, not to mention that it wouldn't really be blogging anymore. But there are certain cases *cough cough* where the personality of the writer--their image--becomes so overbearing as to completely draw attention away from that person's chosen cause. If your response to people raising concerns about one of the pieces of evidence in your argument (as often happens in debates) is to start talking about how you are not in any way a racist, and therefore could never possibly use a racist argument, you're missing the point in precisely this way.

It's not all about you. It's about the intersection of sexism and racism; it's about being careful about what kind of images we want to associate with feminism; it's about respecting the concerns of all elements of a community; it's about looking critically at all media, including "our own". The fact that it's your blog that the discussion is taking place on is not completely irrelevant, but please don't turn concern about an argument and an image that has been put out there into ad hominem attacks. Because, really, when you start using your feminism as a jumping-off point for a presidential campaign, or as singular proof of your amazing genius, people are going to start to wonder what your writing is really about. And when the egotism shines that bright, they're likely to move on to greener pastures and try to find feminist (or any other -ist of choice) writing that really is a space about women, and not one particular, fabulous woman.


* Interesting typo here: I originally wrote "porn". Shows where my mind goes pre-coffee on a workday.

Not my Feminism

I'd been intending to write a longer response to Cassandra's awesome post about the nastiness she's seen coming from some feminists towards beautiful women, but I think what I was going to write can be applied just as well to the discussion currently going on over at Renegade Evolution's. For Ren's original thoughts, see this , this , this and this) It all begins with the usual slut-shaming, victim-blaming and general anti-woman bullshit going on over at Twisty's "I Blame the Patriarchy" (I ain't linkin').

Now, just like Twisty, I am not the keeper of all feminism who gets to decide who is a feminist and who isn't. It isn't a club, for fuck's sake--you can't just kick people out of the movement when they disagree with you. Feminism is a way of engaging with the world and a lens through which to process it, it's the belief that women deserve equal consideration and rights as human beings. That's it. There's no membership card or secret handshake, no "10-step guide to removing the patriarchy" to follow, no rules. Well, except maybe one: if you engage in behaviour that shames, denigrates or otherwise attacks any woman (or group of women) for her appearance, job or lifestyle, you are not acting like a feminist. In fact, you're acting like an asshole. You might still be a feminist (remember, there's no card to revoke). After all, some feminists are assholes, just like some people are assholes. Nobody is going to kick you out of the movement (some, like Ren, may leave in protest, because it's a label that you get to choose to apply to yourself or not).

But here's the thing: you're not helping.

In fact, all you're doing is perpetuating a double-standard that has been around for centuries and is part and parcel of that patriarchy thing you hate so much. The virgin/whore, good girl/bad girl split isn't exactly a new one. I've read a lot of medieval literature, and I can say with absolute certainty that the idea of the libidinous woman who tempts men to evil and sin has been around since at least (and I'd warrant a good few centuries before as well) the 9th century CE*. The wording may have changed slightly--the sluts are no longer causing good, Christian men to fall from grace (nope, that idea would be too patriarchal); instead, they're tempting evil, depraved men to hurt women--but the blame is still dumped squarely on the shoulders of the women in question. Actually, the latter example is worse, in some ways, because it absolves men of true responsibility (since they've been so completely warped by the patriarchy, they cannot do anything but harm women--it's in their nature, and therefore kinda beyond their control) for their actions, and because it is presented as a feminist argument. At least our medieval misogynists are up front about their hatred of these women, and tend to also blame the menfolk for succumbing to temptation. I'm not Twisty (or any of her cheerily supportive commenters), but if my feminist rhetoric was actually harder on women than the arguments put forth by male misogynists 1100 years ago, I'd either take a step back and reconsider just what the hell I was saying, or give up on the "radical" label altogether.

A lot of the feminist version of slut-blaming (my new catch-all for the above nastiness) seems to be intended as a complaint that some women are encouraging the men, are giving them an excuse to attack women. But if, as IBTP seems to argue, men really are this malevolent enemy who can only hurt women, then they don't actually need encouragement or excuses. If they're so far beyond saving, then even if all the sluts/sparkleponies/funfeminists/yay-pornies in the world vanished overnight, they would still rape and hurt all the nice women left behind because that's what they do. The two halves of the argument don't mesh.

So if the slut- and men- (sorry, "patriarchy") blaming argument doesn't actually hold water, why stick to it?

Because it's so easy to put the blame on everybody else.

Because if you're not responsible for the bad shit that happens to women in patriarchal society (that lies with teh evol menz and the sluts), then you must be a saviour, or a hero. Your mere existence, as a patriarchy-blamer, rather than a patriarchy-upholder, is a blow to the system. You don't actually have to do anything to address injustice. You can just sit back and bask in your glory as a blamer and occasionally "tsk" at the disgusting rabble that continue to uphold the system that you can see right through. You're just that special.

And really, you have a right to feel special and heroic. You can go right on with your radical blaming. It's your goddamned right as a person and as a woman to feel and act as you see fit. But I have the same right to call you out on your own misogyny (just because you only hate some women, rather than all women does not make it okay) and to distance myself from the arguments put forth by assholes like you. Because, to me, blaming everyone but myself for a system that is everyone's problem isn't liberating, empowering or helpful. My feminism isn't about making myself feel bigger by making things worse for other women. Nobody deserves that kind of dehumanising crap getting thrown at them.

Your feminism is not my feminism.





*Obligatory medievalist's disclaimer: this isn't an accurate representation of everything that was being said about women in the Middle Ages. There was a very wide range of ideas and writing on women's rights and role in society from the bullshit I've mentioned to amazing pro-woman writings. I've just chosen a particularly nasty and widespread argument for this post to demonstrate the longevity of slut-blaming.