Two of my favorite feminists, Rebecca Traister of Salon and Megan Carpentier of Jezebel, discuss Sarah Palin and the femininity factor on Bloggingheads:
While I think Meghan and Rebecca are great, I’m not such a fan of the Times’ description of the segment:
Megan Carpentier of the blog Jezebel, left, and Rebecca Traister of Salon discuss female politicians, such as Sarah Palin, who refuse to hide their femininity.
Sarah Palin isn’t “refusing to hide” her femininity; she’s playing it up and performing it. It’s an understandable decision, and as a relatively femme-y feminist I’ll be the last one to criticize another woman for wearing lipstick and skirts or holding babies or winking or whatever it is that Sarah Palin is “not hiding.” Performing femininity can bring with it a whole slew of benefits, not the least of which is being perceived as attractive on a variety of levels.
But it’s not like any of us came out of the womb in high heels and lipgloss.
So I kind of wonder how the Times defines “femininity.” Because if it’s just heels and lipstick, or raising a family, then a whole lot of women in politics (certainly including one former Democratic Leader of the House of Representatives) fit the bill. But I kind of suspect that there’s something else about Gov. Palin that makes the Times assert that she isn’t “hiding her femininity.” Call my cynical — or just say I read the headline — but I think they’re defining “feminine” as “girly.” And “girly” is basically short-hand for frivolous and stupid (unlike “boyish,” which seems to be closer to “charming”).
Now, I happen to agree that Palin is a blithering idiot. But our current blithering idiot of a president isn’t a blithering idiot because he “refuses to hide his masculinity” — he’s a blithering idiot because he’s a blithering idiot with insufficient experience, a stone-age ideological bent, and a pea-brain. He also plays up the gender thing by acting like a big macho cowboy in order to resonate with “Joe Sixpack.” Palin plays up the gender thing for the same reasons — to resonate with the majority of Americans who respond strongly to traditional gender roles, and for whom performed femininity makes women seem more appealing and less threatening.
Ain’t nothin inherently wrong with performed femininity,* or at least with many of the trappings of femininity. Taken out of context they’re all just things. They can even be — wait for it — fun. And I’m personally getting a little tired of “girly” things being derided — as if Nascar and trucks with big wheels are somehow Very Serious.
But we all know it’s an act, right?
___________________________________
*That, actually, is a lie. There can be a lot wrong with performed femininity when an entire class of people are pressured and manipulated into performing it, and most don’t have another viable option. But that said, there isn’t anything anti-feminist about individual women performing femininity to various degrees. At least I hope not, or I’m out of the club.
As much as I love racing (mostly Indy car, that is), I would be seriously worried if someone took it as “Very Serious!” Especially NASCAR which is extremely anti-feminist and generally anti-woman in general.
I agree that there is nothing anti-feminist about individual women performing femininity, or individual men performing femininity, or individual men performing masculinity, or individual women performing masculinity, or any gender in the spectrum performing any gender-related act in the spectrum, or none of the above. The idea is that everyone should be as unhindered as possible in performing and portraying whatever social constructs they feel fit them the best, right? While also allowing that freedom to any other person.
What gets to be anti-feminist (IMHO) is asserting that women shouldn’t perform X, Y, or Z at all, ever. To use my favorite example: I think it’s just as anti-feminist to assert that women should always shave their legs as it is to assert that women should never shave their legs. Both are based on the idea that the primary reason for the act (or non-act) of leg-shaving is to communicate something to Teh Menz (or patriarchal society in general).
You wear a skirt and curl your hair for your own purposes. Or you wear denim overalls and buzz your hair for your own purposes. If you feel the need to make a political statement with your body, either for (yech) or against the patriarchy, then that’s cool, although if you’re dolling yourself up for Menz’ acceptance then I might want to talk to you about it. If you aren’t doing that, and are just enjoying the gender construct that fits you, then that’s also cool.
I should turn this into a blog post. But I’m lazy. :)
“Women are all female impersonators to some extent,” right?
I’ve always loved that quote, but I’m not at all sure that mainstream society is in any position to really get it anytime soon. Let alone live with it in mind.
Sure, it’s “just an act” that in your also-very-own-words words, brings with it “a whole slew of benefits.”
You can’t have it both ways: either it’s a predatory tactic which you endorse, women using sex appeal to get, e.g. better discounts on your print jobs or rush turnarounds without rush fees, which I’ve seen myself in printing, a winking cutie playing widdu girl wif big eyes ‘n’ long hair ‘n cleavage and an itsy-bitsy-baby-talking voice at the counter, who’s an executive for a medical device company, using it to get special treatment from the oh-so-many-and-conservative print shop owner. Or else it’s just nothing more than wearing blue or brown shirts, in a climate where neither suggests political alignment mind you.
But if it’s one, then it isn’t the other, and if it’s blameless for Ms. Printbuyer to squeak and bat her eyelashes to get out of the consequences of being late with her deadlines, or the $$$ that non-beautiful and/or nonperforming women and all men (not cronies) pay, then why is it wrong for Mrs. Palin to play the same game to get to be VP?
Actually, Bellatrys, in a complex world things can go both ways. I’m not “endorsing” anything — I’m recognizing that in the real world, women do what they need to do. It’s not always ideal and it’s not always good for the whole of womankind, but there it is. We don’t live in an either-or world. And I’m pretty sure that the woman who performs femininity and bats her eyes to get out of missed deadlines is punished in other ways — she’s not taken as seriously, she’s treated like a sex object, etc etc. And a man who misses his deadline may use what he has to get out of it — except no one calls that “predatory.”
Point is, no matter which path women take — whether that’s embracing or rejecting feminine stereotypes — we don’t really win. Most of us embrace them sometimes and reject them at other times. It isn’t unfair or predatory, it’s life as a human being.
Women do what they need to do, and sometimes they just do. Outside of the context of Palin, I’m tired of feminists assuming that all bodily representations that women put forth is meant to communicate something in particular to the world.
Sometimes I just put my clothes on and go to work, you know?
Ha, word.
Honestly, I’m still frustrated by the fact that Hillary got so much crap for her pantsuits!
[...] Feministe has a good rundown on how Palin plays her femininity to reinforce the traditional gender dichotomy and why it matters. [...]
I think what bothers me most about the Palin-femininity issue isn’t even that she’s “performing femininity” but that she’s performing unthreateningness. That’s where the girliness comes from. She’s saying to men who might otherwise be uncomfortable with a woman in power, “Gee, it’s okay. You know, I’m not gonna try to step out of bounds or anything? You know, I recognize that my job here is to do my job and give people a woman for to vote for who won’t actually try to serve in the elected position that I’m elected to. But I’m super-duper cute? And I’m a maverick.” Pose, wink.
And, golly, I sure want a vice president who, when called upon to perform the duties of a V.P. or, God forbid, a president, can be pretty gosh-darn threatenin’ to some of the world leaders she’s up against. You know, she can wear the heck out of a skirt suit and braid her hair up all pretty, and that’s great, but the moment she winks at Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, our national credibility’s gone right out the window (to a greater extent than it already has).
;)
I am not condoning Palin’s overt playing of her femininity, but I have to wonder if she even knows there are ways to work a crowd that don’t involve pandering to male onlookers. She was a beauty queen, and as such, was taught that winking, flashing a huge smile and being cutsey in general are good ways to win over an audience at that type of event. Those type of actions are expected and rewarded at beauty pageants.
Unfortunately, it seems to point out just how little many of her followers care about anything other than her looks and her cutsey folksisms. Obviously, her beauty pageant training doesn’t come in handy when she has to talk about politics, and somehow this doesn’t matter to her supporters. If any of them had seen the same things I saw when I watched the VP debates and the Couric interviews they would be as appalled as I am that anyone, man or woman, could have come so far in public office without an iota of useful information about our government, the world, or politics in general.
I don’t think it’s wrong for a woman to want to look or act feminine, but when it comes to Sarah Palin, hers is beauty without substance; and women like Sarah Palin, who play their femininity, tend to hurt women who have both beauty AND substance.
I agree with ACG & Nicole. Femininity is one thing; girlishness is another. I think Hillary Clinton–or, to use a fictional example, Laura Roslin–is very feminine, but not in a way that compromises authority or toughness or intelligence. There are different version of the feminine archetype, and Palin’s chosen a particularly revolting one.
Thank you, I agree.
[...] you know Pain was a budding poet? Here’s a Feministe post on Palin’s “Girliness“ Feministing on whether Palin was chosen to appeal to male voters. Yeah! male voters dig [...]
Honestly, I’m still frustrated by the fact that Hillary got so much crap for her pantsuits!
Hell, I’m still confused why there’s a need to differentiate women’s pantsuits from any other suit.
I don’t think there’s anything wrong in saying that choices aren’t ever made in a vacuum, and that we all concede to the patriarchy in different ways.