Feminist pub no 12: The Bluestocking Returns, this time with goats!

[YonicScrewdriver]

Welcome!

All painted by men, I think, apart from that one by Élisabeth Louise Vigée-Le Brun. Almost all very demure looking, as is proper for ladies.

What is the point, do you think?

there was possibly a berthe morisot and one of the bloomsbury group too, but i only watched once and didn't pay close enough attention

but yes, predominantly male painters

what might be interesting would be a montage of self-portraits by women artists

I watched the 500 years of female portraits, and the thing that struck me about the portraits was how incredibly passive-looking most of the expressions of the women were. And given that the majority of the portraits were painted by men, why is this so??? Why did the artists need to portray these women as passionless (there were a few with slightly lusty looks ), without expression, without a fire in their eyes? Did these male artists prefer a representation of a woman/women as something which didn't threaten them in some way? I would be interested in seeing some of the rationales for the way in which the particular artists chose to paint a particular portrait.

On another note, I have just read the latest 'removing my hair vs my husband's opinion' thread, and there is a poster who has likened hair removal in human females, to animals who pluck their hair/feathers out to furnish their nests. I am imagining her shaving the hair from her legs, then trotting over to her bed and carefully emptying the freshly cut hair into her and her partner's bed .

zazzles when you go back to the 15th/16th/17th centuries, artists weren't making the sort of artistic choices they do today - they were more like craftsmen and were working on commissions from important patrons. so it was usually the woman's husband or father commissioning the work (or possibly her herself), so they would likely want to portray her as closely as possible to the idealised woman of that day - demure, pious, beautiful, motherly/virginal (depending on their status), respectful of their menfolk etc

so yes, essentially, they would be portrayed as the patron wanted, who was most often a man. and if they were paying again they wouldn't want to deviate too much from the ideal of womanhood. and of course the male artists were complicit in that - they knew how to make their money

sorry if you know all this already and this is very patronising!

Ah no Pumpkin, I didn't know that at all. Although I absolutely love and appreciate art, I have very little knowledge about its historical context and such, so that was very enlightening. But yes, it comes back to the woman being portrayed as a man wanted her to be, according to the standards befitting of societal expectations of that time period.

Thank you yes I am feeling much better today... as I always do one day, or the next. Fine rain and not too many meetings ahead make me feel soothed

Reading all your comments on the 500 years montage has reminded me of the impression I had once when I was browsing for female vocal folk on spotify. An image of the album cover comes up at the bottom left and a really astonishing proportion of the images was based on a head shot of a woman with eyes lowered or closed - not looking directly at the camera, or anywhere. The overall impression was of extreme demure self-effacement. You were given the sense that these women were honoured to have been given the gift of song and had shyly been dragged into a recording studio and before a lens, but had no innate desire to show off

I hate that aesthetic. It's worse when done indie style though. Oh don't look at me, no don't look at me, simper giggle. IT'S OK WE'RE LOOKING AT YOU YOU'RE A POP STAR

I don't blame female indie vocalists for this nonsense, just the sort of creepy dribbling indie men who love it and don't like women / pop stars / vocalists who "love themselves" (what is wrong with loving yourself?) "put themselves forward" etc

I think what bothered me about that montage was the act of deliberately merging, creating a homogeneity - or perhaps emphasising whatever homogeneity was already there. I mean these portraits exist in the style that they are in, yes there is the whole issue of the male gaze, yes there are conventions to a lack of expression etc BUT within that, if you take each portrait individually, it is possible to see the subject as a real woman - whether someone's model, or someone's wife - it is possible to notice whatever humanity and individuality she has, around or squeezing through the conventions. What this process does is to deliberately work against that humanity and it is like a final (and entirely unnecessary) insult

It would also be interesting to compare portraits of men. Altogether an unsatisfactory thesis, this project.

I haven't looked at that de-hairing thread for a while. Do I dare?

amanda vickery's programme about women in art was very interesting, i don't think it's available unfortunately

this self-portrait by artemisia gentileschi was very unusual for the time

there is a book by rideal, chadwick and borzello called "mirror mirror" about self-portraits by women artists which i remember being fascinated by as an UG. (whitney chadwick has written some great books on women and art - i must dig mine out because my feminist education has increased since i last read them and i'd like to see how that has had an impact on this area)

Can somebody please tell me that reading the Land's End catalogue and fantasizing about oversized checked shirts and other warm things is NOT going to get a paper published?

lordc i thought it was a standard requirement in most guides for authors?

It's windy out and the doors are creaking in the wind and I really have enough warm clothes...

If only guides for authors all look so comforting.

will suggest it to senior management

Glad to hear you're feeling better today, Vezzie. I got to the end of my waffly post yesterday and ran out of time before saying anything useful, sorry. Tbh though I don't feel in a position to offer advice as I'm still figuring things out on a day by day basis for myself! And I feel awkward talking about DH too much.

I will share with you two little gems that seem relevant:

• After listening to me describe the challenges caused by the unequal division of domestic labour in my marriage, my (male) psychiatrist asking whether I thought DH felt emasculated by the amount of responsibility or areas of control I had in our relationship. Ha fucking ha

• Chatting to DM only this weekend and telling her about some projects I'm working on, how exciting it was etc and her asking how I was going to ensure that I still made time for making my marriage work. I've been trying imagine a situation in which someone would say to DH "hey congrats on your recent promotion, man, that's great. It's going to mean longer hours though, how are you going to make time for DW?".

I don't disagree that marriage takes time and effort to thrive, but FFS why is that my job alone?

Thanks, Demis. I really appreciate all your thoughtful posts.

That question from your psychiatrist is infuriating. I mean apart from anything else, what has how your husband might feel got to do with your psychiatrist? When the fuck does it get to be ALL ABOUT YOU if not in a consultation with your doctor? Answer: never. The dr views his job, subconsciously, as "fixing" you to be a good wife, which means he can't help but view things from your husband's perspective

This is interesting

www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/marriage-abduction

I am getting a lot of more interesting perspectives on Gone Girl now the film is out. I was stuck before on "woman invents abuse for her own manipulative ends" angle, and how rarely this happens in real life relative to fiction, and the question: do we need more made up stories about manipulative women?
However there is a lot more to think about than just that.

The confusion as to how to manage women's strength and power within personal relationship structures which fetishise their weakness is a huge thing. Oddly I think sometimes more so in US than here, which is in many ways I think socially more conservative - perhaps because of lack of maternity leave or lots of church influence?

i'm supposed to be seeing that film tomorrow with MIL vezzie

i'm a bit worried i'm going to find it problematic just as you say vezzie, but that link and your other comments suggest i might not be as frustrated as i thought

I would like to be emasculated by DH planning and doing all the household chores.

You would have to be efeminated, LordCopper.

But wait, there isn't a word for that of course. Is that because we're not supposed to feel in any way threatened by a man taking over our "women stuff" or because it has never occurred anyone that men would want to take over "women stuff" because it's shit?

On further news, our house is not officially on the market and I have a job interview tomorrow. Shit just got real.

Thanks for posting the Charlie Brooker article MyEmpire, you've saved me the job. :o It's unsettling reading the comments underneath though, some of them are vile.

And I am pleased that I didn't have to give our business to the estate agent who called the women in his office "girls".