Reasons I can't be a feminist; according to others. . .

[WellnowImFucked]

Because I like and am good at baking.

Because I wear lipstick.

Because I'm straight.

Because OH carries my work bag for me.

And currently number one on my list, 'you can't be a feminist, you always wear such nice shoes'

I'm laugh if it wasn't so fucking sad

Oh I see, now.

But I don't think about what they were designed for, why should I? I think about the here and now and why I want to wear a short skirt. I don't think "hm the miniskirt was designed to please men, so as a feminist I shouldn't wear one", because times have changed and it's not acceptable for people to harrass or cat call me for my clothes. I wear mini skirts because i like them. If I give up and wear a burka, I am still dressing to please others (im fact, i am dressing for the benefit of others, heaven forbid i tempt a man into behaving like a dickhead) and attitudes will never change.

D'you know, I'm also getting fed up of this 'most women don't think about it all' line.

Women have brains. They use them roughly as often as men do.

As someone who does actual research (NB: 'research' does not mean 'collecting anecdata'), in the company of the long list of other MN regulars who do actual research, I am beginning to find the veiled implications of stupidity tedious.

katee - plus, as the unexpectedly good scene in Devil Wears Prada has Meryl Streep point out, it's not like you could really avoid wearing clothes that were designed to treat women as sex objects. Sure, a M&S sensible cardie and jeans is a fairly long way removed from Dolce and Gabbana doing bodycon, but you can bet it hasn't just popped into existence with no link to the fashion industry or the social structures behind that.

Yes, it's the reason we wear clothrs at all, it is no longer socially acceptable to be naked. I am sure not many people wake up, stand in front of their wardrobes and think "clothes are a social construct to make me more appealing to other people. Fuck that, I will go to work naked". We just do it on autopilot, male or female.

Quite. Also are men required to think about what their clothing was originally designed for? Or can they just wear a suit because it's expected at work and everyone else does?

I have a friend who always moans about having to wear a suit and tie to work, even in the height of summer, while I am sat in my office in a tank top and lightweight, knee length skirt feeling smug. Sometimes objectifying clothes work in my favour.

RE: being asked (particularly by men) to explain feminism/how feminists think/why you're a feminist (as someone mentioned above):

feministcurrent.com/8098/feminists-are-not-responsible-for-educating-men/

"In an ironic twist [the man who asks] is unaware that by demanding women divert their energies to immediately gratifying his whims [e.g. answering his questions], he reinforces the power dynamics he is supposedly seeking to understand."

Don't fall into the trap, sisters!

Yeah. Argue, they will insist they are right. Don't argue, they will assume they have won and are right.

Arguing is distracting me from mopping the floor so more entertaining at the moment.

I don't think anyone has ever said "you can't be a feminist because you..." to me. Maybe its the DMs, or perhaps it is because I haven't announced myself with "I'm a feminist"

I can see both sides of the argument regarding clothing and presentation. Clothes carry cultural messages, they speak of the identity of the person wearing them, they tell us something about how they would like to be perceived, how they subjectively see themselves, and are bound up with hierarchies of power.

Heels symbolise both power and subservience. I guess one then has to look at other signifiers to gauge the meaning and message behind the choice of shoes.

Also it is nonsense to say women never wear heels or any other clothing in order to get male attention. They do. As have I. Some might say that is an advantage and say its liberating and powerful, others might see this as evidence of our status as the sex class. It is both and it depends on both the sender and receiver of any cultural message to have the same understanding.

Women have three ways in which they relate to themselves. As "I" and as subject and also as object. Our perception of ourselves is often objectified. We have internalised our "objectified" status and now we hang our sense of our selves on how appealing we are as object. Heels are worn by women who tread on the feet of others to get to where they are going and they are worn by the young junior filing clerk who blushes everytime the boss talks to her. One signifies power and dominance, the other subservience, both are objectified and sexualised.

Wearing heels is not a simple choice of what looks nice or not, any women telling herself its a neutral simple decision is deceiving herself.

Mini, I don't say it's a neutral decision, I just argue that it is not purely and omly ever to get sexual attention, which is what I gleaned from Mark saying it is "pointless if your aim is not to elicit any sort of sexual response or be objectified." Sometimes it is for that, sometimes to look taller, sometimes because you might walk or dance differently, sometimes because you just like the heel/minidress/red lipstick. Often it's a combination of those things, so to say it's not possible for a feminist to do it because they are pointless things to do if they aren't trying to elicit a sexual response, is a bit disingenuous.

Also it is nonsense to say women never wear heels or any other clothing in order to get male attention.

Who is saying this?

On the first point - I find what's much more common is 'oh, no you're not!' or 'you're not!' delivered with a reassuring smile, if I identify myself as having radfem tendencies. It's not gatekeeping, it's people who assume I would be as offended by being identified by that term as they would be.

KateeGee, why might you/any woman like the "heel/minidress/red lipstick"

As regards whether heels are a sexual signifier, I would say yes they are and in all circumstances. Heels are a way of conveying power or subservience, what they convey will depend on other signifying things, such as age, even hair colour (crap really but there you go!) what else is being worn, the economic status of the wearer, the situation in which they are worn whether that be the female boss at work (always characterised as wearing heels, red lipstick and she eats young men alive!) or the office junior, young and self-conscious, eager to please. And yes these are stereotypes and tropes but we often read reality through myth and metaphor. We are simply made this way.

Either way, heels signify something about the sexual/objectified subject, according to which other signifiers are present, you are either dominant or subservient, both are sexual messages or at least read culturally in this way. The receiver of the message sees either dominance that must be either fetishisised, or degraded, or subservience.

I don't know JeanneDeMontbasto never encountered it. People I speak to can work it out for themselves and I guess often do. I certainly don't mince my words

Yes Mini, I agree that ithas it's origins in sexual objectification and that still persists, and sometimes people want to be objectified, I don't think that's what Mark was saying though. He seems to be struggling with the idea that a feminist might recognise this yet still wear heels/a tight skirt/ red lipstick and still call herself a feminist...

Well, Mark said that women's fashion normalised sexualised attire, to the extent that women don't see it. I would agree with this. Many women probably don't see it. I wear what I want but I am aware and own my choices. I won't though go as far as saying that I can wear what I like and expect that it won't effect my relations with others. It does effect the way we are perceived and how people react. Should it? hell, I don't know. I mean, do we think its ok to have plastic surgery, look like a porn trope, spend all our wages on make-up and revel in our objectified status? probably not. As a feminist I am concerned that women feel pressured, and that somehow we are losing site of ourselves in some quest to modify ourselves and turn ourselves into a perfect commodity. I'm not Sheila Jeffries and going to claim that we should see all beauty practice as some violence against ourselves, but where do you draw the line?

I don't mince my words either (though I used to be more inclined to it), but I think there's quite a strong feeling that being a radical feminist means you must be some kind of evil, transphobic separatist lesbian who burns down male babies and hates sex. Now, admittedly, there's nothing wrong with being a separatist, a lesbian, or hating sex, but I'm not actually those things (or the others).

I just feeling all of this can turn into woman blaming quite fast. It's socially acceptable to judge women for plastic surgery - in fact, we're encouraged to do it, because it 1) is a way of saying that women who care about appearance are shallow and 2) is a way of ensuring women retain their reputation for being 'bitchy' about each other. It's less socially acceptable to judgw women for wearing heels, but it plays up to some of the same stereotypes.

What's truly unacceptable is to suggest women can't escape social pressures. That seems to offend the largest number of people.

Its the difference between critique and criticism perhaps. Its difficult to take the personal away from the political having situated the two together! but really, I do wonder why is it so difficult for people to be objective, rather than constantly feeling that they have to defend themselves. Maybe we are defensive at times, as women because we find ourselves having to walk this thin line between societal expectations and the pressure to look successful, and knowing that actually we would rather opt out because we know it reduces us. And of course, it never sits well with people when you start to question if we have free will. The liberal tradition denies that anything can be determined, even partially. Of course liberal western feminism is a brand marketed through mainstream media, so it goes without saying that the idea that all are equal, all have free choice, and every choice is equal is the mantra, and dare anyone suggest otherwise.

Yes, I think that's exactly it. People feel criticised.

I also find it really interesting (and odd) that if you, as a feminist, point out that you are also bowing to some of these pressures and failing to be objective, many people will feel you're somehow hypocritical. As if, merely by saying 'I notice social pressure to perform femininity,' you should have excaped it.

I've had this happen on MN, actually.

Oh, I can talk, I'm sitting here in make up and a pink dress having baked cakes, as though any of those things by virtue of being considered feminine are of a nature subordinate to wearing jeans and fixing up the car. Do I do what I do, act as I do and look this way through free choice? probably not because I am subject to social conditioning, just as much as the next person. If I choose to accept that is the case and continue to do as I do, I must acknowledge that although my choice appears free, it has political significance. I do. But I then think "oh but I like pink, cakes and make up and why are these things considered so stooopid" Its quite difficult really!

It is that.

I think you are being a bit generous toMark, Mini. He suggested that it is obvious that push up bras, bare legs and heels are sexualising, so if it's obvious to him it must be obvious to women as well. He then said "But the question is more why women would choose this?" and " I can see perfectly well why someone would think that choosing to dress in a way that sexualises yourself would diminish your feminist credentials," so he was saying that women do see it and should accept that this will make people see them as unfeminist.

I think it obvious that push-up bras, and heels are sexualising yes. But bare legs? really? and yes of course it begs the question why enlightened thinkers such as feminists who are able to conceive of these things "choose" to wear these clothes. Of course it does. But feminists however enlightened to the role these clothes play as social signifiers, are subject to the same pressures to conform, the same market forces that ensure little choice, and the same desire to seemingly choose freely. I choose to wear a push-up bra because I don't want to seem like I am keeping my knees warm and I like the effect, because I like every other women have been conditioned to objectify myself and to a very large degree place value upon my appearance, the locus of my self-esteem and sense of who I am. It crosses the object/subject barrier. There is no easy answer is there