Performing Femininity and Feminism

[OneFlewOverTheDodosNest]

I've been wondering about the performance of femininity lately, how naturally it comes to some people versus others, and how it has shaped my attitude towards feminism.

For me, performing femininity has never come naturally - I can consciously mirror the actions but it's putting on an act that can be beneficial in certain situations and nothing sticks when I go back to being me, IYSWIM?

I know I've consciously chosen a more feminine appearance at work because the image of a successful businesswoman in my company means highly polished rather than just neat and professional. I'm careful to moderate my natural behaviour in meetings because assertiveness is seen as bolshiness in women. I feel like I'm playing a game without being 100% sure of the rules.

I think this pretence is, in part, why I've been drawn to feminism - because for me everything gender based is an act I'd be happy to be rid of. I'm sure some women find it comes naturally and would probably think this is strange, but is anyone else consciously playing along? And am I somehow doing feminism a disservice for my own benefit?

I've got a lot of thoughts jumped in my head about this that I'm trying to make sense of, but I'd love to hear others thoughts.

[Elendon]

But of course the short dresses and available contraceptives lead to the 'but what was she wearing?' when it came to rape cases.

Now it seems to be 'Don't walk alone at night', 'Don't drink too much.'

sianandcrookedrib.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/how-do-i-know-rape-culture-isnt-myth.html

[Elendon]

Literary critic - that's funny!

[JeanneDeMontbaston]

It's interesting that the dresses of the 50s weren't actually shorter than previously - in fact, they were longer, possibly because all that material suggested wealth after the war, possibly because they're more overtly 'feminine' and less overtly 'practical'. But I always think reading about these things just shows how quick we are to put all of the emphasis on what women wore, and not on what men wore. Even looking at history, we're all much more concerned with women's fashions and what they say. Men, OTOH, are presumed able to speak for themselves, even when they're wearing high heels.

I think there is a subtle pressure to insist that certain clothes must be interpreted as restrictive, because we associate them with certain types of behaviour. So, there's no logical reason why a 50's skirt is necessarily more restrictive than a pair of thigh-clenching men's ballcrusher jeans, but it suits us to imagine that 50's women were caged up by their clothes, whereas men in too-tight jeans are just being daft and wearing silly clothes, with no gender analysis needed.

[JeanneDeMontbaston]

Also, 'but what was she wearing' arguments long predate 50s dresses, or indeed the 20th century.

[Elendon]

Critique. Even funnier.

This week I am mostly wearing clothes.

[Elendon]

I wasn't suggesting any of that Jeanne, that's obviously your interpretation of it.

The 'what she was wearing' was indeed used as a defence, pre 20th century, however, rape cases rarely came to court then.

It's interesting to note that the Suffragettes conformed to fashion and colour to specifically make them a) feminine but also b) for women's rights. They specifically wanted to counter the criticism that they were mannish in clothing and behaviour.

[BlameItOnTheBogey]

Such an interesting thread. I am 'required' to perform femininity in my job. I say required because of course everyone would deny it but there is a clear correlation between female success and femininity. At the same time, I am pretty assertive and - perhaps because I look so feminine - there is no question that I suffer from accusations of being bolshy when, in fact, I am just challenging ideas that do not hold water. I struggle with feedback from my (male) superiors that says I need to find a way to be more accommodating to others. Doing so would undoubtably make me less good at my job (which my superiors agree I am good at). So it's a real catch 22.

[onahorsewithnoname]

But who designates it?
If you take jeans as an example how did they move from masculine?
surely it had to happen first?

[VestalVirgin]

@Buffy: Yes, some French king wore high heels to make himself look bigger. It was discarded pretty soon as a part of male fashion because it was, well, impractical.

Impractical fashions have been worn by men of all cultures, it is true, but only ever by the privileged. It is the unique situation of women to have to wear impractical fashion AND do practical work.

@Elendon: All suffragettes? I seem to remember something about the first women's trousers being invented around that time.

@onahorse: Women started to wear them? I am rather sure that was how it started.

[onahorsewithnoname]

Sorry that was@ Buffet and her performative utterances

[onahorsewithnoname]

Buffet? bluddy phone, I should stick to farming

[GreenTomatoJam]

I thought heels were also to do with riding horses - BBC seems to agree

www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21151350

Then the upper classes took it to ridiculous lengths and they entered fashion both for men and women.

[madwomanbackintheattic]

If you are consciously doing the designating and wearing, then it can only be performative. some interesting comments about the 'dapper lesbian' look though. Having been mistaken for a lesbian on more than one occasion because of my dress style and hair cut (And shoes) there was obviously an assumption that's what I was performing. It wasn't my thought process when I cropped my hair or got dressed though. I suppose there is a case to be made that groups do adopt these sorts of signifiers themselves to perform identity. I wonder if that's where the self-policing of rules kicks in, even if the 'rules' have been applied to a group externally, rather than from within? Women assume those cultural norms and end up policing themselves and other women, to maintain group identity. Others who choose not to (hairy legged feminists or 'dapper lesbians') are othered by both the group and the wider society, but are inextricably linked as individual groups by their own identity performance.

Vast over-simplification, obviously. Plenty of hairy legged feminists shave, and plenty of 'dapper lesbians' aren't. But I guess conforming / performing stereotyping becomes a simple way to signify group membership and so bolsters the whole shebang. If you can get groups and individuals to control their own dress and behaviour, it's win win for whoever is setting up the 'rules' in the first place. Panopticon 101.

[onahorsewithnoname]

I think the heels were only high in comparison to what was 'normal'. Would the peasantry have had any sort of heel?

[JeanneDeMontbaston]

elendon, get off your high horse - I was just replying to you.

And rape trials didn't come to court so very much more rarely pre-20th than post-20th, either.

FWIW, peasants had clog heels - to keep them out of the mud! They're quite high and called patterns. They were taken over (and taken to ridiculous, Naomi-Campbell heights) by the aristocrisy, but I dunno why. Increasing stature seems as plausible as anything else.

[OneFlewOverTheDodosNest]

Interestingly, today we had a dress down day at work (oh the excitement!) and almost the entire office were wearing some variation on smart jeans, jumper and winter shoes/boots. One woman was wearing a wool dress with boots but apart from that not a skirt in sight.

So if this is what we (women) wear when we get to choose smart causal clothing, why do we all conform to the absurd and frankly uncomfortable skirt suits that seem to be mandatory? I'm half tempted to get my brogues out again on Monday morning...

[Etrusca]

A trouser suit, perhaps, DodosNest. Then you can wear comfortable shoes with it too.

Why do we have this obsession with wearing a certain type of clothing for work anyway? Why not wear smart jeans, a jumper and boots? Would it really affect your efficiency that much?!

[tribpot]

I know someone (male) who, when working from home, dresses in full suit, including waistcoat and tie. Which just goes to show, there's nowt so queer as folk.

I would definitely start pushing the boundaries of what you perceive to be acceptable, Dodo. Trousers or flat shoes, maybe toning down the makeup, just to see what people say.

I think formal dress for work is meant to provide the same virtues as a uniform - except of course for women, who are (or feel) obliged to provide endless variety in their so-called uniform.

[IrenetheQuaint]

I have recently changed career to the public sector where the female work code suits me down to the ground - essentially nice but dull, so cosy dress/trousers with cardigan and flat shoes etc. Hardly anyone wears make-up. It's bliss.

[OneFlewOverTheDodosNest]

A bit of an update, today I am back in trousers and flat shoes which I was fine with travelling to work, and then as soon as I got in the vicinity of the office I seemed to be the only woman not in a skirt and heels which felt a bit strange.

I have had someone comment on my brogues and wimpishly blamed it on hurting my foot at the weekend so thanks to the PP that made that suggestion!

I'm going to stick to the sensible (and warmer) clothes for the foreseeable, but it will be interesting to see how people react to me in terms of assertiveness etc now. As I said previously, as a newer recruit I was specifically steered in terms of expectations of appearance / behaviour to be "prettier" and more compliant/demure but maybe having more seniority will work in my favour. I hope so because my feet are SO comfortable today and I doubt I'll be able to be nice and quiet to make up for it!

[PassiveAgressiveQueen]

I discussed this thread with my husband, about wearing the same clothes often/ on rotation.
He reckons if your boss is a male, he will never have noticed if you have the same suit and 5 identical blouses. And if he does notice you would get bonus points for not wasting time in the morning on pointless things :)

disclaimer: this is a supposedly houmerous generalisation.

[slightlyglitterpaned]

I've met quite a few women in IT who felt pressure not to dress in an overtly stereotypically female style - i.e. jeans & tshirt fine, one of the crowd; dress, heels & makeup = must be not techie.

I find it tricky either way - there often aren't enough women in a dept to provide variety, so dressing in the geek uniform of tshirt and jeans gets acceptance, but at the cost of making any women who prefer dresses/clearly fashionable clothing even more isolated. Lose either way, what a surprise. I did go through a phase of wearing dresses, partly as a reaction, and partly because they are far more practical during pregnancy than anything else.

I am generally too lazy to follow fashion, but I do get pleasure in a great coat, or awesome boots - I'm not groomed enough to carry off Dana Scully, but to the previous poster asking if any prominent women look great in trouser suits, then yes, yes she did.