The Real Meaning of Marriage

I keep this blog pretty much to work out the things that stick in my craw and sometimes I feel like I shouldn't post certain things because I know I am going to be accused of looking for stuff or nitpicking.

But, damn, sometimes I just have to say something! Right now I am annoyed because of the comments on this post at A Cup of Jo. I like that blog; it is light, it is cute, it is fun. But it is sorely lacking in any sort of feminist critique. The post in question is about bridal veils. Maybe I spend too much time on feminist blogs but I went to the comments section fully expecting someone to say that veils represent women's subordination and commodification; that they romanticize rigid gender roles.

I got none of that of course, but what I did get was a whole lot of women (I believe) talking about how lovely and romantic veils are. I especially love this gem:

"The veil is so beautiful and wearing it over the face is just so romantic!"

Also, apparently, when talking weddings "old fashioned" is a good thing.

"That is quite romantic and old-fashioned. It seems like veils covering the face at weddings have slowely (sic) been phased out - I still adore the sentiment!"

This one is my favorite:

"This is so moving and beautiful. It really does remind us of the real meaning of marriage. Stunning."

These comments had me thinking about how some women romanticize the wedding ceremony. I am not going to go into all of the different traditions and what they mean because I just don't have the energy. But I am led to wonder how so many commenter's on A Cup of Jo can, without a trace of self-examination or critical consciousness, say that a bridal veil is romantic.

Old fashioned, yes. Traditional, yes. But let us look at that tradition that these commenter's wish to romanticize. On a website for bridal veils, they describe the tradition as such:

"In medieval times...the veil was used to protect [the bride] from 'the evil eye' and was a symbol of purity, chastity, and modesty.

Others say the the origin of the bridal veil was due to the circumstances of an arranged marriage. In days past, men bargained with an eligible young lady's father for their hand in marriage. AFTER the ceremony, the veil was lifted to reveal the brides features. This was to keep a groom from backing out of the deal if he didn't like what he saw.

Some say that the veil was used in days past as a symbol of a bride's submission and willingness to obey her husband."

Remember, this is a site that sells veils! That these traditions actually do represent the "real meaning of marriage" is perhaps the best argument I can think of against marriage.

It really bums me out that women don't think more about the meaning of the traditions that they are upholding in their weddings. And if they do think about it and then uphold them anyway, well that is just terrifying.

Dr. Phil Duo

I need to get another job. This can be evidenced by the fact that I have been watching too much Dr. Phil. What is so fascinating about this is that I watched episodes on Thursday and Friday which were just so strikingly sexist, particularly in relationship to one another, that I almost couldn't believe it.

On Thursday Robin McGraw, Dr. Phil's wife, had the opportunity to tell women what we need to do to look ten years younger during an oh-so-tired makeover show. Apparently all it takes to be a happier menopausal woman is microderm abrasion, teeth whitening, cellulite reduction cream, velashaping (?), eyebrow sculpting, 'natural' hormone therapy, not eating, a gym membership, working out in the proper (name brand) gear, an iPod, sunglasses, perfume, high heels, bubble baths, a cocktail dress, a crap-load of make up and a haircut. (Seriously, all of these things were mentioned!)

Image Via

The show featured five 40-50 year old women who were unhappy with their appearance.
"I've become a frumpy mom... I'm not feeling pretty anymore!"
Dr. Phil's only apparent reason for even being in this episode seemed to be to illustrate the contrast between men and women. Every time Robin named off some inane new beauty treatment he would shake his head in that condescending "oh you silly women" way. He joked many times about how women just like to be pretty and thin, blah, blah, blah. He lectured the women about going to the gym (one of them moaned about weighing 130 lbs!) AND he consistently referred to them as 'girls!' Remember, they were all between 40 and 50!!

Near the end of the show all of the women came out to show their new make overs. The audience applauded vigorously when Robin announced that one of the women was now a size 4. Now all of these viewers have learned that being a size 4 is how women are valued in mass media, this is the only reason that this woman made it onto broadcast television. This revelation sequence was my very favorite part because the first thing Dr. Phil did was ask the women's husbands how they thought that their wives looked. He didn't ask the women how they felt or what they thought. No, he was much more concerned with whether their torturous beauty rituals had succeeded in making their fat, balding husbands' dicks hard. Job well done! And of course, all of this was presented as being some great treat for all of these women.

Another portion of the show was spent at the mall. Robin showed viewers how to shop so that you can look years younger! She did this with her token gay man and her vacuous Barbie-doll-looking daughter-in-law.

Heternormativity, misogyny and class privilege all smashed into one hour long show. Well done!

~

The show on Friday was seemingly very different in its focus. However, if you pay attention to the subtext the connection becomes very clear.

The first part of the show was about Adam who is $200,000 in debt. Adam's family thinks that he is too concerned with material things. He claimed (and no one really disagreed) that "it's all about image." I am assuming he meant life.

Image Via

He would buy himself new vehicles at an alarming rate and he went to the tanning salon and got his hair done before being on the show. These things apparently demonstrate his obsession with his image. Dr. Phil's advice for him?

"Why do you care so much about what people think?
"Why do you need that Hummer to perceive yourself as okay?"
"Don't be that shallow, don't define yourself by that stuff."

Now remember that just one day earlier he and his wife were encouraging women to do those very things!! To absorb themselves in their image, to allow their possessions to define them, to be extremely concerned with their outward appearance. Now when a man is perceived as doing those very same things, he is told that that is unacceptable. He should not be so concerned with material things or with his appearance. No, that is the burden that only women must bear.

When Will Women Be Considered Whole Human Beings?

Image Via.

The other day I came across this image while doing a google search. Now I am all about eliminating and/or preventing breast cancer. However, I do not like the tendency toward dismembering female bodies in the name of awareness. This shirt makes it seem as if ending breast cancer is for male (or female, I suppose) sexual gratification rather than stopping the unnecessary loss of female lives. Breast cancer sucks. Women suffer horribly and sometimes die from it. It is not sweet and pink! But most of all, it is NOT about men or what gets them off!

This shirt is just one of many like it that I have come across. I Blame the Patriarchy has a fabulous disection of this trend.

To Short Skirt or not to Short Skirt

I was on 'vacation' from Chicago sitting in the living room in my parent’s Green Bay home when my father said “You would think that a feminist would wear a shirt that covered her cleavage. You should wear t-shirts and sweatshirts not tank tops like that.” I could not believe my ears, my father is usually fairly liberal guy and I have never heard him criticize me like this before. This elicited quite a debate between both of my parents and I.

My parents seem to believe that when women dress a certain way they make themselves targets for abuse. This is classic victim blame. As if changing the way that women dress would change the entire institution that allows for their systematic abuse to begin with. I have argued, time and again, that all of the pepper spray and self-defense classes in the world are not going to ‘protect’ women. Women will not be safe in this world until we are considered autonomous human beings with full bodily sovereignty as men are.

I am a feminist. I also like to wear low cut shirts, high heels (occasionally), mascara and skirts. I do, of course, understand that these are tools of the patriarchy. I know that painful shoes force women to walk slower and limit their movement. I know that cosmetics are a huge industry that survives by making women feel ugly unless they are made up. I know that low cut shirts might catch male attention and cause some people to take me less seriously. I also know that men are not restricted in these same ways. These are all reasons that some feminists do choose not to adorn themselves that way. But is that really the answer?

This is one of the many gross double standards that plague women every day. Are my parents right, should I not wear revealing clothing because it puts me at risk? Or should I not allow the terror tactics of the proverbial man to keep me down? It seems to me that most women are not consciously aware of the subtle ways that they alter their lives to protect themselves from male violence. Yet we still live by a strictly prescribed ‘rape schedule.’ As much as I fought my parents on this issue, I know that when I am at home in Chicago I will not wear my mini-skirt out at night. I know that I will not wear low cut tops when I have to walk alone. I know that I will carry my pepper spray in one hand and my cell phone in the other every time I hop on the L after dark.

Whether we like it or not, fear of male violence infiltrates almost every aspect of women’s lives. Even seasoned feminists have to maintain a delicate balance between fighting the patriarchy and protecting ourselves from it. Until the day that women are considered to be autonomous human beings capable of giving and denying consent, until we live in a world that is free of male sexualized violence against women, until women are no longer the sex class, we will never be able to wear our mini-skirts and cleavage bearing tops without even a shred of fear.

I wonder how other women deal with this double bind....

Murder Chic: Misogyny is High Fashion

Dismembered bodies, blood, murder, starvation, mental illness, battery, sexual assault and… death. Sound sexy? According to Vogue magazine and America’s Next Top Model high fashion and brutalized women go hand in hand. I have written at length before about this America’s Next Top Model spread. All of these women were made up to look as though they were brutally murdered and then were praised for their ability to look sexy. At the time I held out hope that it was just a passing fad but then Italian Vogue released these photos (to glowing praise no less).

When did murder, rape and misery become high fashion? I cannot look at these images without wondering ‘how did these women end up beaten, abused, and murdered?’ Actually, I know how. According to Jean Kilbourne in her text Can’t Buy My Love, more than one-third of women slain in this country die at the hands of their husbands or boyfriends. Though the photographers may not intend for them to be, these images are very political. They are representative of a greater cultural illness.

I can sense the “Relax, it’s just a picture” response that I am sure to get. The problem is that these images do not exist in a vacuum, they exist in a cultural climate of intense anxiety and backlash. Backlash against women’s movement into the workforce, backlash against women’s sexual agency, and backlash against women’s bodily sovereignty. These images exist within the context of white-supremacist, capitalist, patriarchy and that means that they are saturated with meaning.

I know that even when I am not conscious of it, I am always thinking about my safety. I know that there are some places that I cannot walk alone and I know that there are some articles of clothing that make me a target for male violence. The women over at feministing call it a rape schedule. We know where to walk, what to wear, and when to have our keys in our hands. We know to lock the doors behind ourselves and we know that elevators, parking garages, and stairwells are places to avoid. We are constantly aware of the threat of male violence and images like those in Vogue or America’s Next Top Model contribute to that anxiety. They keep fresh in women’s minds the logical result of male violence. This type of emotional and psychological terrorism serves the very specific purpose of keeping women in their place through the constant threat of violence, specifically sexualized violence.

Further, these images contribute to the normalization and fetishization of violence against women. When we are inundated with images of annihilated, abused and murdered women we become desensitized to it in media and in real life. These texts contribute to the dehumanization of women. They are insane! They enjoy being beaten! They are not real people! The America’s Next Top Model shoot presents women being murdered in a variety of ways. One woman is pushed off of a rooftop, one is poisoned, one is stabbed, one is drowned and wrapped in plastic, one is pushed down a flight of stairs, one is strangled, electrocuted, shot in the head, decapitated, and perhaps most horrifying one has her organs stolen. Her individual parts are literally more valuable than her person as a whole.

As I was researching images for this piece, the sheer volume of images that I saw overwhelmed me. The advertisement posters for the new movie Captivity are an even more brazen example of this normalization of violence toward woman. Can you imagine driving your mini-van filled with children past this image every day? What would you tell your daughters? I wonder how people can continue to tell me that these things have no effect. How do we look at images like these and feel nothing? The trend of abuse toward women as fashion is terrifying and yet not really surprising. It is a slightly more obvious version of the dismembered female bodies that we see in mainstream advertisements every single day.

After all of that how can we even pretend to be surprised when a story like this crops up? These boys live in a society that devalues women to such an extent that gazing at their corpses is high fashion! There is no other conclusion for young men to draw than that women’s bodies are (a) their property and (b) ultimately valueless. These young men are perfect products of their society and, sadly, as Kilbourne’s statistic proves, they are not alone.

Empowerment Vs. Acquiescence (That Never Ending Debate)

Today I feel like discussing a topic that has been much on my mind lately. With summer nearly in full swing, clothing is getting skimpier and skimpier (mine included). Some of this is of course a product of necessity and some of it is just for fun. On Friday morning I wore my cute little shorts and a very revealing tube top to see my therapist. While I was walking around downtown (Milwaukee) I felt so good getting all sorts of attention. I cannot remember a time when I felt more physically confident. Anyway, this got me to thinking about why we wear what we wear. My tube top was certainly not inappropriate for the 80 degree weather, but it was perhaps more revealing than it had to be for my comfort. Still I felt amazing because I was getting (male) attention. Sometimes I feel the very opposite. Often when men look at me in that very sexualized, objectifying way it makes me want to lash out. It makes me wish that they could feel just how extremely uncomfortable I feel because I just do not believe that there is a male equivalent. So I feel very conflicted. While on the one hand I love the attention, on the other hand it is creepy and scares the hell out of me. This is just another of the many double binds that women must navigate on a daily basis.

So, why do I like male attention?

Because it is emotionally and economically beneficial. Stereotypically attractive (SA) women are much more likely to land jobs than non-stereotypically attractive women with the same qualifications. SA women are more likely to land rich husbands or gain access to other money-making ventures. I work with a young women who is slightly over weight and a bit frumpy. All of the other waitresses I work with are tiny and thin and quite SA. Interestingly, the less SA young woman makes significantly less in tips even when she works the best sections. The point here being that being SA = a better, more financially stable life.

Why do I hate male attention?

Probably for all of the reasons above. And because I know that male attention can also be dangerous. Because "she was asking for it" is still used as justification for rape. Because short skirts and skimpy tube tops "cause" erections and erections are all powerful and almighty in the phallocentric society. The erection can and does have whatever it wants regardless of the personal integrity or bodily sovereignity of the actual person in the short skirt and skimpy tube top. This is a danger that I write about a lot because I feel it all the time! Mostly I fear wearing a short skirt or a reavealing top because that action has very serious consequences.

Why do I still wear the tube tops when I dislike the male gaze that they invite?

This is a question that my partner actually brought up and it is one that I feel very unable to reconcile. I love my tank tops, my cleavage revealing shirts, and my tube tops. I anxiously wait for summer just so I can have the opportunity to wear them. And I know that I am not the only one. Clothing is such an immediate and obvious indicator of the self. It is very personal and individual. In a society where we are inundated with choices, the clothing that we adorn ourselves with is very revealing of our personalities. Even when we do not think that much effort is put into a particular 'outfit' it is still a reflection of our selves. The point is that with so much effort placed upon clothing choice we must certainly want (at least in some ways) to be looked at. I think that this transcends gender, though, of course, women are much more aware of it and are more often targeted because of it. If we (specifically women) do want to be looked at, then why do we get so upset when men do look? I think that it is because the male gaze denies women agency relegating them to the status of objects. Objectification is demeaning and dehumanizing. And men do not experience this the way that women do.

I guess I have not really made any revelations or breakthroughs on this topic but it is one that has been on my mind. Perhaps others have pearls of wisdom to cast my way....