Gender query: Self-consciousness of image

[firecat]

I read a blog called The Beheld.

In this post, "Recommended Reading," Autumn Whitefield-Madrano discusses Naomi Wolf's The Beauty Myth and recommends some books that "go beyond" and "work alongside" Wolf's book. One of them is Ways of Seeing by John Berger. Whitefield-Madrano includes the following quote from the book:

A woman must continually watch herself. She is almost continually accompanied by her own image of herself. Whilst she is walking across a room or whilst she is weeping at the death of her father, she can scarcely avoid envisaging herself walking or weeping. … And so she comes to consider the surveyor and the surveyed within her as the two constituent yet always distinct elements of her identity as a woman. … Thus she turns herself into an object—and most particularly an object of vision: a sight.

Whitefield-Madrano says that she relates to this quote.

I don't. Sometimes I dress to look and/or feel a certain way, but once I'm dressed, I don't go around constantly surveying myself. And when I do feel that way, I hate it.

So I'm trying to figure out whether this is in fact a part of being a woman or identifying as feminine (and thus my not doing it is part of my being genderqueer) or whether the author maybe doesn't know what he's talking about or is exaggerating what he's talking about (by using terms such as "continually" and "scarcely avoid").

I'd love for people of all genders to comment on this. What is your gender? Do you constantly watch yourself and feel aware of your image of yourself most of the time? Do you think women or people who identify as feminine usually do that?

Ways of Seeing was published in 1972. In what ways do you think enforced image self-consciousness for women or people who identify as feminine has changed since then?

Comments

[elainegrey]

I recognize that understanding of how women see themselves from movies and novels. It seems familiar: a scene where a female character is practicing looking a certain way, where she's reflecting in inner monologue in text about the way she appears. I think that is why that practice of appearance-awareness seems familiar. (I keep thinking, "Steel Magnolias!") There's the woman character who is "in rollers" or some equivalent, who a moment into the scene gives a horrified, "Oh heavens, i can't believe..." and dashes off stage to reappear shortly coifed and poised.

Me, i can be appearance assessing as i stand infront of a mirror and as i leave the house: how much cat hair? Do my pants look way too short with the shoes and socks? Did i put on earrings? But i would never notice in the middle of things that i'd forgotten to switch a sweatshirt for a more professional sweater or that i had absent-mindedly pulled my hair back in some bizarre way. (After a meeting in the bathroom, "Oh geeze, my hair was like that?")

I'm female and feminine, but some combination of Quaker simplicity, family-of-origin learned practicality, and general geekiness far outweighs that self awareness. I've pondered that i spend so many spoons on taking care of other needs i have that i have no spoons for more than a double check of "Will i appall someone by having horrible hygiene?" and "Am i going to try and present as 'professional' today?"

My knee jerk and probably misogynist assumption is that "those girls," the members of the cliques i could never understand, the ones who seemed to have Ambitions, are trapped by such a frame, but those independent minded folks who are reflective and authentic don't. But

I also think it's a terribly classist frame, because i don't think women picking in the fields, toiling in mills, cleaning bathrooms and emptying trash cans, cooking and washing dishes have time to worry about that. I think it shows up in the "She let herself go" turn of phrase, when the overwhelmed mother has no time to get her nails done.

I'm not saying that i think a woman working in a mill doesn't care how she looks or doesn't dress up and want to look pretty: i'm saying she doesn't have time or energy to wonder if she's seated in such a way that the shadows hide her crows feet or whatnot.

enough!

[laughingrat]

Oo! I agree with you on the appearance bit, but what about all the other ways women are supposed to watch themselves? Mourn decorously; keep your kids in line; don't be too loud; don't be "slutty"; don't be too shy or "cold"; don't be unfriendly; etc. etc. Hmm.

[elainegrey]

You agree it was knee-jerk and probably misogynist? It's been a long road to get to where i could see that in myself.

I frequently appreciate how my parents blessedly did not gift me with weight issues and appearance issues. I did get a great deal of pressure to take middle class responsibility to be secure and professional. In a number of ways, i think i had a bit more male socialization than average for a daughter (and my mother did as well). My internalized pressures have a great deal to do with being strong (Have pneumonia? Ignore it and attend those meetings! Is the kitchen not clean at midnight? Get up and clean it at 4 am!) and presenting professionally (including "housewife" as a profession). I suspect those internalized pressures are just as much class and culture driven as gender driven. There's a strong thread of expectations that i'm pretty sure is Scandinavian (some of the strength and stoicism); and i think of "depression babies" and their recognizable adaptations. (I might need this tenth butter tub, better save it.)

I'm reminded of those young coming of age novels about the artist youths living in a Jewish culture and the struggle of breaking free of those cultural demands. Similarly, there's that memoir of the woman who has left a restrictive Jewish community when she realized she was dooming her child to the same confines she rebelled against.

[laughingrat]

No, no, I don't think you're misogynist, just that the framing of how women behave is so fraught, and on top of that we're taught to ignore that framing ("Pay no attention to the System behind the curtain"), so it seems like noticing this stuff is a process of peeling back layers. I didn't find your comment hurtful, FWIW.

I'd be interested in that last novel especially, if you remember the title. There was one called Bread Givers that I had to read in college, about a young Jewish immigrant woman leaving her restrictive family, that really got to me. It's been years since I read it, but it was so good.

[elainegrey]

I think i do have a pretty well learned streak of misogynism i learned from hanging out with geeky guys growing up. It's there and i continue to recognize that i've not completely rerouted around that training.

“Unorthodox: The Scandalous Rejection of My Hasidic Roots” is new, see http://www.alternet.org/story/154406/how_i_left_my_ultra-orthodox,_ultra-repressed_hasidic_community_/

[cleverthylacine]

My knee jerk and probably misogynist assumption is that "those girls," the members of the cliques i could never understand, the ones who seemed to have Ambitions, are trapped by such a frame, but those independent minded folks who are reflective and authentic don't.

See this is why I get frustrated when people say that when you talk about this you're making up 'straw feminists'. I think the truth is that a lot of women, especially geeky and/or feminist women, feel that way (and also assume that there's a frame and a trap when there isn't).

Which DOES make life harder for femme feminist women. Because the truth is that even if nobody SAYS anything, there ARE these looks that you get when you show up to feminist/quiltbag/progressive events with your nails done, and/or with makeup on, and in feminine dress unless it's boho-hippie-deadhead style. (By which I mean if you show up in a skirt that looks like it's Deva Lifewear or from an Indian import show or a Grateful Dead show, you're fine, but show up in a lolita skirt or a pencil skirt or a miniskirt with nice socks or hose and pretty shoes on, not so much).

I actually wore jeans and sneakers a lot more when I was trying to "fit in" both at school in my younger days and in various feminist/queer/progressive groups. The truth is that while I wouldn't want to wear it every day I'm a lot more comfortable in a lolita dress and cute shoes than I'd ever be in sweatpants (except for cleaning house/working out/sleeping, which is what they were designed for originally). That's being myself, and the only reason I don't want to wear it to work is that I work in a hospital so it wouldn't be practical.

This is not to single you out as you do get that it's a knee-jerk and somewhat misogynist/classist opinion, just a comment on the people who say that it's not true that you're judged for dressing up, I actually REALLY APPRECIATE that you are willing to admit this bias. Also? Yes, totally, about not having time to worry about it. The other reason I don't dress like that for work is that even I don't want to try and put on all of my lovely drag (well actually for me jeans, heavy boots and a leather jacket are drag, and I sometimes enjoy that a lot, but never mind) at 5:45 AM and try and get out the door to be in Oakland by 8.

But yeah, my real inmost SELF is not what I wear to work to type manuscripts at work or clean the cat box at home. It's what I wear when I want to have fun and be around people I trust to accept me.