The Hedonistic Pleasureseeker

Because If I’m Perfect Enough, Maybe You Won’t Hate Me Anymore

April 25, 2007 · 62 Comments

divine_proportions.gif
(The Divine Proportions of Hypatia, found at Hypatia Lovers)

I read a post at Pandagon at lunchtime today and it really got me thinking. There is an article at Alternet titled The Frightening New Normalcy of Hating Your Body:

We must get A’s. We must make money. We must save the world. We must be thin. We must be unflappable. We must be beautiful. We are the anorectics, the bulimics, the overexercisers, the overeaters. We must be perfect. We must make it look effortless.

Although the Alternet article is primarily about weight and body image, Amanda riffs off it to propose that perfectionism in general is the tribute that many women pay to sexism:

Women are acutely aware at all times of how they are being watched carefully for signs of inadequacy that can held against them . . .If you’re smart or witty, then you know damn well that threatened men are seeking ways to insult your figure and find you insufficiently fuckable—after all, most of the time, they’ll make sure you know that you’re being judged. Because your fuckability is held against you regardless of the appropriateness, most women absorb the duty to appear as thin and beautiful as possible at all times to render “You’re just X,Y, or Z because you’re too ugly to get a man” ridiculous. But the drawback to being very pretty is that people will seek ways to discredit you on looks alone, implying you’re a slut or a bimbo. So the pressure to be bright and witty doubles up again. You can see the spiral here . . .

. . . So if ambitious women are neurotic in general, they are perversely rational. Because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they’re not after you. You have to be, as my father said, twice as good to be considered half as good and women know it. But it’s not the fault of feminism that opened up the opportunities, so much as it’s the sexism that demands that women be constantly proving themselves worthy of the opportunities in a way that men don’t have to prove themselves.

Anxious. Perfectionistic. Overachieving. Neurotic. RATIONAL. It all makes sense now. I appreciated Dorothy (from The Chaff) observations in the comment thread:

To me, this is the crux of the whole supermom/must be the best at everything kind of bullshit: Why can’t you keep up? Are you inadequate as a woman? Don’t fail! You’re representing your entire gender!

And then there’s the razor-walking you have to do, too: be attractive but not too slutty; be accessible but not too easy; be assertive but not too bitchy; be competent but don’t bruise the fragile male ego; be loving but not needy and smothering, etc. etc.

Feminine perfection wasn’t a mountain to be climbed so much as a tightrope stretched over a chasm: one false step and you plummet irrecoverably. And the whole time you’re walking it, a whole audience of family, friends, coworkers, and random strangers are shouting criticisms of your every step.

Of course, Twisty at IBTP knows why we feel we must do this dance: Deep down, we get the feeling men don’t like us so much. Please understand that I’m generalizing here; certainly the occasional individual man occasionally truly loves the occasional individual woman. I’m talking about the way our sexist, male-dominated culture loathes women as a class.

(What’s wrong with this picture?)

We live in a relentlessly misogynistic world where women are considered inferior to men, and put on earth to do men’s scut work. So many obviously sexist men insist that they “love women.” I call bullshit on all of them. “I love women” is actually code for “I love using women.” As in, let’s say, toilets for their sexual incontinence (analogy by Twisty). Arm candy and status objects. Incubators of their spawn. Cheap labor. Free houskeeping services. A stand-in for Mommy. The audience for their odd performance art. The everpresent laugh track. When a man like this says “I love women” he means it in the same way he says “I love beer.”

(The average guy thinks this is funny. If you’re dating one of them, dump him.)

Meanwhile, for these same jerks the word “pussy” is the worst thing a man can call another man. Actually, that pretty much says it all: Pussy = woman = weak = worthless = loser. The “pussy” is the guy who takes shit and can’t do anything about it. He’s both fucked and fucked-over, someone else’s “bitch.” In other words, a lowly female. For instance, as part of the “War On Terror” CIA put women’s underwear on prisoners’ heads, thinking this would make the prisoners feel so degraded that they’d break down and talk! What the hell? I guess we know what the State Department thinks of the world’s females! Bottom line: Any man who uses the word “pussy” to degrade another man thinks women are the lowest of the low, no matter what he tells you.

Anyway, back to Pandagon and the drive for perfection:

To be imperfect in front of men is to offer “evidence” that women don’t deserve equality at all.

This is the crux of the issue: Women’s frantic efforts at perfection are not meant for us to feel better than other women; rather these efforts are (probably misguided) attempts to just make us feel better, period. Women want to be accepted by men as their peers. Liked, even. Hired. Promoted! Treated with respect, instead of insulted, harrassed, abused, raped, or murdered for the sin of Existing While Female. How about friendship and love instead? Okay, perhaps we’ll just take men not actively hating us. We’re talking theater of low expectations here.

The financially dependent woman thinks, “Maybe if I am perfect enough, he won’t leave me.” The financially independent woman thinks, “Maybe if I am perfect enough they won’t fire me.” If we’re perfect enough the’ll let us remain in the public sphere, treated like real people, making a living, and capable of choosing autonomy over dependence. Deep down a little unconscious part of the high-achieving woman still fears that men will take her personhood, her freedoms and our choices away from her. Some of these fears are not unfounded. As Germaine Greer said:

“Women don’t realize how much men hate them, and how much they are tought to hate themselves.”

(Image found at Santacruz Independent Media)

Categories: Beauty and Heath: Xtreme Vanity · Men Come and Go · Screechy Feminist · Solitude: I Vant to Be Alone · Thanks, but no thanks · The Daily Whinge · The Personal is the Political · Vibrantly Alive in Repose

62 responses so far ↓

  • VJ // April 25, 2007 at 4:14 am | Reply

    The dear wife brought this up the other day. This is the year she went from having her hair cut at one of those cookie cutter cheapo places to an actual sort of salon. All the gals in there sit around and talk about surgery, what’s hot, what they’re getting done next, etc. Even the young gals. So slowly they turn to her and ask ‘Well what about you?’ She laughs. Nothing. ‘Well you’re married, that’s why!’. Well she’s had nothing done. Never had any desire to. Me neither. Seems like a waste of good money. It’s just going to go south anyway, so why not spend it elsewhere. And finally admit that yes, we all AGE. Some better than others. Good aging is more about attitude than looks. More about affording retirement & food than the last chin tuck & belly fold. But then again she’s always been the sensible type. That’s what I like in her. Just enough of the farm gal left. ‘I’m older and fatter, but then again, so’s the old man’. We still get along fine. Wish there were a few more like her actually. Cheers & Good Luck, ‘VJ’

  • bubbasnightmare // April 25, 2007 at 10:56 am | Reply

    Brava! A tour de force performance.

    Sometimes I feel like I don’t understand my own gender at all, and then something like this post comes along, and I think, “I was right. I don’t understand my gender at all.”

    (Perhaps I’m just a babe in the woods, but does that toilet illustrated above really exist? Ye gods!)

  • Scorpio // April 25, 2007 at 1:35 pm | Reply

    You guys (women) do it for you. Give me a break…I know married women, single women and it’s all the same dynamic. Women are much more competitive than men (with each other) because they 1.Read too many fashion magazines (they will only make you feel ugly) 2.Buy the shit advertisers sell in every media stream, the manufacturers would not waste $$$ buying time on TV if you guys did not buy that crap.

    Look in the health and beauty aids aisle of any supermarket/drug store. The section for men is about 6′ while the women’s section for hair products, skin products, deoderant for every opening, crack and fold, skin tightener, moisturizers, eye liners, lip gloss, hair remover, toe/nails, peels, etc. is literrally 2 full aisles. (300 feet) Just the hair section alone is one full aisle.

    Why? It’s not because the male gender demands it. It’s not a conspiracy. Most women put a very high value on looking like that model in the mag or the tube, or the chick next to them competing for that “cute guy” in the bar, cafe or night club/Starbucks.

    I am always amazed/astonished when I travel to Las Vegas, a town that drips in excessive behavior, dress and every other type of debauchery. The women during the day at the pool are in their high heels, lovely wraps and $600.00 bathing suits. The boys/men….cut offs, below the knee, waist line below the butt crack, bermuda surfer shorts and the occational European speedo guy. (walking in a pair of trashed sneakers)

    In the evening…(God bless you ladies) It’s hard to tell the hooker’s apart from the tourists anymore. (I mean that in a complimentary way) lol

    The men…jeans, button down shirts untucked, flip flops, sneakers, and a tee shirt that says “club soda not whales” or “I’m with stupid.”

    Can someone explain this to me? It’s not a complaint, just an observation. I love getting dressed up and do enjoy the “finer” things in fashion almost as much as our HPS. (OK…maybe more) But competatively speaking….you gals have it, and always have, win hands down. (and I believe it’s not about anything more than hard wiring in your brain)

    Is it this simple….look younger, feel better about yourself? I’ll buy that.

  • Yeny // April 25, 2007 at 3:04 pm | Reply

    Boy are dense Scorpio. So you believe it’s hardwriring in a female’s brain to go to inordinate lengths to cripple herself?
    I just can’t believe how ridiculous your whole comment is, I find it difficult to even know where to start to refute the mass of stupidity you typed out.

    How about let’s start with the fact that we live in a patriarchal society which oppresses women and always has done. Are you with me? No? Ok, I’ll make it simpler, a long time ago women were (and in fact still are) regarded as the property of their fathers until marriage. Then the ownership was passed on to the husband, hence women were under the thumb of men, any property the woman/slave might of had became that of her owner/husband. Therefore men had financial superiority over women (let’s not pretend to argue that women have reached a level of equality in the workplace, if you even attempt to go down that route you better look up the statistics on how much women earn compared to men, percentage of women in positions of power…etc). Ultimately what this all means is that men have been calling the shots, i.e. the example you make of how consumers are the impulse behind what is for sale. What you will find for sale is women, the more fuckable, the better. Back in the day a man with money wanted a hottie to fuck and be his slave/wife, not just some ugly, old hag. Funny how things don’t change, eh?

    Women internalised the message that in order to get a hubby (and therefore survive) you needed to be attractive ABOVE ALL ELSE. Note, in no way is this hardwired in women, the fact that you even made such a ridiculous assertion is enough to let me know that you are a fully fledged member of Dude Nation, where women were ‘created’ in order for men to get off.

    Carrying on, so what happens is that the ubiquity of the message that women are only worth anything if they are attractive has meant that women continue to believe this to be the case. Weird, huh? So even women who now have the financial stability to not have to rely on a man to feed ‘em and put shelter over their head believe the prevailing message that a woman must be beautiful at what ever she does.

    All you have to look at is the link to Hypatia that Hedo has given in her article.

    This is a quote from the link ‘Who was Hypatia? In the estimation of some, Hypatia was history’s greatest woman. By all accounts stunningly beautiful , dazzlingly brilliant, yet always modest and kind, in an age when women were but chattel, she was history’s first female mathematician, as well as the first female astronomer, inventor, and natural philosopher.’

    No matter what this woman’s achievements, look at what is first mentioned about her. If you look Hypatia up on wiki you will find this: ‘No images of her exist, but nineteenth century writers and artists envisioned her as an Athene-like beauty.’ Tell me, who do you think the writers and the artists where in the nineteenth century? It sure as fuck wasn’t women.

    But sure go ahead, continue believing that it’s us women who oppress ourselves, that if men hadn’t put us in our place throughtout history and in current day society we would still see ourselves as cum-recepticles.

  • Yeny // April 25, 2007 at 4:50 pm | Reply

    Argh, I really should proof read my posts first. Missed out a bit in the 2nd paragraph of post/essay:

    Therefore men had financial superiority over women and they continue to do so (let’s not pretend to argue that women have reached a level of equality in the workplace, if you even attempt to go down that route you better look up the statistics on how much women earn compared to men, percentage of women in positions of power…etc).

    Also, the link to that Hypatia site seems to not be working anymore, so here it is:
    http://www.hypatia-lovers.com/

  • Bird // April 25, 2007 at 6:01 pm | Reply

    I’ve ordered the book that was the source for the excerpt on Alternet. I expect that the author (Courtney E. Martin) will have a lot more to say than was evident in the selection posted online. I’ll let you know.

  • Belle // April 25, 2007 at 6:52 pm | Reply

    Excellent post. It really got me thinking.

    I wanted to point out something I noticed several years ago when a friend was gathering curse words from various people for a research paper. (Don’t ask.)

    The words used to insult (straight) men are nearly all really insults to women or insulting because they imply femininity…
    You already mentioned Pussy. Then there’s…
    Bastard (unwed mother)
    Son of a Bitch (self-explanatory)
    Fag (Implied femininity)
    Motherfucker (again with the mom!)

    Meanwhile the words used to insult women? Oh yeah, they still insult women… More specifically women’s sexual tendencies. (Whore, cunt, slut, etc.)

    Even the off-the-wall stuff my friends’ survey participants came up with generally fell along the same lines.

    Nice little disparity, isn’t it?

    Anyway, I know it’s not the main thrust of your post, but I thought it very interesting stuff…

  • Yeny // April 25, 2007 at 6:58 pm | Reply

    Man, I realise now how many typos I made and how many words I left out in my original post.
    Y’all get my point though

    I blame the fact that I skim read. It is very advantageous when it comes to reading the mountain of books on my course, but it obviously becomes a hindrance when writing.

    Sorry for the multiple posts, I’m incredibly bored of writing essays. Only about 18,000 more words to go… (yay ellipses!)

  • Heidi // April 25, 2007 at 7:52 pm | Reply

    now that i’m approaching 40, i realize there’s something to be said for having never been perfect, always considered fat, no matter my weight. i’ve been free to be me and find the real me. those that cannot separate looks from ability are automatically weeded out of my life.

    i may weigh more than ever but i am more confident in myself than ever, and i get the impression that there are more people who find me sexy, not less.

    rosie o’donnell has had an interesting year on the view. as she so aptly pointed out, whenever they target and disparage her, fat always comes first, like it’s the worst possible thing about her they could say. yet for most of us she has been a breath of fresh air, a voice of authenticity in a world of dubious shiny masks. we need more women like her, willing to be authentic and a magnet for negative attention even, so the riduculous blob of this sexism can be floated high and dry and exposed on its island of mediocrity.

  • seeker // April 25, 2007 at 8:29 pm | Reply

    Dear HPS,
    Scorpio’s comment makes me terribly sad. Like so man men, it suits him to imagine that women do these kind of “sexy” behaviors from some innate place, out of some bizarre inborn nature, rather than doing it to jump to the cracking whip of male imperative. He is a deeply unimaginative, ignorant man. I say this because he writes such drivel AFTER reading your smart, clear and thorough post on the subject. HPS you have described him as smart, intuitive and emotionally astute. He is none of these. He is a clever, smug, closed minded sophist.
    The only thing he has going for him is that he has so much company with whom to share his self-serving delusions. He could be any man.
    Yeny says it as well as I do, so I will stop here.
    Except to say, heh, Scorpio, wink wink nudge nudge – funny toilet, eh?
    (now watch him deny it)

  • Scorpio // April 25, 2007 at 10:12 pm | Reply

    Hey folks…I was GENERALIZING when I said what I said. Nothing is ever never, and nothing is ever always in this here world. The facts are the facts…when it comes to purchasing of “stuff” to enhance one’s outside wrapper. (beauty products) This is the industry I am in, a retailer. We sell things that people buy. We discontinue or minumize space to the things that don’t sell.

    “Dude Nation/Woman Nation” It’s all the same. Each and every gender feels somehow minumized by the other. To call me unimaginative, ignorant, smug, closed minded, delusional and… (I’m sure I missed a few) is rather harsh, don’t ya think?

    The comments I make are rather non specific. (a generalization and perhaps even a stretch) Perhaps I touched a nerve? This could be a very interesting day on the blog, no?

  • hedonisticpleasureseeker // April 25, 2007 at 10:27 pm | Reply

    Folks, Scorpio’s status in life was handed to him in the delivery room. He simply can’t relate to my experience, and the female experience in general. Still, I accept that he’s calling like he sees it. What else could he possibly see?

    Scorpio has never been on “double-secret probation” the way high achieving women breaking into “his” world are their entire professional lives. He actually sees our attempts at perfection as willful and unnecessary competition to win male attention and nothing more. Of course couldn’t be more wrong: In no makeup and sensible shoes women get more sexual attention than they know what to do with! This isn’t about getting laid. Far from it: THIS IS ABOUT SURVIVAL. Also something Scorpio has never for a moment had to worry about.

    Sure, a woman who never plans to work and who wants to be the trophy wife of some rich guy and shop all day? Maybe SHE’S competitive with other women LIKE HER. Supply and demand and all that. These are the “dependent” women I refer to in my post. But how many women like that are left in the world? Even the New York socialites have careers now.

    No. I’m talking about getting straight A’s in college. Getting a good job out of college. Earning the same salary as one’s male peers. Working long hours and overtime while doing most or all of the domestic work at home. Being fairly promoted and compensated accordingly. Moving into management or owning one’s business or what-have-you. Being able to keep one’s job and be a mom at the same time. Overcompensating so that one is not called a Bad Mother for having a career. NOT GETTING LAID OFF once the “eye candy factor” wears off.

    All these things require ambitious, high-achieving women to toe the line, behaviorally and (most importantly) aesthetically. “Looks hot at all times” is in my job description, written in invisible ink. For the newcomers, my “Confessions of a Hot Chick” post can be found in the WayBack Machine (my search function), where I talk more about this.

    I spent about 14 years in Human Resources and saw a lot of folks laid off during that time. Most of the people who were let go (or forced into retirement) were members of some underclass: In their 50’s or 60’s, dark skinned, blue collar, disabled, or female. The fields dominated by professional white men were designated as “core to our business” and left alone.

    BOTTOM LINE: This is not about being better than other women. It’s doing everything one can do to SURVIVE in a world where the keepers of Power think women are shit.

  • VJ // April 25, 2007 at 11:29 pm | Reply

    Which is why the wife went in for her own business. So she can arrive early in a T-shirt and slacks and down at the heel loafers to handle large (use any multiple you wish) portfolios. Women starting their own businesses are booming, and have been growing steadily for the past 2 decades. The primary reason is to escape all the BS in the ‘regular’ work force. They know that they’re smart & diligent enough to get the job done with less hassle, and they do just fine w/o all the unneeded corporate BS & ’structure’. Strangely enough they also fail at half the rates of the typical ’small/med’. new business ventures. It should be something that more & more women are thinking about all the damn time, and they are! She was harassed by lazy & incompetent but power mad bosses far more than the ones who might have been after her for a ‘piece’. For them she had her famous left hook. It worked handily enough to hear her tell it. Cheers, ‘VJ’

  • profacero // April 26, 2007 at 12:01 am | Reply

    *Great* post. Great title. Bingo.

    (And helped me clarify something about the era in which I became more of a slacker than I had been: it was when I understood that even perfection would not stop the misogyny.)

  • Yeny // April 26, 2007 at 12:39 am | Reply

    Scorpio has, in his manly manliness, told us that the facts are the facts. Beauty shit sells cause women lap it up, this can be explained by women’s innate desires to catfight eachother over the menz. We have only ourselves to blame, ladies. Pack it up hedo, there is no point fighting it, we were doomed at the moment of fertilisation. Don’t bother with the posts, but keep the photos up.

    Of course, for those of us who are not blinded by our privilege, Hedo’s posts makes perfect sense. What I wanted to do in my first post, but got bogged down and sidetracked by elementary feminism beginners class 1, was to try to put accross the crazy notion that women are not and never have been on an equal footing with men. So *everything* in our society is dictated by men. We’ve made some headway, but this marginal improvement is NOWHERE NEAR enough to create a radical change in the way women are regarded by society as a whole and by individuals (men and women) or that even if the number of women in positions of power came to reflect the fact that women make up 50% of the population we would still be unable to erase centuries of misogyny that is so ingrained we actually believe it to be ‘hardwired’.

    I would look at the same scene you described in Las Vegas, Scorpio, and feel extremely saddened by the obvious display of the way women have been taught to view themselves and what they must do to survive as women in our society. In a muslim state, the burqa would be the equivalent.

    Oh, and you definitely touched a nerve, the fact that you could, in light of HP’s post, continue to obliviously walk down your merry path of male privilege believing that the reason women mutilate their bodies and on top of it, pay for it, is some natural state of women whose entire biological function you seem to deem as being competition over your sorry arse.

  • bubbasnightmare // April 26, 2007 at 1:05 am | Reply

    I was going to make some additional comments about HPS’s post here, but after having read Scorpio’s comment, all I want to do now is sit on the edge of the bed and get blue over his attitudes, and say something that women have been saying for years:

    Men just don’t get it.

    or, more frighteningly,

    Men just can’t get it.

    Is it like trying to explain water to a fish? Are men so immersed in patriarchal privilege that only a vanishingly few of us see that the emperor really has no clothes? Is there hope for the male gender?

    Christ, it sure doesn’t look like it. And that’s depressing.

  • VJ // April 26, 2007 at 1:36 am | Reply

    Bubba’s N, You’ve got a background in the theatre, right? Cognitive dissonance a’int just for breakfast anymore. Cheers, ‘VJ’

  • Dates Bubbas // April 26, 2007 at 1:49 am | Reply

    How the fuck is a burqa the equivalent of the highly sexified Las Vegas female?

    I agree with Scorp on one point, all of this shit is a big market because women buy it. I must be the lonely 1/1000 who doesn’t have a subscription to a fashion magazine, who doesn’t own an entire closet full of shoes, and has less makeup than any other woman I’ve ever met. And you know what? I don’t give a fuck what anyone thinks of that.

    Belle – let’s be fair – you missed the insults related to the male sex organ: Dickhead, Dickstring, Prick. My ex-husband was most offended when he got called an Asswipe, not anything to do with femininity at all. Oh, and I almost forgot. He was one tough asshole who was career military where being called any version of homosexual is a pretty serious insult.

  • hedonisticpleasureseeker // April 26, 2007 at 2:28 am | Reply

    Dates Bubbas: Others can explain it better than me but I’ll try.

    1) The slutwear and the burqa are both costumes that signify membership in the Sex Class. It marks a woman as having low or no status. In the west it’s done with exposure, while in the east it’s done with seclusion/coverage. Same old shit, different hemisphere.

    2) I acknowlege the power of marketing/capitalism and how it effects people’s buying habits. Capatalism is just one more method among many to socialize a population so that EVERYONE KNOWS THEIR PLACE (so, what do YOU drive?). What’s the message being marketed to women? Buy this and you’ll be OKAY, and without it you’re ugly. Beauty products are designed to cover or eliminate so-called “defects.” Cover that grey! Look 10 years younger! Spackle your zits! Buy this spray to cover the smell of your stinky vagina! Look, NO CALORIES! And so on. Given the way patriarchy rewards compliance it’s no wonder women blow our limited incomes on things that we think will make us more fit to exist in the public sphere, and things that will make us more . . . consumable as sex objects.

    Marketing to men is all about virility and, by extension, STATUS (hair=virility, erection=virility) Men are not assumed to be inherently defective unless they can’t get-it-up. Did you see that awful Jaguar campaign? “Buy this, 50 year old dude, and you’ll score a 25 year old sex object!” The message was so overt, it was downright embarrassing.

  • hedonisticpleasureseeker // April 26, 2007 at 2:29 am | Reply

    Oh, and about Teh Gay: To the homophobic, gays are women. Sorry, but it’s only MORE misogyny masquerading as morality.

  • hedonisticpleasureseeker // April 26, 2007 at 3:07 am | Reply

    OMG I was almost asleep and a drug addiction analogy popped into my head:

    Drug addicts don’t continue to do drugs because drugs make them feel “good.” They’ll do anything for the next fix in order to STOP FEELING BAD.

    I think the same may be said about women’s relationship to the trappings of femininity. They don’t call ‘em trappings for nothing, you know.

  • VJ // April 26, 2007 at 4:31 am | Reply

    Umm No, DB. They’ve done extensive economic studies on women & the infamous pay gap, and dressage & degrees of femininity have very little to do with it. It’s a consistent bias, and one that shows up in expectations too. We discount the labor of women when compared to like or equally qualified men by about 20%. Consistently & historically (for the last 20 or so years). But this “Where the patriarchy is killing us is where we make 80% of what a man makes even starting out directly from college” gets to the bottom line essence of the issue. The rest is just dress up & costume. You can accept or reject that, as you have noted. Cheers & Good Luck, ‘VJ’

  • Yeny // April 26, 2007 at 10:30 am | Reply

    Does it surprise you to learn that some muslim women actually choose to wear burqas? Or does that fly in the face of the belief in the dichotomy: good, free, white westerners/bad, oppressive, dark-skinned middle east. Many muslims come to their own decision about the burqa, nowhere in the qur’an does it require women to wear burqas, but she should be modest – thus some women believe this is the ultimate form of modesty as they become more religious, for example. Also, others see it as way to have more freedom to not worry about their appearance.

    Sorry to break it to you, but even some western women who convert to islam choose to wear burqas and defend their choice vehemently as being their own. Islamic patriarchy values modesty in women, western patriarchy values sexed up women and there you have the the reason women dress differently in each and have come to their decision by ‘choice’.

    Most islamic states do not require burqa by law, so I do not know how you can assert that women who wear them are forced, not by law anyway.(Only under the Taliban was the burqa obligatory.) You might still argue that in countries where women wear burqas those who don’t will be criticised or feel ostrasized and therefore compelled to wear them, but then I ask you, does that not sound familiar? Not too long ago I was told by a group of women who are studying at university in London that any woman who doesn’t get a bikini wax is truly disgusting.

    Now I believe I said that women who are caught in the trappings of feminity are the ones that are wearing the western equivalent of the burqa, I stand by that 100%.

  • bubbasnightmare // April 26, 2007 at 10:55 am | Reply

    A couple of cogent comments:

    Datesbubbas: Yes! Capitalism (real capitalism, not this mixed economy crapola we have now) has nothing to do with the Patriarchy, which is pervasive in the most socialist of economies as well. And when you say you are fuckable just the way you are…well, let’s just say you’re dead on with that one as well. ;o)

    The statement that women buy fashion magazines/items/clothes/shoes, etc., because they’re a big market has it backward.

    They’re a big market because women buy into it.

    It’s the sort of mass demand that is self-perpetuating. When women (as a class of people) realize that magzinzes like Vogue and Elle, and Maybelline and Max Factor do not magically bestow the secrets of true beauty upon their consumers, they would dry up and blow away in the wind.

  • hedonisticpleasureseeker // April 26, 2007 at 10:57 am | Reply

    We must get A’s. We must make money. We must save the world. We must be thin. We must be unflappable. We must be beautiful. We are the anorectics, the bulimics, the overexercisers, the overeaters. We must be perfect. We must make it look effortless.

    Here I’m talking about BODY IMAGE and the anxious drive for PERFECTION IN ALL THINGS and all some of you see are makeup and sexy clothes and buying beauty products? Are beauty products or high heels even mentioned in my article? Have I ever stated anywhere on this blog that I (or others) dress “like a slut” for work? For the record: I only wear makeup for special occasions and when I’m being photographed. I wear the daytime equivalent of pajamas to work. I was BALD at work two days ago due to the heat.

    I’m frustrated. Why do all of these feminist-oriented discussions (everywhere on the internet it seems) degenerate into arguments about “makeup and heels,” as though they even MATTER that much in the big scheme of things? AUUUUGHHHHH!!! The trappings of femininity are both behavioral AND aesthetic. But if you read my post, you’ll realize how I’m focusing on the behavioral and body image parts. Makup and heels both play into it, but they’re just the tip of the iceberg. It goes way deeper than that.

    We buy the trappings of femininity because we’ve fallen for the lie that it will make us acceptable. We’re socialized this way. Girl babies don’t spring from the womb yearning for a fierce pair of stiletto heels or a drawer full of facial spackle. Little girls don’t think they’re defective until society starts putting them down.

  • Festival Time « Professor Zero // April 26, 2007 at 1:09 pm | Reply

    [...] to “Because If I’m Perfect Enough, Maybe You Won’t Hate Me Anymore” by the Hedonistic Pleasureseeker, to Xicano Power’s latest on border wars and immigration bills, and John Brown’s The [...]

  • bubbasnightmare // April 26, 2007 at 5:20 pm | Reply

    Sorry for the thread drift; unfortunately, when you try to herd cats….

    HPS:
    “Girl babies don’t spring from the womb yearning for a fierce pair of stiletto heels or a drawer full of facial spackle. That’s not how it works.”

    My teen-aged daughter is living proof of that. Won’t wear dresses, skirts, or heels, and shows open disdain for those who apply spackle to face, blond up their hair, or put on airs of “beauty”. She’s my successful child-rearing story.

  • hedonisticpleasureseeker // April 26, 2007 at 10:36 pm | Reply

    Wow, my last rant sounded crabbier than I intended it to. Some of you may not realize that the “high heels and lipstick wars” on the feminist blogosphere left me with little more to say on the matter. So when it comes up I groan, oh *&^%$ NOT AGAIN!!!!!!

    At MY salon, feminism isn’t a “lifestyle.” It’s not a fashion statement. There is no initiation ritual that requires a woman to throw away her heels and makeup, shave her head, or burn a bra in effigy. Or dress “like a man” (whatever that means to you). I refuse to submit to the mystical RadFem Fashion Police, or be shamed into believing ANY woman’s sartorial choices “hurt the cause.” Because it’s not about the clothes.

    That is all. In other words, that little incendiary device upthread was not about any of you; it was about me.

    Anyhoo: A little tidbit about Hypatia the scholar, the scientist, the mathematician, the philosopher: She was a powerful and influential woman in Alexandria (Egypt) and had a large following. The people LOVED her and traveled many miles to soak in her wisdom and teachings.

    Then one day the jealous rival of one of her male friends accused her of practicing witchcraft. Shortly thereafter she was brutally murdered by a mob of Christian monks (No, I’m serious. Monks.). They literally ripped her body to pieces. She was sixty years old.

    How interesting (and very telling) that despite the fact that Hypatia spent her most productive and powerful years as an old woman, she is always depicted in art as nubile and young and apparently (if the top picture is any indication) white. And naked. She was actually Egyptian. An old, Egyptian Wisewoman.

    But nevermind all that: Coming soon to a store near you: Hypatia Barbie!

  • hedonisticpleasureseeker // April 26, 2007 at 11:25 pm | Reply

    Oh, for feck’s sake!

    http://www.hypatia-lovers.com/test/Question1.html

  • Yeny // April 26, 2007 at 11:58 pm | Reply

    Sorry, didn’t mean to derail the thread. I didn’t get the memo about lipstick being off topic, I’m afraid. Just to clarify my position, I do not subscribe to radfem fashion police, I do think it’s important to feel comfortable, whatever you do. That’s it, I promise I won’t bring it up again.

    Man, that test is so wrong it just makes me sad that there could be people in the world that see nothing wrong with it. Sometimes I like to drift off into an alternate universe where I get to be a full human being.
    A girl can dream, can’t see?

  • hedonisticpleasureseeker // April 27, 2007 at 12:15 am | Reply

    Oh, Yeny, you are not to blame. I wasn’t directing anything specifically at you! The thread wasn’t really out of control (yet) but I just didn’t want to go there.

    Lipstick and heels are not off topic, because the way women are expected to present themselves in different cultures are valid discussion topics. That said, the More Feminist Than Thou fashion show has already been done to death, don’t you think? I may have jumped the gun trying to prevent it from happening.

    Also, I’m convinced it doesn’t make any difference what we wear. Dates Bubbas suggested women are dressing too sexy, and that’s why women are not paid as much. I disagree. Every ambitious, intelligent woman looking to advance herself professionally pays close attention to workplace dynamics and dresses accordingly. Sometimes its a skirted suit, sometimes it’s a polo shirt and chinos, and sometimes it’s a uniform. See how far it’s gotten us? Women all over the country knocking themselves out to dress professionally and they’re STILL making 80 cents on the dollar.

  • Joanna // April 27, 2007 at 1:06 am | Reply

    HPS, you are a terrific writer, and you always manage to find these amazing images. Right on.

  • Incorrigible // April 27, 2007 at 1:44 am | Reply

    That woman gave me the shudders: she is wearing a hair piece, her breasts are man-made, she has no pubic hair, her thighs are so separate she’d be diagnosed with hip displasia if she was human, she stands with one hip thrown out…Bleh.

  • octogalore // April 27, 2007 at 2:25 am | Reply

    HP, great post and I’m glad you’re not making it about lipstick.

    On the professional side, you said: “The financially independent woman thinks, “Maybe if I am perfect enough they won’t fire me.” If we’re perfect enough the’ll let us remain in the public sphere, treated like real people, making a living, and capable of choosing autonomy over dependence. Deep down a little unconscious part of the high-achieving woman still fears that men will take her personhood, her freedoms and our choices away from her.”

    I think there’s a lot of truth to this and for that reason, it’s important for women to get into an ownership position, as VJ mentioned. Whether it’s owning one’s company or being a partner in an enterprise, it’s going to be a better position for a woman than being an employee. The latter will lead to exactly the kind of unfairness and insecurity you mention.

    Of course, this is a class-based argument to a degree: not all women can make this happen. But whether it’s opening a hair salon, starting a nanny business by getting some women together who want to work together, or being a partner in a law firm or a business, I think this type of venture is more available than it would seem. Time Mag, sometime in the past year, mentioned that many women in mid-life tend to start companies or non-profit enterprises, as the case may be, to have something where we’re not looking over our shoulders at The Man.

    If a woman can point at the scoreboard, professionally, and say: I brought in this business, I landed these assignments (whether it’s M&A deals or dog-walking jobs), I developed this strategy that’s bringing in business, so if I want to wear flip flops to work, not dye my hair, have whatever body type I’m comfortable with, never wear heels — check out the scoreboard, Bob, and zip it.

    It works.

  • hedonisticpleasureseeker // April 27, 2007 at 2:56 am | Reply

    I agree with what you say, Octogalore, both the part about being indispensable to your company, AND the part about how most women will never come close to being in your place: financially socially, you know the drill. Still, it’s no reason for any of us to give up.

    I think women-owned small businesses are a great idea, but moi is security-conscious and won’t start up a venture until after I start pulling a retirement check, either from my own savings or from whatever company/command I’m working with when I retire.

    And, Incorrigible: She’s computer generated! ;-)

    Thanks to all for weighing in with your comments/observations, everyone!

  • octogalore // April 27, 2007 at 4:23 pm | Reply

    I agree, DB.

    HP said “‘Looks hot at all times’ is in my job description, written in invisible ink.”

    This isn’t inevitable. As DB says, ” I must make money. I need to be self-sufficient. I don’t want to be dependent on anyone else.” I called it “leverage” in my post of yesterday.

    HP said “most women will never come close to being in your place: financially socially, you know the drill.”

    While I get your general idea, I think for many women that notion is a cop out. As you know, I have a bunch of pieces of paper on the wall. As you may not, my current job doesn’t require any of them. I’m not saying some education didn’t help, but many women who feel dependent do have some education. I’m not holding myself up as some kind of ideal, I’ve made and continue to make a ton of stupid mistakes, and every other day I let some bozo get under my thin skin and waste a ton of time berating myself. It’s because I’m female, in fact, that I can’t talk about my experiences in an entirely positive way, without worrying that some other woman will say I’m classist or obnoxious, so I feel that to even try to get my point across, I have to put myself down in the process.

    But my point is this: while some women do not have the class privilege to attain the kind of independence DB refers to, many women do have the wherewithal to create more independence, more leverage. Leverage means that all the appearance or personality items can become icing rather than the cake, because the cake is being self-sufficient. Many women arrive at the college career counselor’s office just before graduation (or, hopefully, much earlier) and all of them who get there
    have this capability, or privilege. I think, as women, we should not be afraid to make arguments for strength and power on the grounds that someone will pull our female liberal guilt strings. Damn it, women deserve strength and power, and at the risk of all the labels, I’ll keep saying it.

  • Dates Bubbas // April 27, 2007 at 5:42 pm | Reply

    Here, here, Octagalore.

    The unfairness of it all is that men aren’t generally wired to let other people get under their skin and then berate themselves. When someone gets under their skin, they berate the irratant, not themselves. I just don’t know how much of this particular aspect is hard wired and how much of it is learned.

  • octogalore // April 27, 2007 at 6:55 pm | Reply

    That’s an interesting question. I look at my daughter and I don’t think little girls come with the insecurity that later develops. I’m not sure how I will shield her from it.

    One problem with women getting together online about this stuff is that we hold down the possibilities by our guilt about whether what we say applies to all women. Sometimes we are attacked for a suggestion that may help, say, 33%-50% of the women on the site. So, we shouldn’t make the suggestion in the first place? Privileges are disgustingly unfair, but men don’t (for the most part) limit themselves by this stuff. I think it’s more constructive to actually contribute time/money/whatever to combat class issues, but not to self-indulgently convince ourselves that an idea doesn’t have merit because its application isn’t universal.

  • Dates Bubbas // April 28, 2007 at 4:32 am | Reply

    Octagalore, I like you more and more with each post.

  • hedonisticpleasureseeker // April 30, 2007 at 3:13 am | Reply

    OK, NOW I know what I was trying to get at, but a few days ago my PMDD-addled brain had turned me into an incoherent whack job. Sorry about that.

    I’m gonna riff off Yeny’s observation that the hyper-sexed-up looks that women adopt in the US really ARE a kind of “American Hijab.” In other words they’re nothing more than costumes that will (hopefully) gain women minor “privileges” (if that’s what you want to call them), or at the very least get us through the day without humiliation, financial setback, or injury.

    Here’s what was flipping me out the other day. Not that THIS thread had gotten out of hand – yet, but it’s a vibe I pick up on women’s sites often and don’t want to host this attitude here:

    The assertion if only we women would wear ______________ instead of ___________, or do _________ instead of ________, that men would respect and accept us as equals, pay us the same as they pay men for the same work, or at the very least leave us alone and unmolested.

    It’s just not true. No matter what you do or wear, SOME dude, SOMEWHERE, is going to want to punish you for it. If you’re a woman and you are putting yourself out in the public sphere you’re WRONG, period. It’s not your high heels that cost you that promotion; it’s your vagina.

    You shouldn’t have worn that. Said that. Done that. Do your hair. Don’t do your hair. Shave/don’t shave. Heeled shoes are professional. No they’re not. If you dress femmy and wear makeup you’re a tool that no one will ever take seriously. Scrub your face, cut your hair short and dress like a huMAN and they’ll call you a dyke and punish you for THAT.

    Oh, whatever (bangs head on desk). It seems everything a woman wears to attempt to get by in this world is a kind of hijab, only a little more comfortable perhaps. Just everyone wear what makes you smile. It doesn’t matter.

  • bubbasnightmare // April 30, 2007 at 3:33 am | Reply

    Express thyself. You can’t/shouldn’t tailor appearance to suit others. Period.

    Or, perhaps to put it more simply:

    Hijab is by its very definition mandatory.

    Sculpted nails and killer perfume are not.

  • hedonisticpleasureseeker // April 30, 2007 at 10:40 am | Reply

    Bubba’s nightmare: Hijab is not, nor has it ever been, “mandatory” anywhere but Afghanistan, where I believe the proper term is “burkha” (there are differences between these two things; I just don’t know what they are). Anyhoo, check Yeny’s post upthread!

    The definition of “mandatory” in the context of this discussion is a little wobbly. If a woman refuses hijab she’s not breaking the law, but she’ll expose herself to severe social consequences nonetheless. How is refusing feminine drag in the US any different? How many radical lesbians are physically beaten by men, or groups of men, because they refused to dress “like a woman?” How many crossdressers and transgendered people suffer physical abuse for dressing as the “wrong” gender? It’s not illegal; it’s just dangerous.

  • Dates Bubbas // April 30, 2007 at 7:25 pm | Reply

    HPS – Yeny is not the leading authority on burqas or Muslim religious and/or social mores.

    I still don’t really see how the comparison can be made between what Middle Eastern/Arabic/Muslim/Hindu cultures do and what Americans do.

  • Baron of GreyMatter // May 1, 2007 at 4:55 am | Reply

    On April 26th, 2007 at 10:36 pm
    hedonisticpleasureseeker Said:

    “She [i.e., Hypatia] was sixty years old.”

    And,

    “How interesting (and very telling) that despite the fact that Hypatia spent her most productive and powerful years as an old woman, she is always depicted in art as nubile and young and apparently (if the top picture is any indication) white. And naked. She was actually Egyptian. An old, Egyptian Wisewoman.”

    Correction:
    Hypatia’s age at death is not known with certainty. Most historians (with the exception of Maria Dzielska) have taken the year of her birth to have fallen within the range of 370 to 380 A.D., which would have made her 35 to 45 years old at the time when she was publicly stripped naked and skinned alive by Christian monks and male parishioners under the aegis of Saint Cyril, the Archbishop (“Pope”) of Alexandria. Also, Hypatia was, like Cleopatra VII (the last Queen of Egypt) born in Alexandria Egypt, and in this sense both were Egyptian, but both were definitely of purely Greek descent. The wise Hypatia was indeed accused of “bewitching” the civil prefect, Orestes, shortly before her death (which argues in favor of a youthful age at death) but she was not butchered for being a witch, but because she was the last obstacle to the Church’s goal of world domination — and indeed the barrier between Church and State did collapse with Hypatia’s death, and the theocratic Dark Ages began shortly thereafter, if not on that very day. It is interesting to note that, at least this day in age, we cannot accept the possibility that wisdom and youthful beauty can coexist in the same person, and so many of us assume that Hypatia must have been an old shriveled woman at the time of her death.

    We applaud the many thought-provoking posts here, and, if we may be permitted to make an observation which flies very much in the face of feminist political-correctness, the Queen of this blog is herself of exceptional beauty, yet this has clearly not made her incapable of wisdom!

  • VJ // May 1, 2007 at 11:02 am | Reply

    Yes, this sounds very deja vu, I recall reading this somewhere, Baron. But if you were 35-45 yo at 380AD you certainly were effectively 60 years or above in the context of their culture, as their life expectancy was bound to be a bit less than 40 yo. So she would be seen as a very old woman, and possibly looked like one too.

    And daring to add some actual real economics & numbers to the women’s ‘pay gap’ this was in my mail this morning from the great folks over at the CEPR, and their work/life series; Enjoy!

    Work/Life

    CEPR analyzes how families balance work and care, and how public policies affect family well-being.

    Reports

    Strengthening the Middle Class: Ensuring Equal Pay for Women (Testimony)

    April 24, 2007, Heather Boushey

    [http://www.cepr.net/index.php?option=com_issues&task=view_issue&issue=20&Itemid=69]

    Cheers & Good Luck! ‘VJ’

  • Yeny // May 1, 2007 at 4:44 pm | Reply

    Oh no, no way am I an authority on muslim dress, etc. Heck, I wish I were an authority on anything, I just know a lot of muslims.

    All I was trying to do was was point out the similartites between one extreme form of what women should look like (feminine drag) and another (feminine modesty). The burqa is not actually the most commonly worn muslim attire, yet it is the one that gets most of our attention because of how just how over the top it seems. Just to clarify, hijab really just means modesty, so sometimes it is used to refer to just the headscarf. The burqa, or burkha, is the whole shbang.
    Even though the burqa seems so extreme to us, some women do actually *choose* to wear it, in few places is it ever mandatory. Hijab is mandatory, but as I mentioned, hijab can refer to a huge range of clothing.

    Did you hear about what has been happening in Iran?
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6596933.stm

  • Dates Bubbas // May 1, 2007 at 7:56 pm | Reply

    My point, Yeny, is still that it’s really not a matter of *choice* for those women. It’s dictated upon how much they believe in the Qur’an and/or what their imam says they’re *supposed* to do. I’ve seen some of those women who seem to gush at the idea of wearing a burqa and say they choose that way of life. They’re choosing to honor God that way.

    A better comparison would be the women in Amish/Mennonite and other communities. They have a code of dress based in religion and culture.

    Women in secular America are no comparison.

  • Dates Bubbas // May 1, 2007 at 8:01 pm | Reply

    P.S. – regarding the article you liked from BBC, you notice they call it an Islamic Dress Code. It’s written down somewhere what people are to wear.

    Again, no comparison to secular America. For men or women.

  • hedonisticpleasureseeker // May 1, 2007 at 9:54 pm | Reply

    Oh Yeny how awful things must be in Iran. I do hope the police haven’t found the underground nightclubs yet . . . whoops! . . . shhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

  • hedonisticpleasureseeker // May 1, 2007 at 10:07 pm | Reply

    Hello Baron of Graymatter! Actually I’m more inclined to believe Maria Dzielska, since she’s the only one who used primary source material ONLY. She based her estimate of Hypatia’s age upon her father’s records and the records of a few of her students.

    A sensible person would presume that Hypatia was 1) younger than her father, and 2)older than her students. That’s how Dzielska came up with Hypatia’s death at approximately 60 years of age.

    Other historians used literary accounts of Hypatia’s story to arrive at her age at death, but, as you can imagine, great “artistic license” was probably granted to these historians, who could have made her story more romantic/fantastic for the reading public. A few of them even had Hypatia married, or having romantic liaisons, yadayada, even though there’s no record of such! It’s speculated she may have died a virgin?

  • Dates Bubbas // May 1, 2007 at 11:16 pm | Reply

    More on Hijabs and Burqas –

    The Hijab is worn by women for several reasons. One is to honor God – there is Biblical reference for this practice amongst Muslims and Christians: 1 Corinthians (11:3)”Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of every woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.” (11:5) “Every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head – it is just as though her head were shaved.” (11:7)”A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. (11:8) For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; (11:12) “For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God. (11:13) Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? (11:14) Does not th every nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair , it is a disgrace to him, (11:15) but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering.”

    ‘A woman’s beauty is her hair’, goes the Arab saying. I know understand part of the reason the feminist blogs devolve into discussions about hair. There are both Arabic and Biblical references to a woman’s hair and her worth.

    A Muslim woman covering herself actually achieves what it is you seek – she is not judged by her looks, but by her skills alone.

    Men also often wear head coverings in these parts of the world – they help protect from the hot sun, and when necessary, also from sandstorms.

    P.S. One of my co-workers is a practicing Muslim. He likes to impart pearls of wisdom about his faith to the rest of us. Today’s discussion was actually pertinent to this thread, so I thought I’d post it for you.

  • Baron of GreyMatter // May 3, 2007 at 10:51 am | Reply

    Greetings once again, august Mistress.

    As indicated in a rebuttal at a site which you yourself have led us to, On page 22 of her book, Hypatia of Alexandria, Maria Dzielska wrote:

    “All works devoted to Hypatia, whether literary, scholarly, or popular, quote an epigram that celebrates the exceptional personal qualities of a woman called Hypatia. Its authorship is connected with the name of an Alexandrian poet of the fourth century, Palladas. He was probably born around 319; thus he was a contemporary of Theon rather than Hypatia. He lived and wrote when Hypatia was still young, and although we are ignorant of the year of his death, it is difficult to assume that he lived long enough to see Hypatia’s death and to know of her achievements. Yet the poem celebrates a person of mature wisdom elevating her above earthly forms to the stars, to the ‘heavenly’ existence she deserves because of her accomplishments …”

    Rebuttal:

    “He lived and wrote when Hypatia was still young … Yet the poem [that he wrote about Hypatia] celebrates a person of mature wisdom …” These two statements, taken together, suggest almost inescapably that Hypatia was wise and mature at a young age — that perhaps she was even a child prodigy. This is not difficult to believe, for genius does not suddenly descend upon one when one reaches adulthood. Most of the great geniuses of history started out as precocious child prodigies. Brilliant mathematicians, in particular, tend to reach their intellectual peaks quite young. If Hypatia was born in A.D. 379 (Charles Singer’s estimate) and if she began teaching at the age of twelve (the age at which a girl was considered to be a woman in the ancient world) then Palladas could have written his famous epigram to Hypatia as early as 391, when he was 72 years old. It is often said, as VJ did (above), that people in those days didn’t live as long as they do these days (and that same argument might suggest that Palladas could not have lived until 391, and so Hypatia must have been born much earlier than 379) but this generalization is only half true. Yes, the average life expectancy of the general populace in earlier times was considerably lower than today, but ancient poets, natural philosophers, mathematicians, and others who led sheltered lives got to be quite old even by today’s standards. Archimedes, for example, was still quite industrious when he was killed by a Roman soldier at the age of 75; Aristippus (the Founder of Hedonism) died at around the age of 79; Eratosthenes, Plato, and Pythagoras all died at the age of 80; although we do not know exactly when Diophantus lived, we know reliably that he died at the age of 84; Xenophanes, Pyrrho, and Zeno of Citium lived to be 90 years old, and Hippocrates lived at least that long; Thales reached the age of 94; and according to Hipparchus, Democritus finally ended his life by starving himself, at the age of 109.
    The dates of birth of Hypatia’s pupils (most notably Synesius) and her father, Theon, are also not known with certainty, and so any “calculation” based upon assumed years for these events is built, like a house of cards, upon one conjecture after another. It is only by assuming that Hypatia died young that her last-minute “bewitching” of the prefect of Egypt (who could have any woman) and her gruesome public stripping, at the hands of “celibate” male monks, make any sense. Also, we reject the “reasonable” premise that the teacher must always be older than the pupil. We ourselves have taken classes from people who were considerably younger. We hope that we may be forgiven for boring the readers here with these stuffy and perhaps esoteric historical niceties, but in assuming that youthful beauty and wisdom must always be mutually exclusive are we not guilty of stereotyping of the kind which you yourself find repugnant when it is applied to you?

    Highest regards.

  • hedonisticpleasureseeker // May 3, 2007 at 4:39 pm | Reply

    Hello again Greymatter! And thank you for your suggestion that I might be both pretty and smart (ah, will we ever even know? probably not). You may be right about Hypatia’s age, but your rebuttal may also suffer from an understandable lapse in logic, based upon premises that are not true.

    Could you explain what you meant by this?

    “It is only by assuming that Hypatia died young that her last-minute “bewitching” of the prefect of Egypt (who could have any woman) and her gruesome public stripping, at the hands of “celibate” male monks, make any sense.”

    My question: Why?

    Does every historian assume Hypatia was raped?
    Do you think only pretty, young women get raped? Seriously?
    Do you know much about sex-based violence?
    Do you think men can only be bewitched by the young and pretty?
    Seriously?
    Do you know the history of witchcraft as well as you know the history of Greece/Egypt?

    I don’t wish to be rude or insult your obvious intelligence; rather, I ask these questions so that I don’t go off on you unnecessarily. Anyone schooled in the nature of sex-based violence knows that 90-year-old women in nursing homes get raped (ask any nurse). And, if my own understanding of the history of witchcraft is any good at all, old women were just as likely to be accused of witchcraft as the young. Perhaps more so, depending on the country and time where trials took place.

    I just find it curious (and very telling) that Hypatia persists as the fantastical “perfect woman” after so many years, when we really don’t know for sure that she were beautiful or young at all when she died. Most of the stories waxing eloquent about her physical perfection, I believe, were written many years after her death. No image of the “real” Hypatia exists.

    Come on; admit it: Hypatia is a time-honored (wank) fantasy for the mathematically and philosophically inclined male. Why else would this site even exist?

    http://www.hypatia-lovers.com/test/Question1.html

  • hedonisticpleasureseeker // May 3, 2007 at 4:45 pm | Reply

    Oh, and VJ, thanks for the links! I confess I’m trying very hard not to read too much about the gendered wage gap because I get so mad when I think about it.

  • Yeny // May 3, 2007 at 10:45 pm | Reply

    Datebubbas – I haven’t replied earlier because my exams start next week and I have 8 essays to write before then, so I haven’t been at the comp much.
    However, I just wanted quickly say that even though we live in supposedly secular societies, it doesn’t mean we don’t have a definite idea of what a woman looks like and what she should dress and act like, it just isn’t written in scripture, that’s all.

  • bubbasnightmare // May 4, 2007 at 12:42 am | Reply

    HPS:
    Bubba’s nightmare: Hijab is not, nor has it ever been, “mandatory” anywhere but Afghanistan, where I believe the proper term is “burkha” (there are differences between these two things; I just don’t know what they are). ‘

    [Caveat: my understanding of the terms 'hijab' and 'birkqa' come from Saudi society, the one I'm most familiar with.]

    Hijab is any covering of the female head, which is observed in almost all modern Arab cultures. If a native woman is in public in, say, Riyadh, and her head is not covered, she will be arrested. (This is certainly the lesser fate; if any Islamic clergy find her first, she will unlikely to escape unscathed physically.)

    Birkqa is the covering of the entire female body (face and all), and yes, Taliban Afghanistan is the only (modern) country that required it (although many regional authorities in the Middle East deem it necessary, and it was almost universal in Iran in Khomeini’s day). I occasionally see women in birkqa in downtown Minneapolis (most disconcerting and disheartening).

    ‘The definition of “mandatory” in the context of this discussion is a little wobbly.

    I would define mandatory as “highly likely to be detained or arrested by authority if the desired social more is not observed”.

    How is refusing feminine drag in the US any different? How many radical lesbians are physically beaten by men, or groups of men, because they refused to dress “like a woman?” How many crossdressers and transgendered people suffer physical abuse for dressing as the “wrong” gender? It’s not illegal; it’s just dangerous.

    Of course this crap happens, all too frequently. However…

    In most public places in the west or Europe a woman can choose to wear a flannel shirt and jeans and not be verbally (or physically) harassed by most of the passersby that see her, or arrested for it.

    It’s not the same for the crossdressing or transgendered folk, but what they do so openly flaunts the Patriarchy and its rules. This is of course not a bad or immoral thing. However, it does openly defy social standards, and that is very often a dangerous thing (just as it would have been for the woman in flannel and denim 100 years ago).

  • bubbasnightmare // May 4, 2007 at 12:43 am | Reply

    …and I need to learn to use HTML markup a little better. Sorry about any confusion as to who said what.

  • Marc Borrer // September 7, 2007 at 2:51 am | Reply

    I love the internet because it give me a chance to meet girls.

  • Alexander // September 9, 2007 at 1:43 am | Reply

    An interesting post. It’s a strange world. Anyway, my mother was brilliant, capable and very artistic, and I inherited a lot of her skills and talents, so I somehow never really absorbed the sexist programming.

    Intelligence, talent, assertiveness, strength, courage, will – how can anything be wrong in a person having these capabilities, be they male or female. What’s the difference, why should a persons sex matter? The world NEEDS such people. How else is the race to move forward?

    If certain sections of the male population try to ‘keep women down’ then they’re trying to keep the human race down – because how can the human race progress with roughly half of it’s population discriminated against?

    I live in the east, and the situation here is ten times worse than in the west. Here women are so programmed to be ’submissive’ and such that they will actually argue that men are ‘naturally superior’ and things of the sort. They’ve been turned into their own intellectual jailers. It’s tragic.

    So how does one change the world? It’s simple. One prevents the children from being programmed as much as possible. If a child grows up un-subjected to sexual stereotypes and prejudices, then that child can grow into an adult that will not then subject others to those same prejudices. It’s worked with me. I grew up admiring intelligence and talents and capability – THESE were the things I was taught to value, these are the things that give a human worth. Beyond that, I cannot really comment on the male prejudice, because I honestly can’t see anything wrong with anyone, male or female, being as smart or smarter (or more talented, etc.) than I am. I don’t get it. Why should anyone feel threatened by such things? These are the very things that make a human being special, interesting and WORTH KNOWING – take them away and there is no color, no brilliance to human relationships.

    Anyway, I believe that the children are the future – and if we can help them be better human beings than we are, then their world will be a better one than our own.
    As for this male prejudice against brilliant, capable women – well, I find it strange and surely pointless. To be honest I have never understood why someone should feel threatened by the intelligence of another. To fear the strength of another is to admit to ones own great weakness. The intelligent, the strong.. have little need for fear. As I said, it’s a strange, and somehow rather disappointing world. Disappointing because it seems we haven’t really come that far in our attitudes since the time our half-human ancestors eked out a precarious existence in caves. When are we going to leave our barbaric attitudes behind and take the first real steps toward true civilization.
    Well, ’nuff said. If these words could really change anything, I would write on, but I don’t think they do. Such a pity.

Leave a Comment