Another long one about waxing, bodies, class, privilege and OKOP

During the great big "fun feminists" internecine conflict of last week, there was much discussing of "feminist credentials" and whether such behaviors as waxing, wearing heels, and delighting in make-up vitiated one's commitment to the ideals of the broader cause.  It got to be quite an intense discussion that took in at least a dozen blogs, if not more.

I thought I wasn't going to post more on this subject, and then I read this long, fascinating piece at Mind the Gap Cardiff: How do I look?  Thoughts on femininity and white middle-class feminism.  I read it hesitantly, worrying it would turn into another Jill-bashing frenzy.  But instead, I found it challenging, and it's got me thinking about a point that I know BitchLab (not work safe for all) has been making as well:  many of us tend to see everything through the lens of gender, and tend to ignore the class implications of what it is that we're writing about.

From Mind the Gap:

When we have fights about waxing for example, are we assuming that all women can afford waxing, that waxing is expected of all women in the same way, and that waxing has the same significance for all women? The way in which women experience, or take part in feminine beauty practices, is enormously tied up with class, race, and also sexuality.

The construction of white middle-class femininity and its practices define my experience of oppression, not least because my own family has, over the last two generations, been in the process of achieving middle-class status. My father comes from a working-class family. His mother was a milliner and later a caterer, his father was a merchant seaman, and he was the first in the family to go to university. My mother’s parents were also both from working-class backgrounds and were obsessed with becoming middle-class. My maternal great grandmother drove herself crazy trying to convince everyone that she was white and middle-class (she was neither, but that’s a story for another day), and so the feminine beauty practices encouraged in my maternal grandmother and mother had a lot to do with the pursuit of a middle-class white identity and with erasing marks of race and working-classness.

For example, waxing has clear ethnic implications.  One of my favorite former students, "Armine" (not her real name) reads this blog, and she came to see me yesterday.   We talked about waxing, and about my post two days ago on men's hairy chests.  Like many of my students, Armine is of Armenian ancestry.  As she herself remarked (her words not mine), "My people are known for being particularly hairy!"   Armine talked about the tremendous cultural anxiety she had been raised with about hair.  From the time she hit puberty, she'd been removing hair from her forearms, her lip, and elsewhere on her body -- and she had been encouraged to do this by her mother and older female relatives. She'd also seriously considered rhinoplasty to reduce the size of what she called her "stereotypical Armenian nose".   Her older sister has already had that surgical procedure done.

Armine is quite clear that there is a specific goal to all of this: "We want to look white, not ethnic."  Armine feels that the ideals of feminine beauty she grew up with were primarily white women with "cute little noses" and little or no hair on their bodies.   Here in Pasadena in 2006, she's engaged in the same practices that the Welsh great-grandmother was in the Mind the Gap post above: pursuing a middle-class white identity and erasing marks of race and ethnicity.  Armine points out that within her culture, it's possible to balance an intense pride in Armenian heritage with an equally intense contempt for how women from her backgound naturally look.  To paraphrase something she said, "At the same time we were being told to make our noses smaller and our bodies hairless, we were told we could only date Armenian men and we had to never forget the genocide."

While I think that Jill -- and other pro-waxing, pro-heels feminists -- were rudely and unnecessarily savaged last week, I get the point that Armine, Mind the Gap, and BitchLab are making in different ways.   Brazilian bikini waxes aren't just something that women do -- they are something that women who can afford them do.  And while we generally have no idea how much hair a woman might have in her pubic region, forearm and lip hair (a big concern of Armine's) is visible.  Its removal is at least moderately expensive and moderately painful, and certain ethnic groups (whose DNA carries the genetic material decreeing that body hair shall be abundant) thus have to work harder, pay more, and endure more discomfort in order to meet an ideal that is still set largely by the white middle class.

This still doesn't mean that I think anyone, white or not, affluent or not, ought to be racked with guilt over the decision to remove hair from the pubis, climb into stilettos, or apply really good make-up. But not all shoes look the same, and not all make-up looks the same.   A $400 pair of heels often look like a $400 pair of heels; the make-up at an upscale department store is generally better than the Maybelline one buys at the corner drug store.  And a really first-rate waxing job isn't cheap.  This doesn't mean that only rich women buy nice make-up or get waxed or wear great shoes.  It does mean that for women on a budget, the decision to spend on these things means less money for something else.  And it also sends a signal to other women about what is appropriate, acceptable, and expected.

Ultimately, all of this raises the difficult question of communal obligation.  To what extent are feminists responsible for the signals they send to others?  To what extent are those signals even under our control?  Jill Filipovic attracts intra-feminist hostility more than most, frankly, because she is a young, pretty, law student living in New York.  She takes trips to Europe.  She goes to parties and has great hair.   Some of these things are within her control, some aren't, but she gets singled out time and again because she's both an immensely articulate young feminist and an easy target for envy.  (Flame away, but let's be candid here.)  Jill has done the vital work of acknowledging her privilege, even while she has pointed out that she is -- like so many of her generation -- under a mountain of debt.

Folks seemed to take special issue with Jill because it's clear that she comes closer than virtually any other feminist blogger to a particular middle-class, white ideal for feminine attractiveness.   Unlike her co-bloggers, she does post pictures of herself (in a Flickr account).  She leads a more "visually public life" than many other feminists, blogging under her full name and with many details of her private life laid open.  So when a pretty, young, white female law student talks about getting a bikini wax, it's going to produce a strong reaction from some quarters.  It's hard for some people to separate what Jill does from who Jill is.

Though Jill and I are very different, I recognize that perceptions of class and attractiveness function in my own life and work as well.  When I've posted about my own body anxiety, for example, I usually get some annoyed comments talking about how "I have nothing to complain about."  When I talk at length about the fact that I work out anywhere from 15-24 hours per week (including private Pilates and boxing lessons) that sends a stark, even grating message about privilege.  My increasingly lean and toned flesh is a testament to my physical work ethic, sure -- but it's also a testament to discretionary time and discretionary income, both of which are associated with tremendous amounts of privilege.   That doesn't mean I am going to stop running, lifting, Pilate-ing, boxing, or cycling any time soon.  But it does mean that I am going be cognizant of that privilege just as I know Jill is cognizant of hers.

******

On a tangential note, talking about class reminds me of another aspect of growing up WASP in OKOP culture.  One key rule that OKOP follow: talking about class is prima facie evidence you don't have it.   I remember when I was in junior high school, and I repeated something at the dinner table I had heard earlier in the day. I  can't remember what I was describing, but I said something was "classy."  An older female relative whom I love very much said to me gentle, "Hugo, please don't say 'classy'.  It's vulgar."  (For OKOP WASPS, few things are worse than being "vulgar.")  The point became clear to me quickly: the people who talked about things being "classy" or about "having a lot of class" were the "anxiously aspiring" who were all-too-eager to try and signify that they belonged in a certain social stratum.  Those who had already "arrived", as it were, practiced a careful, elegant pretense of ignoring the whole idea of class.  Thus the use of the term "classy" was, as far as OKOP were concerned, proof of its absence!

Comments

[The Happy Feminist]

As she herself remarked (her words not mine), "My people are known for being particularly hairy!"

Ha! This quarter-Italian feminist can definitely relate (although I prefer the term "hirsute"). Somehow I escaped the intensity of ethnic-feminine anxiety, perhaps because my hairy genes were passed down to me through the male line. (Thanks grandpa!)

A $400 pair of heels often look like a $400 pair of heels; the make-up at an upscale department store is generally better than the Maybelline one buys at the corner drug store.

Minor quibble, but I think it is possible to look expensively dressed without actually being so, if one chooses well. A pair of shoes from Payless can go a long way if they are the right shoes. But it tends to be a lot easier to find great stuff in more expensive stores.

Those who had already "arrived", as it were, practiced a careful, elegant pretense of ignoring the whole idea of class.

I think this is mainly a privilege. If you've arrived, you can afford to pretend that class doesn't exist.

But it is also a requirement. It's a lot touchier for a "classy" person to talk about class and the chances of inspiring ire and resentment far greater.

[Bianca]

...it's possible to balance an intense pride in Armenian heritage with an equally intense contempt for how women from her backgound naturally look.

This rings true to my half-Mexican self. And I'm sure it would resonate even more with one of my best friends; she is Korean and experiences an enormous amount of pressure from family to "fix" (read: Anglify) her eyes and nose through surgery... while retaining an intense pride in Korean culture.

Your last comment makes me think of a great quote from the Importance of Being Earnest: "Never speak ill of society. Only those who can't get into it do that."

[Lynn Gazis-Sax]

As she herself remarked (her words not mine), "My people are known for being particularly hairy!"

I've sometimes wondered whether this might be true for Greeks as well, and that's why hairless seems so troublesome to me. Much easier to wear long pants and avoid sleeveless shirts.

Minor quibble, but I think it is possible to look expensively dressed without actually being so, if one chooses well.

Dress for Success advises going window shopping at the expensive stores, and making note of the styles there, then going to the stores you can afford to buy something that looks similar to the clothes you can't afford. Not that I have the shopping stamina to actually do this.

[Arwen]

Happy; As someone who knows very well the shoes from Payless, that being my major source of footwear, I agree that they can look nice... for awhile, that is.
I'm not so dirt poor anymore, but I'm only a few years away from it. I mainly wore the same pair of shoes (parade boots, $35.00 at army surplus in '93) for 5 years (they stiffened and crumbled in '98), and I worked on my feet. I splurged and went from there to Docs, which lasted another 3 years.

Pretty shoes from Payless have a higher replacement need than that! Anyway, you can (and I do/did) buy prettier shoes at Payless, but they still weren't an everyday thing for reasons of the type of work I was doing; and if they were an everyday thing they'd need to be replaced often. Usually they'll last 6 months or so as an everyday or often shoe.

The best choice for truly poor and looking for quality is to haunt the Sally Anns in richer neighbourhoods. I got a nice pair of dress-up shoes, unworn, for about $3.00. (Still not femme shoes: but blue suede with a chunky heel.) But there is a time cost to regularly showing up, which is harder for women with families; and you do have to have either extraordinarily good feet that don't get messed up by other people's wear patterns, or you have to wait for the unworn discards.

Anyway, the budgets of the working poor don't have a bunch of room in them. For example, while I was a child in the early 80s, my mother had $10 with which to "do" Christmas. She got shoes every 2 or 3 years. I remember when she got Reeboks, after she started a teaching position. She was thrilled; they were an EVENT, those shoes. We talked about them daily for a good two weeks. ("Hey, mom, how are your feet today?")

So I suppose I'm saying I agree a medium-poor person (a minimum wage worker without kids, say, and a few roommates and no major health problems) will probably able to afford to buy an outfit or two that allows her to "pass" to middle class dressup, but she cannot necessarily afford those outfits for everyday, and her replacement rate for wardrobe malfunction will be much lower than the monied. Which is why I suggest a lower class woman in dressup clothes is expressing power in the moment; that femme has an additional meaning of being off the clock. That's a huge deal.

Having never owned $400 heels, nor done retail in them, I cannot speak to their fall-to-pieces rate.

As someone who has been poor most of my life, I don't want to paint the picture that it's all misery and strife or anything. You make do and find joy. I am exceedingly privileged in that my mom used to make a lot of our clothing and toys and treats, and I wouldn't say I ever felt deprived.

[Arwen]

I should also note that poor people seem to tell the difference between Payless and "good" shoes. I've always given money to homeless people, but all the poorer people I know who do/did this (and there were lots of us, that being my social group), give based on a couple of factors including age, gender, and *wardrobe check*. My roommates and friends didn't generally give a buck to the kid who's wearing $300 worth of clothes, no matter how dirty - because, unfortunately, we have known monied kids who like to dress punk and stick a hat out. That's not fair. The dirt would confuse the people who had money of their own, though.

[zuzu]

Folks seemed to take special issue with Jill because it's clear that she comes closer than virtually any other feminist blogger to a particular middle-class, white ideal for feminine attractiveness. Unlike her co-bloggers, she does post pictures of herself (in a Flickr account).

Jill and I were IMing about this during the whole kerfuffle. I feel like I get a pass on a lot of this stuff because not only do people not really know what I look like, but I'm fat and I'm older than Jill. I'm not so enviable in that way. Hell, I had an entire thread on pubic-hair removal, and another on pubic-hair dyeing, and nobody got disillusioned with me or told me I couldn't be a feminist anymore.

And, no, I don't put my photo on the site. Except for one, where I was wearing a dust mask and a hard hat, and by God, I STILL got comments about my appearance.

[Arwen]

BTW: I should be very clear I'm not femme bashing. I'm merely interested in situating our understanding of the "empowerful" critique more holistically. Since I'm white, my experience only personally intersects with class: but due to my friendships and community, I know the femme icon also has differently situated meaning for some people of colour, some of which you're here addressing.

[The Happy Feminist]

Arwen, I hear you. I get annoyed at magazine articles that tell you how to look super-expensive at lower rates and the lower rates are STILL expensive.

I mainly wear shoes from Payless, and occasionally some more expensive shoes (although nothing anywhere near $400, probably $100 max, more like $50). I can personally attest that Payless dress shoes and more expensive dress shoes last about the same amount of time. I think what you're paying for with more expensive shoes is attractive design subtleties and materials that look better but aren't necessarily more durable. The difference is really subtle.

But either way, the main point is that dressing up is going to be expensive no matter what if you don't have the money to do it.

Sidenote-- I have read articles about how middle class professionals suffer financially because they have to invest more in wardrobe and drycleaning than say a plumber or a welder, or anyone who is able to make similar amounts of money but with less stringent wardrobe demands. It sounds like a small thing but it can add up.

[Arwen]

I'd totally agree, Happy. I switched from barista-ing to reception at one point, and looking "professional" ate all my wage advance plus some. Plus, I suffered higher harrassment.

Now that I'm a programmer, I'm expected to dress in clothing that covers my body, and that's about it. It's a good place to enter the middle class. *g*! Gap Casual - which can be thrift store casual or Old Navy casual. To me, it's very interesting how programming/IT situates itself; there's a working class ethic at play, it seems, like we're dressing to be seen as mechanics, only in stainable khakis. I've wondered whether this is intended to be ironic, or whether a belt full of new tech is instead the signifier, with clothing being too "mundane" for expression. Every once and awhile, someone busts out the old school punk; I've seen kilts. Very interesting.

[mythago]

It's really not a working-class ethic so much as a "we're too hip to dress up" ethic.

[Arwen]

Yah, I suppose that's right, mythago. A "too hip" to dress like "the man".
I wonder also if, now that programming isn't a mystical thing that no one but a few do, whether dressing up will become more common.

[K]

Yeah, programmers are "too hip to dress up." In the same way that I'm "too personable, too good-looking, and too rich to have a girlfriend."

Most programmers I know fit into either the working-class ethic or, more commonly, the Asperger's ethic.

(I almost double-majored in Computer Science and work in a closely related field, so I'm pretty much self-shaming here)

[N2]

A $400 pair of heels often look like a $400 pair of heels; the make-up at an upscale department store is generally better than the Maybelline one buys at the corner drug store.

"Minor quibble, but I think it is possible to look expensively dressed without actually being so, if one chooses well. A pair of shoes from Payless can go a long way if they are the right shoes. But it tends to be a lot easier to find great stuff in more expensive stores."- Happy Feminist

This is true, but only if you belong to that particular class anyway and therefore know how to create the same look with less.

[mythago]

I can personally attest that Payless dress shoes and more expensive dress shoes last about the same amount of time.

YMMV. This hasn't been my experience at all, unless you're getting a Payless brand that is really the exact same thing as a designer brand, just with the labels changed. (A shoe maven friend informs me that some 'designer' shoe companies do this.)

[Lya Kahlo]

Sorry for the off topic-ness. However, I need to ask a question - what does MRA standfor? Does it in any way describe the misogynists, liars and cowards you seem a lot of posts from?

[Jas]

Mens rights activists, a kind of a revolt against the horrible achievements of feminism (that's an unbiased definition, btw) ;)

[Lee]

When I talk at length about the fact that I work out anywhere from 15-24 hours per week (including private Pilates and boxing lessons) that sends a stark, even grating message about privilege. My increasingly lean and toned flesh is a testament to my physical work ethic, sure -- but it's also a testament to discretionary time and discretionary income, both of which are associated with tremendous amounts of privilege.

It's a testament to hard work, not priviledge.

Almost everyone makes their lives for themselves. Very few start out in life set. Gates didn't start out a billionaire, my family didn't pay for the schooling that taught me how to run a company, and your accomplishments have to do with YOU, not priviledge.

Discretionary time comes from not watching TV and working out for those 15+ hours per week; it comes from hitting the books, making sound judgements, and good decisions. It comes from going to college and committing to it, rather than taking a gap year that turns into a career at Del Taco. It comes from not hanging out with stoners and druggis, as compared to doing drugs, watching tv all day, and not reading books.

One can sit home and watch TV during the weekend, or spend 6 hours climbing a mountain, and the willingness to do so has to do with character, hard work and the willingness to do what it takes.

Hiking is cheap. Gas and sneakers and a second hand bookbag will get you what you need to hike in the Sierras for a day. Running is cheap. $30 shoes at WalMart, and you run. Easy. The 'Y' is $44/month, cheaper than cable.

It's all about choices, and anyone can chose.

Used to be being poor didn't mean holding someone to a different standard. They wore a tattered suit and hat, only had one, but they wore it. They endeavored to be civil, and expected high things of themselves.

Now we give the poor a pass, because they aren't 'priviledged'.

What is it about them that we are willing to hold them to a different, lower standard than ourselves who allegedly have 'priviledge'?

[zuzu]

When we have fights about waxing for example, are we assuming that all women can afford waxing, that waxing is expected of all women in the same way, and that waxing has the same significance for all women?

We could just be engaged in a stupid argument that focuses on waxing rather than the pressure to beautify.

[mythago]

It's a testament to hard work, not priviledge

Privilege is a substitute for an awful lot of hard work, and covers for an awful lot of bad luck.

Privilege includes things like having the free time to hike, instead of taking a second job to make ends meet; being able to take a 'gap year' in college instead of cramming as much as you can in while you can afford it...oh, and pretending that if your clothes are tattered, you will be treated with just as much dignity as somebody whose clothes came new from Neiman-Marcus.

[anonymous for the sake of my career]

Lee, while Bill Gates is admittedly very smart and very, very rich, he owes a lot of his success to his parents' connections and to a massive blunder by IBM.

[Antigone]

And running means that you are physically capable of doing so, which isn't that easy if you suffer from chronic back pain from hideous jobs.

[Lee]

It's a testament to hard work, not privilege
Privilege is a substitute for an awful lot of hard work, and covers for an awful lot of bad luck.

Amazingly, the harder you work, the luckier you get.

Privilege includes things like having the free time to hike,

Which I have because of sound choices and hard work, no debt and a commitment to spare time. These qualities weren't handed to me - they were earned. Thus not a privilege.

Privilege:
A special advantage, immunity, permission, right, or benefit granted to or enjoyed by an individual, class, or caste. b. Such an advantage, immunity, or right held as a prerogative of status or rank, and exercised to the exclusion or detriment of others.

Nothing I posted is of privilege, or was granted, or is a special advantage or exercised to the exclusion of others as others are free to do it as well.

instead of taking a second job to make ends meet;
Then I suggest they cut expenses and increase their value in the labor market.

oh, and pretending that if your clothes are tattered, you will be treated with just as much dignity as somebody whose clothes came new from Neiman-Marcus.
That's just a Red Herring, as I was posting of those who appear poor and are given
short shrift on expectations by The Left.

This is the irreconcilable clash between those whom see others with things, possessions, qualities they may not have and attributing those to unfair advantage, privilege and the like and those who see earned success. Usually what others have is earned, and viewing it as privilege makes it easier to take what they have (they didn't earn it, it was given to them, it's not fair...).

This is just the old envy based attitude of The Left, Socialists and the like.

[Lee]

Lee, while Bill Gates is admittedly very smart and very, very rich, he owes a lot of his success to his parents' connections and to a massive blunder by IBM.
Gates gave IBM a fair chance and originally passed on the first PC Disc Operating System. He referred them to another shop, they dropped the ball and came back to Gates.

Gates had the smarts to buy QDOS and get a completely unrestricted license for $50,000 in cash. IOW, he owned it and could do what he wished.

Gates then had the smarts, foresight and gumption to insist in the agreement with IBM that he could license DOS to other manufacturers and charge for it. This was IBM, in 1981, a Titan of American Business. What courage and foresight. Brilliant.

Gates outsmarted IBM!. That isn't anything but good decision making, good legal advice, and he has been rewarded for that, his mother's friendships with IBM boardmembers notwithstanding.

And running means that you are physically capable of doing so, which isn't that easy if you suffer from chronic back pain from hideous jobs.

Then do something else like Pilates, seated cycle upper body rows, or walking.

This is just more of the same attitude of:

"I can't. I am poor. I am tired. I work two jobs. I have a bad back. I cannot be expected to do those things the 'Privileged' do. So let's take their money via taxes!"

These excuses don't fly, and I speak from personal experience.

I have a bad back, I have had a heart attack, 4 years ago I was earning $500/month, and I have been homeless twice, sleeping in my car in the winter in Seattle with a leaky roof.

When I read such arguments as yours, my reaction is:

"So what?"

Stop making excuses, and stop being envious of those who do things and have things you don't.

[Antigone]

The harder you work, the more bad luck you may have. If you're working multiple jobs, you're not exactly going to have the oppurtunity to look for luck.

And how, pray tell, did you manage not to get into debt in the first place? I'd really like to see a person direct me to how I can pay 100,000 dollars worth of an education without going into debt. Doesn't matter what my summer job is, I'm not getting that kind of money.

Ah, the unquestioned privelege of the smugly self-righteous. I love how this "I just worked hard" attitude means that they don't have to change anything about themselves. They get to ignore people who didn't have their resources.

[Jas]

Admitting privilege--be it race, class, or gender--seems to be incredibly difficult for some people. Admitting that without vast amounts of privilege you would not have achieved what you have now is hard. By ignoring the way privilege operates in daily life, you are choosing to blind yourself to the reality that were you born in different circumstances, your hard work and perseverance alone would NOT have gotten you where you are today. It's ignorant to say that because a few individuals managed to crawl out of the (race, class, or gender) gutter, and be incredibly successful, that everyone ought to be able to. The bootstraps myth is pervasive, namely because of how conveniently it allows us to deny that our achievements weren't facilitated by our upbringing or position in society.