| Lou Hildebrandt |
“Femininity” is an idea — an idea that is embedded within our culture, in symbols, in our everyday interactions. Since the idea of femininity is so ubiquitous in all layers of society, its oppressive force is, too.
In a world dominated by unhealthy beauty standards, by societal expectations, by the devaluation of the “female” and by white su- premacy, women’s bodies and comportment are appropriated as well as condemned by society. However, for women affected by racism or classism, this devaluation runs even deeper. Their bodies and minds are not only evaluated based on sexualized ex- ternal features, but also devalued through racism and classism. This makes women of color particularly susceptible to violence.
In her book “Black looks: race and representation” (1992), bell hooks picks up the issues that oppressed individuals start ha- ving with themselves: “And it struck me that for Black people, the pain of learning that we cannot control our images, how we see ourselves (if our vision is not decolonized), or how we are seen is so intense that it rends us. It rips and tears at the seams of our efforts to construct self and identity. Often it leaves us ravaged by repressed rage, feeling weary, dispirited, and sometimes just plain old brokenhearted. These are the gaps in our psyche, that are the spaces where mindless complicity, self-destructive rage, hatred, and paralyzing despair enter.”
In this analysis, I will delve into the intricate relationship bet- ween racism, gender, and appearance, highlighting how these women struggle in a society rife with biases and discrimination to gain recognition and appreciation.
The social construct of femininity and the appropriation of wo- men’s bodies and minds through it are tremendously ambiguous or amorphus and it seems, that one can never grasp it in its com- plexity. Even more so when there is an interplay with racism. I want to subdivide the analysis accordingly: First, I want to crack open the circuitous ways of how “femininity”1 can be oppres- sive, looking at the seemingly contradicting ways Arlie Hoch- schild and Beverly Skeggs analyzed gender-based oppression. Secondly, I am giving an outlook on how racism is intertwined with this. The comparison of thoughts of Skeggs and Hochschild showcases, that oppression is more than just a single force wor- king upon another.
THE OPPRESSION OF WOMEN IS A CONTINUITY
The first aspect of femininity I want to shed light on is the per- spective of Beverly Skeggs, which analyzes femininity as an ad- vantage of the “more feminine” white upper class. In her text “The toilet paper: Femininity, class and mis-recognition”, Skeggs highlights, that femininity can be a tool or a resource to women (Skeggs, 2001). However, women can only always be in a wrong- ful relationship with their femininity because it is devalued, has potential risks or has always implications for others and the op- pression of others.
Skeggs’ definition of femininity is based upon the theories of Ju- dith Butler and Pierre Bourdieu. Therefore, she regards this con- cept as a social construction, thus not biologically determined, and as symbolic capital. Symbolic capital refers to the resour- ces available to an individual on the basis of honor, prestige or recognition, and serves as a resource in societal contexts (Bourdieu, 1979). Femininity can be regarded as symbolic capi- tal through its historic textual association of taste and wealth (Skeggs, 2001).
To underscore her analysis of the hierarchies among women in analogy to their femininity, Skeggs gives an example from her empirical research, that seems odd at first glance, because it refers to women’s restrooms. The setting for this research were events primarily addressing the Lesbian community, like the bar Vanilla in “gay village” in Manchester. Despite addressing mainly Lesbians, heterosexual women, who feel very confident in their femininity and sort of occupy or dominate the toilets with their loud conversations, come to these events, too. Black, Les- bian or working-class women with less encouragement through their femininity experience unsettlement in these specific situ- ations. In this scenario, Skeggs traces the white women’s en- titlement back to their femininity as symbolic capital. Besides Skeggs analyzes, that working-class women, Lesbians or Black women, who attempt to attain the same sort of femininity, that is only reserved for white middle- and upper-class women inten- ding to deflect pathology or poverty end up further degrading themselves, because paying too much attention to oneself is of- ten seen as reprehensible or vain (Skeggs, 2001). This closes the vicious cycle, that seems to bare no possibility to break loose for these women.
When you put this into a broader context, it is not only the Les- bians, who are oppressed in this scenario, but the heterosexu- al women, too. We only see the perspective of the Lesbians, but the heterosexual women probably occupy this space, because they are, through male dominance, being excluded or unsafe in other spaces of society, too.
Conversely, gender-based oppression and systemic misogyny is characterized very differently in Arlie Hochschild’s sociologi- cal approach. This approach is part of the overall perspective of symbolic interactionism. It centers around the idea, that “femi- ninity” itself is the burden to women and is causing the oppres- sion. The concept is in itself a symbol for inferiority, weakness and subordination (Hochschild, 2003).
However, there are different levels of resilience towards this op- pression. Arlie Hochschild calls the described symbolic-interac- tionist concept “the status shield” and it means that the grea- ter the social status you enjoy the more are you protected from violence. She gives the example of flight attendants: A job, that women and men experience quite differently. This job is gene- rally associated with “femininity”, therefore women working in this domain are attributed even more femininity. Hochschild ex- plains, that the poor treatment female flight attendants usually get from their customers stems from the subtle perception that they are “even more female women” than “usual women” (Hoch- schild, 2003).
The crucial overlap of symbolic interactionism and cultural per- spectives on this issue, that I want to aim for is, that on the one hand your femininity can be a curse and intrinsically be regar- ded a subordinate. If so, you are more likely to be disrespected or to experience violence when you engage more in “femininity”. The other scenario is that if you are perceived not very female, when femininity is actually also a resource. This is the case for Lesbian, working-class, Black women, and basically anyone out- side of the cis-hetero rich white paradigm – they hold less socie- tal power, too. The synthesis is that there is no gap within the oppression, as well as there is no way to avoid devaluation and a predestined susceptibility to violence because regardless of “having or displaying femininity” or not, it will always be to your disadvantage.
In addition, when we imagine femininity as this classist, whi- te supremacist, cis- and heteronormative hierarchy, this me- ans women are always going to find themselves in the schism of being oppressed and reinforcing the oppression on others th- rough their femininity, since appearing “very feminine” makes another woman look less so, and vice versa. Despite the fact, that women are not necessarily the immediate oppressor here, this paradigm of femininity makes women the involuntary rein- forcers of this cruel and unjust scheme. Moreover, women are devalued and oppressed through both, their femininity and their lack or strive thereof. The oppression is a continuity and ubiqui- tous for every woman.
Moreover, the intersectionality of gender and race further ex- acerbates the vulnerability of women to violence, causing wo- men of color to face detrimental forms of maltreatment, that transcend the aforementioned problems through a normati- ve, cultural and socially expected as well as accepted range of femininity.
ON RACISM
In her collection of essays “Black Looks: Race and Represen- tation”, bell hooks investigates the colonial lens, that impacts our view on ourselves, other people and society. The concepts center around the issue, that Blackness, through this colonial lens, invokes hatred and fear and makes one suspect danger and threat from Black people (hooks, 1992).
bell hooks tells the story of how she taught a class in which they were discussing Black literature, and the class was so intended to dive into the topic of Black self-hatred, that the very possibili- ty of talking about Black self-love as an act of resistance did not cross the peoples’ minds (hooks, 1992). This shows that even with a critical mind we can hardly discuss or consider issues outside of a white-supremacist context. Re-reading bell hooks, I felt sort of self-conscious because dealing with racial or imperial self-ha- tred was my prime motivation for this essay.
Furthermore, bell hooks discusses how stereotypes and misre- presentations exacerbate the obstacles encountered by Black women and women of color. Negative stereotypes perpetua- ted in various spheres such as media, politics, and society not only hinder their progress but also lead to harmful perceptions about them. The importance of representation can hardly be ov- erstated, since the absence of diverse portrayals perpetuates damaging narratives that foster the marginalization of Black women and women of color (hooks, 1992).
Whilst there seem to be already a whole continuity of all wo- mens’ oppression (as pointed out above), for women of color body image and “femininity” issues are further complicated by racial stereotypes, Eurocentric beauty, and femininity stan- dards, that prioritize lighter skin tones, straight hair, and Wes- ternized features. These standards can contribute to feelings of inadequacy and internalized racism among women of color, as they may feel pressured to conform to dominant beauty norms that do not reflect their own cultural identities (hooks, 1992). Bell hooks writes about the daughter of Black acquaintances of hers and how she has internalized white supremacist values already at a very young age:
“Her skin is dark. Her hair is chemically straightened. Not only is she fundamentally convinced that straightened hair is more beautiful than curly, kinky, natural hair, she believes that ligh- ter skin makes one more worthy, more valuable in the eyes of others. Despite her parents’ effort to raise their children in an affirming black context, she has internalized white supremacist values and aesthetics, a way of looking and seeing the world that negates her value.”
Moshtari Hilal adds to this topic the perspective of a Middle Eas- tern, Pashto woman. In her book “Hässlichkeit” (engl. Ugliness) she provides a genuine, deeply honest, and shocking personal account of how distressing and tremendously painful the expe- rience of a woman with ethnic features is (Hilal, 2023).
The book delves into the ways in which Eurocentric beauty stan- dards elevate whiteness as the epitome of beauty. Hilal descri- bes the how Middle Eastern women, alongside particular ex- ternal features, have a unique account of feeling marginalized, excluded, and pressured to adhere to widespread beauty norms that fail to acknowledge or celebrate their cultural identities. Hilal’s personal narrative serves as a poignant critique of the- se narrow and colonial conceptions of femininity, highlighting how racism, or more specifically the particular forms of racism, intersect with the oppressive ideology of femininity and there- by increase negative biases (Hilal, 2023).
Ethnic features, like noses, can be alienating for women. In line with this, Fanon Hilal explains, that colonial legacy not only me- ans that colonized people are economically exploited, but it also means the colonial dominance over other than Western cultu- res. Her psychological analysis centers around the idea that the appropriation of women of Color is rooted in the urge to imit- ate the oppressor, white people, in order to improve the stand in society. Aside from that, the whole concept of women of Co- lor being ugly, and thus creating this dialectical antagonism, is deeply colonial in its roots (Hilal, 2023).
A quote from bell hooks sums up the task at hand very well: “It is only as we collectively change the way we look at ourselves and the world that we can change how we are seen.” (hooks, 1992).
From a decolonial standpoint, the assertion highlights the sig- nificance of dismantling deeply entrenched colonial ideologies and frameworks that have molded our perceptions of ourselves and others. Only when we critically analyze and deconstruct these prevailing narratives, we can initiate a redefinition of our identities. Besides, only this will enable us to reconnect with the world without the influence of colonial prejudice. Within this fra- mework, refreshing our self-perception and our view of the wor- ld entails leaving behind imperial norms of beauty, productivity, and moral, that have been imposed upon marginalized commu- nities. Empowerment lies in reclaiming cultural identities, that have been sidelined or obliterated by colonial forces.