Feminism and Femininity: A Seminar

By Diane Frank

According to Case’s Professor Reneé Sentilles., citing a Thomas LeClerc’s "Making Sex", there used to be only one sex and two genders. Females were viewed as imperfect males, rather than as a class distinct unto themselves. That there were differences in behavior of imperfect males was only natural, a function of their failed physiologies. Only during the so-called "Enlightenment" did we come to view things in a totally binary form, creating a wall of separation of between male and female and tattooing lists of permanent attributes to each class on the bodies of infants as they were born.

This fascinating revelation was part of her ongoing research into the origins of the term "tomboy", which Professor Sentilles has learned, originally meant both rowdy men and bawdy women. Only in recent times has tomboy come to mean a female acting in a "mannish" or "boyish" way. And while in years past, most women would be highly offended to be considered tomboys, most women today would have little trouble if that appellation were applied to them. But along with the relegation of tomboy to boyish girls, came another forced gender distinction: women as sexually passive. Back in the days when there was only one sex, women were viewed as sexual predators. They used their wiles to slake their lust by seducing men to their downfall, just as Eve did with Adam. This change coincided with a change in the ideal body chosen for painting from that of a pubescent male to a woman’s body. (I think this is a current thesis posed by arch-feminist provocateur Germaine Greer in "The Beautiful Boy"...but I’ve got catching up to do... now where did I leave my Cliff Notes?)

These concepts and more were just part of the discussion at an informal seminar on feminism and femininity held at Lake Erie College in Painesville, earlier this month. Curated by my friend from last year’s Cleveland International film festival, Lyz Bly, the art gallery is currently showing the works of two strongly feminist women artists, among other offerings. Some of the photographs of Sarah Curry were pictures of women friends in poses and with captions that commented on the struggle women have in defining their lives for themselves. Ms. Curry, calling herself a voyeur also used a downward looking viewfinder to take candid images of people as she explored the rockabilly culture around her. One thing she observed was that men look at women the way they look at cars.

Hadley K. Conner used vividly colored, near-realistic paintings with overlays to make similar comments. The overlays of plastic stood off from parts of the painting by about a foot and contained line drawings based on commercial art that views women as sex objects. The line art cast a shadow on the painting, forcing the observer to consider the imposition of sexual expectations on women. The overlays were also presented as being symbolic of veils worn by women at weddings, and in ancient times again at their funerals.

Ms. Prudic, another panel member and Art Professor at Lake Erie, discussed her current series of creations. Text is written on moldings (skins) made of her body. Starting from a concern about banned books and freedom of expression, Ms. Prudic received a deliberately offensive remark that after insulting gay women and African-American men asked, "NOW do you believe in free speech." She chose to render the offensive remark along with the less pointed commentary because of her commitment to free speech, but she also sensed and discussed the conflict that this was intended to and did create.

In the discussion one of the artists also said, "high heels and liquid eye-liner were invented by men, but... I like high heels and liquid eye-liner." This comment was recognized as articulating the problem faced by third generation feminists- in one sense having their cake and eating it too. The notion that women are people too, and have may have dreams of fulfillment beyond, outside or instead of wifedom and motherhood and are entitled to pursue these as a basic human right is to the present generation of young women established, at least in the west. Equal pay for the same job, if not equal pay for equivalent work is also regarded as an established principle. At the same time, the idea that feminism requires giving up heels and eye-liner seems to strike these women as similar to Emma Goldman’s statement: "If I can't dance, I don't want to be a part of your revolution!"

So where do eye-liner and high heels fit into this? In part that’s why I attended the seminar. One of the largest areas that crossdressers stumble over time and again is "what do I wear and what does it mean?" Which of course means individual wrestling with the question of what does it mean to express the fabled "feminine side" or "inner woman."

There is one stream of feminist discourse that decries the choices crossdressers make. By dressing like their mothers (the Tri-Ess stereotype of a conservative man in a conservative dress as exemplified by the pictures alleged to be ex-Tri-Ess treasurer Samantha Walls) or as whores, crossdressers are men engaged in a ritual reinforcement of immoral cultural impositions on women. When coupled with complaints by some of the less aware CDs that women don’t know how to be feminine anymore, this radical analysis has a lot of sense to it. Those were the kinds of things forming questions for me attending this event.

I can’t claim to have found any answers that can be passed on to anyone else. I had some fascinating conversations with women afterwards, and was invited to a gallery opening which that I was unable to attend. I was also invited to contribute to "Cool Cleveland," as I happened to be sitting next to a woman who is an editor for the on-line journal. For the moment I have declined, in part because I think some of the things I think and believe are critical of aspects of the behavior and thinking of members of the so-called transgender community. I’d prefer my remarks to be stimulus for discussion inside the community rather than outside. g