“Shoes “are almost becoming torture instruments. During a woman’s daily make-up ritual, on average she will expose herself to more than 200 synthetic chemicals before she has morning coffee. Regular lipstick wearers will ingest up to four and a half kilos during their lifetime.”
Sheila Jeffreys, “the Andrea Dworkin of the UK,” is back with a new book on misogyny and beauty — a more radical Beauty Myth, sort of.
I don’t agree with a lot of Jeffreys’ positions, and, like Dworkin, her work is often taken out of context and used as an anti-feminist tool. But I can appreciate her rage, her passion, and her fearlessness. And even if my version of feminism isn’t identical to hers, she presents challenging, thoughtful arguments (which are too often reduced to “angry” and “reactionary” by her detractors). As the article says:
Jeffreys can always be relied upon to back up her arguments by unearthing facts that are both disturbing and hard to believe. She cites one example of a porn actor who sold bits of her genitals to “fans” over the internet after a labiaplasty operation. She points to studies that have found significantly higher rates of suicide among women who have had breast implants. The latest, conducted in 2003 by the International Epidemiology Institute of Rockville and funded by Dow Corning Corp, a former maker of silicone gel breast implants, included a study of 2,166 women, some of whom received implants as long as 30 years ago. Dow Corning also funded an earlier Swedish study, which examined 3,521 women with implants, and found the suicide rate to be three times higher than normal.
There are other unwanted effects. Nipples can lose sensation and, in extreme cases, rot and fall off; stomach stapling can cause severe swelling in the pubic area; and liposuction can leave a patient in serious pain. A number of women have died after surgery, while others have been left in permanent discomfort.
Jeffreys argues that many male fashion designers are “projecting their misogyny on to the bodies of women”, and gives examples of collections featuring images based on sexual violence – Alexander McQueen’s show for his masters degree was entitled Jack The Ripper, and depicted bloodied images of Victorian prostitutes. A later show in 1995, Highland Rape, featured staggering, half-naked, brutalised models. And John Galliano, in his 2003 collection for Christian Dior, Hard Core Romance, used the imagery of sadomasochism, putting his models in seven-inch heels and rubber suits “so tight they had to use copious amounts of talcum powder to fit into them”.
I personally believe that feminism doesn’t have to be about denying everything that is either historically or stereotypically “feminine” and embracing all that has been deemed masculine — in fact, I think that there’s a deep level of sexism inherent in denying the virtue of “female” things, and positioning the masculine as always better. So the anti-makeup, anti-high heel version of feminism isn’t mine (although I certainly understand it, and don’t think that it’s wrong). But, I also realize that it’s intellectually lazy to simply embrace “feminine” things without critiquing the system that has institutionalized them — shouting “Girl Power!” and wearing pink nailpolish just doesn’t cut it, in my book, as a feminist act. For me, that’s where people like Jeffreys come in. I don’t agree with her all the way, but she points out hypocrisies and challenges the dominant school of thought. Read the whole article. And thanks to Melissa for the link.