Mermaiden

‘Good night, ladies; good night, sweet ladies;good night, good night.’ – Ophelia
(‘Hamlet’, Act IV.v)

I’m moving through the mirror again in search of you,
watching shadows of the world appear as the mists clear. I look
upwards through shifting waters, marine gaze
hazed by the chasms of lunarlight drawn vaulted: a litter
of broken jewellery. Quartz-eyed, I watch silted moons
shift beneath the surface, looming blackly like negatives,
a loop of O, O, Os –
holes
in the fabric of the dark. The water’s diaphanous -
a thin skin ravined and seamed by ripples, my breathmarks
that echo as endless spheres – each concentric to you,
my blue muse. For you
are always there, crowned with your
laminaria hair, wraith-voice at the end
of my line, tugging tight. One hand on mine,
the other tearing at the weights
round your throat, you float upwards, unravelling
skeins of myth in your wake. You’re
the lady of the lake, medusa, mother –
paragon heart of pith and chain.
My Other – in you I see
me.

Two-toned, jade-boned, she lies
beneath the tongueless water,
waiting to rise.

* * *

Phew. I was beginning to think I'd run inspirationally dry after last week's little batch of poems...

Now for some explanation:

This was inspired by Emilie Autumn's music and writing, especially her creation of the 'Opheliac' figure - the tragic drowned girl - and her portrayal of the beautiful tragedy of a young girl's death - what Emilie dubs 'the art of suicide'. Emilie mocks these traditional literary/artistic portrayals of women with her wonderful sarcasm and wit, but she also relates to the tragedy 'behind' the tragedy - the true emotion behind the desperate actions of the drowned girls.

I hope to replicate that in this poem: the dismissal of culture's misguided portrayal of the artistry of suicide (especially concerning pure, 'virginial' women - hence the references to Ophelia and 'The Lady of Shalott' - the first lines are based on some of the original Tennyson poem: 'And moving through a mirror clear That hangs before her all the year, Shadows of the world appear.') but also relate to the real tragedy behind the theatricality.

In the poem, the narrator is haunted by the image of the drowned woman - or 'mermaiden' - who takes the form of the triple goddess as maiden, mother and crone, and recognises how these culturally-constructed aspects of femininity lie at the core of her own heart, too. The mermaiden is both ghost and reflection - the diametric opposite to life and its embodiment.

Yes, it's paradoxical again - what isn't? - but this time with a feminist theme. :)

What the...

I am a firm believer in embracing your feminine side, feminine meaning what it is that makes you a woman, whatever that may be (not the whole culturally-constructed idea of ‘feminine’ which, let’s face it, basically equals the colour pink). I also identify strongly with myself as a feminist. I see nothing in these two statements that contradicts.

And that’s why when I read articles like this, they make me so, so angry.

There are so many things wrong with this article, I have no idea where to start. Perhaps with the title - ‘Are you a Feminist or a ‘Feminine-ist’?’ – because obviously you can’t be both! Being a feminist and wanting to be in any way pro-feminine would just be ridiculous and obscene: everyone knows that all feminist are ‘tough, overworked and unattractive’; ‘a woman who’s unattractive in both looks and spirits’! Contrast this to feminine-ists, who embrace their ‘feminine sexy and loving side[s]’, the epitome of which is, in this article, ‘a beautiful, leggy, sexy woman’. All of these terms are ones on which a woman is graded from a heterosexual patriarchal point of view, and are thus demeaning. But being the epitome of physical attractiveness is what it’s all about, right – oh, and being ‘powerful’ (she adds, hastily) – so this one-dimensional stereotype is what all womankind should aspire to be.

Karen Salmansohn states that her goal is:

To inspire women to embrace their fullest potential selves – feminine, sexy, warm, loving – everything the word ‘feminine’ stands for, alongside strong qualities like powerful and successful.

There are several things wrong with this, and her whole argument:

1. Where do characteristics like ‘intelligent’, ‘creative’ and ‘happy’ come into the feminine norm? Nowhere is the answer: they’re not ‘feminine’ characteristics. And neither are ‘strong qualities like powerful and successful’. ‘Feminine’ and ‘strong’ don’t really mix, and they are definitely not the same thing; you just get one plus the other.

2. Salmansohn notes how so many women today are ‘not being their fullest, best feminine selves’ because they’re ‘rushing around trying to do it all ... being tougher than they’d like to be as well as more exhausted, strident and irritable, thereby feeling unattractive inside and out.’ Being exhausted and emotionally depleted is all the fault of the woman, of course, neglecting her inner femininity. Salmansohn fails to address the real reason for this: that women in a men’s world must constantly over-perform in order to combat the effects of discrimination, especially in employment.

3. Salmansohn claims that she feels her most powerful when she takes the time to tap into ‘feminine-ism’ – i.e. when ‘indulging in a meditative and self-nurturing manicure, a facial or a hot bubble bath’. Salmansohn has obviously not been watching any Target Women lately! These ‘indulgences’ are exactly the kind of thing that patriarchal companies target women with. Nobody is 'powerful' when having a bubble bath, however much you might enjoy it. And by listing these things off as typical ‘feminine’ pastimes, Salmansohn simply falls into the trap of succumbing to the culturally-constructed ‘feminine’ norm.

4. Then, there’s Salmansohn’s annoying overuse of the word ‘sexy’, meaning ‘attractive to the average heterosexual male’. Feeling sexy in this sense is not empowering, as she claims. It is feeling happy in yourself, as yourself, that is empowering. And though this may include feeling confident about your sex appeal, you cannot conflate the two ideas.

5. Men can be and are feminists, and any man who is put off from calling himself a supporter of women’s equality because ‘it might sound like he was admitting to supporting a group of controlling, bitchy women’ is not someone who believes in female empowerment at all, really, is he? No, he’s just ignorant, close-minded and sexist to boot. But that’s OK, in Salmansohn’s point of view, because it’s generally agreed that men don’t really go in for that kind of thing. But something that’s ‘pro-sexiness, pro-sweetness [and] pro-balance’ (excuse me while I puke) like ‘feminine-ism’ – well, a man can be proud to support something like that!

And why is this? Because it’s cool for a man to be in touch with both his feminine and masculine sides (though he is, of course, predominantly masculine if he is straight). But hang on – when can we get in touch with our masculine sides? Oh, that’s when we embrace our ‘strong qualities’, like powerfulness? But then aren’t we meant to feel our most powerful when indulging ourselves in feminine activities like facials? I’m confused, which is unsurprising, as Salmansohn’s argument makes no sense at all with its narrow-minded categorisation of the masculine and the feminine.

6. And finally, please, please do not try to personify and thus stereotype your country. It’s just wrong. Especially if you’re going to be sexist about it too. America, the ‘real guy’s guy’ (in other words, ‘the very masculine man’) is described as loud and active. India, on the other hand (a country that is in reality torn by its desire to Westernise and achieve Western ideals of perfection – which for woman generally means pale and submissive), is described as embracing its feminine qualities. And it is passive, passive, passive.

Being a feminine woman should not be about self-indulgence in facials, being ‘sexy’ or god-forbid being passive. It should be about being yourself, whoever that may be. So if you’re going to preach to women to embrace feminine-ism, don’t just tell them to subscribe to the culturally constructed feminine norm. Because that’s not empowering; not at all.

For a better-written take on the stupidity that is feminine-ism, see this article on The Frisky.

'I Shop, Therefore I Am' - Welcome to Generation Misogyny

Art by Barbara Kruger

Recently I read my good friend J’s article on Gender and its Complications, and it got me thinking about gender and how much ‘what you look like’ is indicative of it.

Everyone is aware of what feminine stereotypes exist. Germaine Greer personifies ‘The Stereotype’ wonderfully in ‘The Female Eunuch’. The Feminine Woman is, essentially, the girl in the magazine or on the TV smiling with pearly white teeth, decked out in the latest fashions, trying to sell you the latest type of lip gloss so-and-so designer has created. She is thin, beautiful, and infinitely happy because she has bought this particular product, and it has solved all her problems. Never more will she have to worry about a bad hair day, her nail-polish becoming chipped or unwanted body odour – life is perfect thanks to this product! And there she stands, an immovable idol, not a hair out of place, no unsightly flab, not a blemish in sight.

Greer describes her thus:

‘Her glossy lips and matt complexion, her unfocused eyes and flawless fingers, her extraordinary hair all floating and shining, curling and gleaming, reveal the inhuman triumph of cosmetics, lighting, focusing and printing, cropping and composition.’

This is what you must look like to be the feminine ideal. You must hide behind a painted smile, wear what’s ‘in fashion’, and look, smell, feel and even taste like unruffled perfection. This is what little girls spend years dreaming, wishing to look like – ‘inhuman’. Like Barbie, with perfect plastic proportions (this means big boobs and a tiny waist), flawless symmetrical features and an expression of permanent ecstasy (this is where that DIY Botox that J mentioned would come in handy!), girls want to become dolls:

‘For she [The Stereotype] is a doll: weeping, pouting or smiling, running or reclining, she is a doll. She is an idol, formed of the concatenation of lines and masses, signifying the lineaments of satisfied impotence.’

Impotence? But hang on – isn’t this picture-perfect face what’s meant to be defining womanhood? For surely that is what ‘feminine’ should mean; what defines us as women, our femaleness? Surely The Stereotype should portray our sex properly, including our lusts, our restless imagination and our brilliant intelligence? Is that what we are – weak, powerless, lacking in sexual desire? Or is this what ‘they’ want us to be?

We must think of how the modern concept of ‘femininity’ is defined.

In the Victorian era, the Feminine Woman would be meek and mild, with delicate features and health. She would have no ideas of her own, be totally subservient to her husband, and was devoted to the care of her children. No self-respecting middle-class woman would wear makeup, because this show of vanity was considered to be a sign of a prostitute. This ‘angel in the house’, as she was later to become known, was basically the personification of men’s desire for the perfect subservient wife. ‘Feminine’ came to mean the opposite of ‘masculine’ because women must accommodate to men’s needs and not desire to be like him in any way – for that is not her place. As Virginia Woolf says in ‘A Room of One’s Own’:

For man wants to see something attractive when he looks in this looking-glass, doesn’t he? Something weak, delicate and beautiful that reaffirms his superiority over it. Because he can only be superior if something is inferior to him – and that is women’s role.

‘Women have served all these centuries as looking-glasses possessing
the magic and delicious power of reflecting the figure of man at twice its natural size.’

So men and our patriarchal culture define what ‘feminine’ is, as they define what ‘masculine’ is. These two ‘labels’ (as they do not, in reality, stand for ‘femaleness’ or ‘maleness’ at all) have become the ideals that both sexes respectively aim for. And who doesn’t want to fit into the ‘popular’ concept of the ‘ideal’, to be accepted, to be loved? For these wishes are human nature – we are, after all, dependent on love.

But luckily, society has made becoming the feminine ideal attainable for all womankind. You can now spend, spend, spend and become just like her! Because if you buy all the right products, dress yourself in the latest fashions and hide your face behind a load of slap, you too can be happy. With an eternal pearl-white smile, you too can be the Feminine Stereotype!

You shop, therefore you are, darling!

‘Taught from infancy that beauty is woman’s sceptre, the mind shapes itself to
body, and roaming round its gilt cage, only seeks to adorn its prison.’
Mary Wollstonecraft, ‘A Vindication of the Right of Women’, 1792

And what effect is this having on our society? Surely by now, in this affluent age, we should all be happy? Teenage girls are afflicted with eating disorders, anxiety and depression because they don’t fit into the popular definition of ‘perfect’ – but everyone’s happy, right?

Recently, I came across a series of photographs by dA artist, Maryana. Her whole Statistic Series is great, and you should definitely check out her gallery, but a couple of facts from two of the pictures really stuck-out for me. Firstly:

And secondly:

Girls see over 400 advertisements per day telling them how they should look

I don’t think you need me to tell you that these two facts are linked.

50% of girls between the ages of 8 and 14 are dieting

I don’t want the Feminine Stereotype to equate to Girl Poison any more. I want femininity to be what I make it. What it means to be female is different for every girl and woman out there, dependent on their class, race, personality, etc. and no one should be told how to be themselves. Being feminine should be about embracing your womanhood, warts and all, and loving yourself for who you are - not lusting after the plastic-fantastic face of some photoshopped doll in a magazine. Let’s take back our own identities, and be who we really want to be.

Because we think, therefore we are.

* * *

For more on this, see this article from Feministing.com with a short film on ‘Generation Misogyny, which puts my point across far more eloquently than my article!