So…this series of long and convoluted response I’ve made in regard to the purported
unacceptable use of kimono, has resulted in 2 weeks of shadow boxing with my
left hand duke and right hand claw raised….cos all the outraged promptly went
to ground when challenged. Though one person who talked briefly and privately
to me reported they won't engage because they are simply “tired”. It seems they prefer knocking off the
low hanging fruit than to take up the cudgels with an old warrior crone?
I read
Emily Itos piece on the Densho blog a few days after it was first published in
February and was alerted by a noisy rustle of petticoats flouncing around in
the sewist community. I ignored it, presuming such a silly idea would be no
more serious than a storm in a fine china teacup. But then, as I have observed
in my own chookyard, silliness can be contagious and soon the hens are
screeching and pecking at each other. The delicate balance of pecking order has
been upset…
This old
boiler did her own version of pecking – I referred to somebody as a “sheila”
and made some provocative clucks about “American feminists”…..resounding
silence, delete, ignore….
Two days
ago I said I’d discuss “Orientalist” art. Those of you who may have managed to
get through my long farty discourses to date will be pleased to know that mob
will be quickly dispensed within a couple of paragraphs so we can move on to
the relevant issues, quick smart.
Growing
up in the 1970s, in that era of the second wave of feminism, was the time when female
creatives focussed their withering critique on the product of art history and
came up with the term “the male gaze”. Briefly, the way women have been
depicted in art arises from masculine hegemony. In their art male artists
objectified and displayed women as subjected and sexualised beings. The way women
were placed “in the picture” could only be understood in relation to the mores,
values and codes of their contemporary society. For the person observing the
image the sense making came from understanding women as beings who were possessed,
owned, controlled, exploited for our various labours. The picture was decoded
and understood by placing the female within a narrative of who were the men she
was subject to, ie- husband, father,
lover, lord of the manor, slave owner, brothel owner…The woman in the image was
seldom there as respectful tribute; depicted as an individual of autonomy and
self determination with power and influence in the world.
You can
choose to get on your high horse over Orientalist art – the pictures made by
European male artists who were part of the wave of colonising imperialist power
sweeping over Africa, the Middle and Far East in the 18thC. But the truth is
the males of those cultures weren’t any less culpable to depict their own women
as objects of desire, in pornography and whatever it takes to get the male
appendage rigid. Patriarchy is everywhere, women are colonised everywhere.
Choose your battles wisely.
So lets
not squabble over the visual rubbish produced by Victorian era masturbators. I
think the really important images we need to be decoding right now and jumping
up and down about are probably in a magazine not more than a few metres away,
or scrolling right now on your Instagram feed. Wafer thin skinny chicks, elegant 19
somethings flicking their tresses casually (product of 3 hours at the hairdresser,
$500 cut, colour and blow wave, an hour with a makeup artist, 2 hour photo
shoot with professional photographer to get the hair flick image with just the
right nonchalance and spontaneity)
Are we liking our real bodies and unpainted
faces? Are we celebrating the beauty of rolls of fat, stretch marks, saggy
breasts and unshaved armpits? I love that so many young women I admire get
tattoos. This is something that generally horrifies polite society because its
such a radical act of self possession to own your skin. Women have always been encouraged to
make their skin “nice” – keep it smooth, wrinkle free, soft, unblemished, cover
your scars and stretchmarks, avoid cellulitis! pluck out hairs that displease
on the legs, genitals and armpits (god forbid when you get hairs on the chin
and around the lips, then you’re really past your use by date). While the skin
must be kept smooth and hairless the head must display a fulsome shiny mane of
hirsute health.
Last bit
of the rant today is about something different but related.
Trump
declaring he is “victim” of a “witch hunt”. I dearly wish the outcome of that hunt would be
what the witches got – being drowned strapped to a dunking stool or tied to a
stake and burned alive. That will have me shaking the claw in triumph!
It makes
me mad that this misogynist horror goes around claiming some sort of
connectedness to genuinely martyred women. The torturing and killing of women
over hundreds of years who were labelled “witches” is a crime of patriarchy. It
was male power from multiple institutions - religious, medical, political - that called out the women and condemned them. The men were
threatened by women who were healers, knowledgeable with herbs and medicines, women who wouldn't give up pagan beliefs, women who wanted to live lives where men didn’t have power over them because
they wouldn’t marry, women who were leaders or were sexually promiscuous….
How dare this
man who objectifies and disparages women try to spuriously invoke that he is a
victim of mob injustice. Nahhhh....
Far from it….bring out the Iron Maiden and slam him in it, I say.