THE FAMED ANTI-RAPE ACTIVIST CHANGES TO A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SUBJECT
Susan Brownmiller (1935-2025) was a feminist author and activist. She wrote in the Prologue to this 1984 book about her childhood and youth, “I loved being a little girl, or rather I loved being a fairy princess, for that was who I thought I was. As I passed through a stormy adolescence to a stormy maturity, femininity increasingly became an exasperation, a brilliant, subtle esthetic that was bafflingly inconsistent at the same time that it was minutely, demandingly concrete, a rigid code of appearance and behavior defined by do’s and don’t-do’s that went against my rebellious grain. Femininity was a challenge thrown down to the female sex, a challenge no proud, self-respecting young woman could afford to ignore… Femininity, in essence, is a romantic sentiment, a nostalgic tradition of imposed limitations. Even as it hurries forward in the 1980s, putting on lipstick and high heels to appear well dressed, it trips on the ruffled petticoats and hoopskirts on an era gone by.” (Pg. 14-15)
She continues, “But clearly, biological femaleness is not enough. Femininity always demands more. It must constantly assure its audience by a willing demonstration of difference, even when one does not exist in nature, or it must seize and embrace a natural variation and compose a rhapsodic symphony upon the notes… To fail at the feminine difference is to appear not to care about men, and to risk the loss of their attention and approval…” (Pg. 15)
She observes, “Enormous pleasure can be extracted from feminine pursuits as a creative outlet or purely as relaxation; indeed, indulgence for the sake of fun, or art, or attention, is among femininity’s chief joys… The world smiles favorably on the feminine woman: it extends little courtesies and minor privileges. Yet the nature of this competitive edge is ironic, at best, for one works in femininity by accepting restrictions, by limiting one’s sights… Femininity pleases men because it makes them appear more masculine by contrast; and in truth, conferring an extra portion of unearned gender distinction on men, an unchallenged space in which to breathe freely and feel stronger, wiser, more competent, is femininity’s special gift.” (Pg. 15-16)
She admits, “I have been at odds with the hair on my head for most of my life… I harbor a deep desire to wear my hair long because, like all the women I know, I grew up believing that long hair is irrefutably feminine… but I happen to look terrible when my hair is long. I know what some people think about short hair… short hair is mannish, dyky. I could risk wearing my hair quite short if I wore makeup and dresses, or put on some earrings, or if I weren’t a feminist and an ambitious careerist, or if I were married and had two children, but close-cropped hair on someone like me adds to an image I do not mean to project… I need to go my own way, yet I also need to stand on the safe side of femininity.” (Pg. 55)
She explains, “why do I persist in not wearing skirts? Because I don’t like this artificial gender distinction. Because I don’t wish to start shaving my legs again. Because I don’t want to return to the expanse and aggravation of nylons… Because I remember resenting the enormous amount of thinking that I used to pour into superficial upkeep concerns, and because the nature of feminine dressing is superficial in essence---even my objections seem superficial as I write them down. But that is the point. To care about feminine fashion… is to be obsessively involved in inconsequential details on a serious basis.” (Pg. 81) She adds, “To be truly feminine is to accept the handicap of restraint and restriction, and to come to adore it." (Pg. 86)
She notes, “Shopping is indeed the woman’s opiate, yet the economy would suffer a new crisis if the American woman dropped her feminine interest in clothes and ceased to be a conspicuous consumer.” (Pg. 99)
She recalls, “At the beginning of the new feminist movement, when many of us rebelled… against artificial beauty from girdles to lipstick, I saw the emergence of several bearded women. Peach fuzz, really… but nonetheless a groundcover of surprising, dense growth. I was shocked and wished they would do something about it… The women with hair on their faces were asking for support, but a lifetime of social conditioning ordained my esthetic aversion.” (Pg. 139) Later, she adds, “As a matter of principle I stopped shaving my legs and under my arms several years ago, but I have yet to accept the unesthetic result…” (Pg. 156)
She acknowledges, “There is no getting around the fact that I have an anti-makeup bias, believing with as much objectivity as I can muster that I have one of those faces that simply do not benefit from an application of paintbox colors… An unadorned face became the honorable new look of feminism in the early 1970s, and no one was happier with the freedom not to wear makeup than I, yet it could hardly escape my attention that more women supported the Equal Rights Amendment and legal abortion than could walk out of the house without their eye shadow… Cosmetics… are proof, if anything, of feminine insecurity, and abiding belief that the face underneath is insufficient to itself.” (Pg 158-159)
She suggests, “Hollywood’s contribution in the late 1930s to the concept of seductive glamour …[was] a set of protruding, enameled nails [that] transforms the simplest gesture into the contrived, t0phe self-conscious, or in some cases the impossible or the to-be-avoided-at-all-costs… the feminine competition of nail-growing, woman against herself … and woman against other women, is so absorbing that accounts of the struggle … have been written by Shirley MacLaine and Helen Gurley Brown, among others. And the results are indeed a tactile sensation. Thumb against nail, nail against palm, finger against doorbell, the merest gesture gives reassurance of the feminine difference…Even when they are glued-on fakes.” (Pg. 179-180)
She notes, “‘Sensible shoes' announce an unfeminine sensibility, a value system that places physical comfort above the critical mission of creating a sex difference where one does not exist in nature. Sensible shoes betray a lack of concern for the esthetic and sexual feelings of men.” (Pg. 186)
She explains, “Love of babies, any baby and all babies… is a celebrated and anticipated feminine emotion, and a woman who fails to ooh and ahh at the snapshot of a baby or cuddle a proffered infant in her arms is instantly suspect… But despite … evidence that day-to-day motherhood is not a suitable or a stimulating occupation for all, the myth persists that a woman who prefers to remain childless must be heartless or selfish or less than complete.” (Pg. 214)
She concludes, “Gender does ultimately rest on how the species reproduces, but while femaleness will continue to be defined by the XX chromosomal count and its reproductive potential, many women have ceased to define themselves by their reproductive role… The post-reproductive years grow longer and longer, putting into perspective an emerging truth: the problem is not that some women are feminine failures, but that femininity fails as a reliable goal.” (Pg. 237)
Completely unlike her first book, Brownmiller’s incisive and honest comments are surprising, yet quite interesting.