Reading Woman: Displacing the Foundations of Femininity

Hypatia, Inc.
Reading Woman: Displacing the Foundations of Femininity
Author(s): Wendy A. Burns-Ardolino
Source: Hypatia, Vol. 18, No. 3 (Autumn, 2003), pp. 42-59
Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of Hypatia, Inc.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3810863 .
Accessed: 27/07/2011 19:02
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=hypatiainc. .
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Hypatia, Inc. and Blackwell Publishing are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Hypatia.
http://www.jstor.org
ReadingWoman:Displacingthe
Foundationsof Femininity
WENDY A. BURNS-ARDOLINO
I offerherean analysisof contemporary
foundationgarmentswhileexploringthe
in
which
these
ways
garmentsencourage,reinforceandprotectnormativefemininity.
In examiningtheperformatives
normative,idealfemininityas they
of contemporary
inhibited
perpetuate
intentionality,ambiguoustranscendence,and discontinuous
vis-a-visthestrengthsof
unity,I lookto thepossibilityfor subversiveperformativity
womenin orderto proliferate
categoriesof genderand to potentiallydisplacecurrent
notionsof whatit meansto becomewoman.
As a young girl in elementaryschool I was allowedto climb trees, hang upsidedown on monkeybars,and play rough-and-tumblewith boys in a white, working-classneighborhood,but as I hit pubertythe demandsto behavelike a young
lady became unbearable.Becoming a woman as Simone de Beauvoirdescribes
it-[as] a habituatedand routinizedprocesswherein it is the primaryresponsibility of mothers, aunts, teachers,and other women who are role models to
prepare,train, and initiate a girl into womanhood-resonates quite strongly
with my own experience. I can hear my mother in Beauvoir'sdescriptionof
initiation into femininity: "Stand up straight, don't walk like a duck" (1989,
282). I rememberbeing overwhelmedby the rigorousrequirementsof femininity. I can rememberbeing judgedby my looks, my charms,and even my walk.
I experiencedmy feminine clothing-dresses, slips,nightgowns,trainingbras,
tights, and pantyhose-as encumbrancesthat hinderedand deterredme.
Perhapsthe seeds of this paperwereplanted in my adolescenceas I began to
see the ebb and flow of my physicalfreedomin connection with the garments
that lay closest to my body.I offerhere an analysisof contemporaryfoundation
garments-bras, slimmers,shapers,smoothers-and genderedperformativity
Hypatia vol. 18, no. 3 (Fall 2003) ? by Wendy A. Burns-Ardolino
Wendy A. Burns-Ardolino
43
while exploringthe waysin which these garmentsencourage,train, and police
women'sperformancesof normativefeminine motility,spatiality,and comportment. Along with severalfeminist theorists, such as Leslie Heywood (1998a,
1998b), Iris Young (1989), and Susan Bordo (1993), I maintain that this type
of feminine embodiment deters many women from experiencing their bodies
as capacities while encouragingwomen to treat their bodies as objects to be
controlled,maintained,and proddedalong.In responseto this problem,I advocate that women actively engage their bodies as capacitiesin orderto disrupt
and offset normativemodes of feminine comportment,spatiality,and motility
that have been reinforcedby the habituatedpracticesof wearingfoundation
garments.
In examining the performativesof contemporarynormative,ideal femininity as they perpetuateinhibited intentionality,ambiguoustranscendence,and
discontinuousunity, I look to the possibilityfor subversiveperformativityvisa-vis the strengths of women in order to proliferatecategoriesof gender and
to potentially displace current notions of what it means to become woman.
Coming at the problemof becominggenderedthroughMoniqueWittig's(1992)
revolutionaryturn on Simone de Beauvoir'swork (for example, see Beauvoir
1989,267;and Butler 1987),JudithButlerdescribesin GenderTroublehow the
repetitionof genderedperformativesleaves space forgendertransformation,as
"the arbitraryrelationbetween such acts, in the possibilityof a failureto reappear, a de-formity,or a parodic repetition exposes the phantasmaticeffect of
abidingidentityas a politicallytenuousconstruction"(1999, 179).Recognizing
Butler'searly work in GenderTrouble,I look to other critiquesfrom theorists
and practitioners:bell hooks (1992), Leslie Heywood (1998a, 1998b) Judith
Lorber(1998), Janice Yoder (1989) and the Body Outlaws (See, for example
Aubry2000), who offersubversiveand resistantalternativesto normative,ideal
femininity and who suggestmultiplemodes of becoming woman.
In my own case becoming woman meant losing my ability to connect with
the capacitiesand strengthsof my body. It wasn'tuntil I began waiting tables
that I experienced again the real pleasureof engaging my intentionality in
the fluid movementsof my body as I passed easily through a crowdedkitchen
and dining room to serve margaritasin top-heavyglassesand steamingfajitas
on searing cast-ironskillets. The thrill of enacting my intentions in displays
requiringstrength (fajitapans aren'tlight), grace (it's not easy to serve a tray
of margaritaswithout spilling on your customers),and endurance (working
sixteen-hourdoubleshifts on Saturdays)drewme into restaurantwork.I found
physical empowermentin this labor and have returned to waiting tables on
and off for the past fifteen years.While I locate this labor as a turning point
in my perception,moving from experiencingmy body as a thing to be seen to
experiencingmy body as a capacityto be enacted, I have come to recognizethe
value of physicalempowermentin a range of laborand sport.
44
Hypatia
When I lay myown versionof genderedinitiationagainstthe experienceof a
transperson,Riki Anne Wilchins, who remembersthe experienceof becoming
boy/man,I mustconsiderthe overwhelmingcircumstancesof habituatedgender
performativeswhereingirlsbecome womenand boysbecome men. In her book,
ReadMy Lips,Wilchins writes, "Myfirstand best lesson in emotional camouflage came from boys' locker-rooms.It was normal to engage in pecking-order
displays,like put-downfights in which we insulted each other'smothers and
sisterswith the lewdestpossiblelines. If I went numband cold, if I concentrated
on envisioning myselfas muscular,angry,and aggressive,I could get by. Guys
would leave me alone. The harassmentstopped.It was replacedby respect, or
at least distance, which was all I wanted from them. Actually it was what I
preferred.I had learned to be a 'boy"'(1997, 153).When I examine Wilchins's
descriptionof denying the emotional desire to be other than muscular,angry,
and aggressive,I can easily see the emotional desire of "the girl"describedby
Beauvoirto be other than pretty,kind, and timid (1989,357-58). In eithercase,
however,the performanceof gender,the displaysof masculinityand femininity,
are those which defineand separatethe girlchild fromthe boy child, and frame
the initiation of the girl into womanhood and the boy into manhood.
These displays-the gestures,the postures,the movements-form the basis
for my interrogationof the issues of spatiality,comportment,and motility of
the feminine body. As Wilchins reflectson that locker-roomexperience, she
also realizesthat those tools of posturing, learned as a boy, are ones she can
take up to defendherselfat anytime:"Ikept those imagesin my head for years,
that particularsense of myself. I still use it today when I'm out alone late at
night and have to walk in a dangerousneighborhood,or I see someone sizing
me up from acrossa darkenedstreet. That self-imagere-emergesforcefullyin
my stride, in the way I hold myself, clench my fists, and scowl" (1997, 153).
Wilchins explores here what it is like to put on a gendered identity at least
externally. In fact, this is one of the points of her book-to explain what it
is like to operateexternally along the lines of gendersthat have been defined
as acceptableby society and culture. What she describeshere is a process in
which she actuallyrecallsthe habituatedspatiality,comportment,and motility
of her boyhood and is able to activate them as a defense. She is in the moment
of defense becoming masculine and hearkeningback to those external body
signifiersof boyhood masculinity.
In contrast,what I seek to uncoverhere is an understandingof how spatiality,
comportment,and motilityaregenderedparticularlyin the feminine,how these
performativesare habituated,and how women are "markedas woman"as they
operatetheir bodies in modes of femininity.As Wilchins explains, there is no
choice in termsof display;the culturalrequirementsof genderdisplaysare universallyunderstoodin the context of U.S. culture:masculinedisplaysindicate
powerand dominance,while feminine displaysindicatesubmissionand vulner-
Wendy A. Burns-Ardolino
45
ability (1997, 132).While I concede that even normative,ideal femininity can
be pleasurableand enlivening, I agree with Wilchins that there is a quality of
vulnerabilityand submissionin most feminine genderdisplays.Wilchins relays
her own frustrationin failing to convey these qualitiesin her own performance.
A butch woman speaksto Wilchins and comments, "Yousometimes-I don't
want to hurt yourfeelings-but you sit cross-leggedin meetingsand sometimes
it takes up some of the space of the woman next to you. As a woman, I just
wouldn'tdo that. It'syourmale training like the men on the subwaywho have
to spreadtheir legs to take up two seats.Youdon'tunderstandhow intimidating
to women male behavior can be" (quoted in Wilchins 1997, 42). In this way
Wilchins'shabituatedmasculinitygives her awayand exposes her.
Pierre Bourdieu describes how these performativesbecome habituated
through imitations of adult gestures, movements, and postures (1977, 87).
Bourdieuobserves,"The awakeningof consciousnessof sexual identityand the
incorporationof the dispositionsassociatedwith a determinatesocial definition
of the social functions incumbenton men and womencome hand in hand with
the adoption of a socially definedvision of the sexual division of labour"(93).
He articulatesthat it is preciselyby this processof gendering(which Wilchins
contests) accordingto social definitionsthat women and men are determined,
so that they come to understandtheir separateroles in society. He assertsthat
it is through"theseeminglymost insignificantdetailsof dress,bearing,physical
and verbalmanners"that the content of the cultureis maintained (94). Thus,
Bourdieuconcludes that bodily hexis-"treating the body as memory"-operates within the system of the habitus to produceand reproduceculture. The
habitusperpetuatesand sustains culture "throughinjunctionsas insignificant
as 'standup straight'or 'don'thold your knife in your left hand"' (94). What
this means in termsof drawingup the lines for performativesof genderis that
these seeminglyinsignificantdetails are involuntarilylearnedby boys and girls
fromtheirparentsand otheradults,and that they aredeterminedand definedby
socio-historico-cultural
definitionsof genderin orderto perpetuatethe divisions
of sexual labor.In this way, Bourdieuconfirmsand supportsboth Wilchins's
descriptionsof learned masculine performatives,wherebyboys become men,
and Beauvoir'sdescriptionsof trained feminine performatives,wherebygirls
become women.
However,as I considerthese trainedgenderperformatives,I must note how
the postures, gestures, and movements of gender come to be constituted as
habit. The issues of spatiality and motility are key concepts in making such
determinations.If I considerthe relationshipof the body to motion or space, I
must recognizethat it is the body that is at workhere. MauriceMerleau-Ponty
points out, "Consciousnessis being towardsthe thing throughthe intermediary
of the body"(1962, 138-39); however,he also says,"Wemust avoidsayingthat
our body is in space,or in time. It inhabitsspace and time"(1962, 139).Thus, it
46
Hypatia
is at the level of the body, at the level of performativitywhere an aim or intentionality becomes enacted, that the body becomes at home in the world.The
body inhabitstime and spaceand becomesat home in the worldin the moment
that an intentionality is achieved.This explainshow it is that Wilchins can sit
cross-leggedtakingup the spaceof the womannext to her and not be awarethat
this exercisein spatialityis a masculineperformative.She is unconsciousof what
spaceher body inhabits.Becausethis inhabitingoccursat the level of the body
and its performativity,it occursbefore,beyond,and besidesher consciousness.
Her body merelyinhabits the space on the floorby achieving an intentionality
to sit. The performativitythat resultsin the achievementof the aim to sit does
not occur to her. Her body simplyaims to sit and does so.
In consideringintentionalityof the femininebody in termsof comportment,
spatiality,and motility,I mustrecognizethat it is able to operateonly within its
habituatedunderstandingof intentionalityand what it is given.The habituation
that makes women feel comfortableis genderedas it is raced and classed, but
the way it is genderedfor women can be particularlyalienating and antithetical to their capacity to act. Beauvoirarticulatesthis rift as she describeshow
the girl becoming a woman experiences her body as foreign from her during
this process of becoming. She explains how a girl experiences her body as a
thing that limits her and seems distant fromher (1989,308). This description
illuminatesthe processwherein the girl experiencesher body not as a part of
her, but as a separateentity which drawsattention to her, exposes her, brings
her out into the open, the public, the worldof men. The intentionality of the
girlwalkinglike a womanin a woman'sfleshin publicis an imitatedand trained
performanceof the body since the girl is "treatedlike a live doll and is refused
liberty.She is taughtthat to pleaseshe musttry to please,she mustmakeherself
an object;she should thereforerenounceher autonomy"(Beauvoir1989,280).
The intentionality is to become a woman, to make herself an object. These
intentions areall taken up and put into practiceby the body.Her bodybecomes
the site of alienation as the integrityof perceptualgivenessof the lived body is
compromisedin orderto become an object for the male gaze.
This conflict is also taken up by Wilchins, who comments, "What I am
interestedin is the original culturalgestureto regulateand contain what your
body and mine can mean, or say, or do" (1997, 87). What is at stake here,
then at least initially for the feminine body, is the right to be read as a body
having the capacityto act, and having that capacitytake precedenceover the
recognition of the feminine body as object. IrisYoungexplains in "Throwing
Like a Girl"that as a resultof this conflict, the feminine body is overlaidwith
immanence and experiencesambiguoustranscendenceas woman "oftenlives
her body as a burden which must be draggedand proddedalong, and at the
same time protected"(1989, 59). Such a disruptionis causedby, as Youngsug-
Wendy A. Burns-Ardolino
47
gests, an inhibited intentionality in which the "feminine body underusesits
real capacity,both as the potentialityof its physicalsizeand strengthand as the
real skills and coordinationwhich are availableto it" (1989,59). The feminine
body operatesin a state of inhibited intentionality that does not allow the full
commitment of the body to a given task-hence the title, "ThrowingLike a
Girl";a girl does not use her entire body to put the ball into motion, she only
uses those partsof her body that areentirelynecessary.'Inhibitedintentionality
representsthe firstkind of alienationthat womanexperiences.I have described
it previouslyin discussionswith friendsas inefficiencyor incompetence.Young
describesit in termsof a woman'sdistrustof her own bodilycapacity.She notes,
"Awoman frequentlydoes not trust the capacityof her body to engage itself in
physicalrelation to things" (1989, 59). Youngpoints out that this inefficiency
in performanceyieldsnot only an alienation in termsof inhibited intentionality, but as women are trained to performinefficientlyas feminine bodies, this
training producesa second kind of alienation as it violates their experience of
themselvesas transcendentsubjects(1989,56).
Youngalso arguesthat this inefficiencyis experiencedby womanin regardto
a division in her "... attention between the task to be performedand the body
which must be coaxed and manipulatedinto performingit" (1989, 61). What
this means to me is that woman'sintentionality is inhibited by this division,
but also that this division is emphasizedby woman'sawarenessof how her body
looks as she performsthe task.Youngstates,"Finally,feminine bodily existence
is self-referredto the extent that the feminine subjectposits her motion as the
motion that is looked at" (1989,61). This becomes significantwhen I consider
woman'sawarenessof her own appearancein performingtaskswhich arephysically demanding.This is the tension between experiencingthe body as subject,
an intentionalitythat reachesout into the world,and experiencingthe body as
object, a mere thing to be gazedupon. Youngconfirmsthat the bodies of men
and women carrythis doublemeaning, but with women this experienceof the
body as both subjectand object is simultaneousand thereforedebilitatingand
disruptiveof the harmonyof the transcendentsubjectat home in the world.
Thus, I can considerWilchins'stext in yet another light. While she sets up
her book in terms of a gender conflict between being read as masculine or as
feminine, in manycases it seems that the conflict she describesis in being read
as an object, while seeing herselfas a subject.As a man, she most likelydid not
experienceherselfsimultaneouslyas subjectand object and did not receive the
kinds of objectifyingattention that she describesexperiencingas a transperson.
She confides,"Whatcausesme pain is having my body readagainstme"(1997,
147),but she later goes on to describewhat being read as a woman meant to
her: "When people started readingme as a woman, I had to very consciously
learn how they saw me in orderto use the restroom.I had to learn to recognize
48
Hypatia
my voice, my posture, the way I appearedin clothing" (1997, 151).Wilchins
explains here that she must learn to have her body read as feminine in order
to survive in society.
SandraBartkyprovidesa frameworkfor understandingWilchins'sdilemma
in terms of learning the differencebetween masculine and feminine motility,
spatiality,and comportmentbecause"womenarefarmorerestrictedthan men
in their manner of movement and spatiality"(1988, 66). She articulatesthese
restrictionsin terms of their limits on woman'sspatiality.Bartkynotes, "The
woman holds her arms closer to her body, palms against her sides;her walk is
circumspect.If she has subjectedherself to the additionalconstraint of highheeled shoes, her body is thrown forwardand off balance:The struggleto walk
underthese conditionsshortensher stridemore"(1988,67). Thus, as Bartkyand
Youngsuggest,womanoperateswithin an enclosedspace in which she hopes to
be protected,but she is simultaneouslylimited in that space. Bartkydescribes
the contemporaryframeforfeminine comportmentas "awhole new training:a
woman must stand with stomachpulled in, shouldersthrown slightlyback and
chest out, this to displayher bosom to maximumadvantage.While she must
walk in the confined fashion appropriateto women, her movements must at
the same time, be combined with a subtlebut provocativehip-roll"(1988, 68).
Bartky'sdescription explains the requirementsof contemporary,normative,
ideal feminine comportment.
However,bell hooks (1992a) hones these feminist critiques of normative
femininity describedby Beauvoir,Young, Bartky,and Wilchins as she enumeratesthe specific oppressionscirculatingin the myth of woman, the myth
of femininity. In her essay,"IsParisBurning?"hooks critiquesthe subversion
involvedin gayblackmen performingwhite, heterosexual,ruling-classfemininity (1992a,148).She suggeststhat in such parody,these performerspayhomage
to an ideal femininity in which whiteness plays the largestrole. Her critique
moves against Butler'stheoretical model as she arguesthat while genderbending may offset power relations of the phallocratic economy, the balance of
white supremacyis not offset (1992a, 147). She concludes that the political
implications of a dominant, normative femininity-white, heterosexualand
ruling-class-operating hegemonically in the capitalist north serves only to
divide and limit the potential for resistantand subversivemodes of femininity.
hooks points out the reality of the struggleto resist racism,heterosexism,and
classism that many women confront daily in their workplaces,communities,
families, and relationships.
In Ophira Edut'santhology,BodyOutlaws,severalyoung women arguethat
resistance and the potential for subversiveactions rest with ourselves as we
recognize our own femininities as empoweredand proud while breaking the
hold that dominant ideal femininityhas on us. ErinJ. Aubry'sessay,"thebutt,"
details the kind of resistance she engages in every day. Aubry comments, "It
Wendy A. Burns-Ardolino
49
was tricky,but I absorbedthe better aspects of the butt stereotypes,especially
the Tootsie-Rollwalk-the wave, the undulationin spite of itself,the leisurely
antithesisof the springin the step"(2000, 28). Aubryarticulatesher experience
of resistingthe ideal feminine comportmentthat Bartkydescribeson behalf of
a comportmentthat suits her body,her butt, her situatedness.She explains, "I
liked the walk and how it defiedthat silly runwaygait, with the hips thrust too
far forwardand the arms dangling back in empty air. That is a pure apology
for butts, a literal bending over backwardto admonish the body for any bit of
unruliness"(28).
However,Aubry acknowledgesthat this process of embracingthe stereotypical unrulinessof her butt as a resistanceto the myths of ideal femininity is
not easy."Ifwe [blackwomen] are alwaysput on the butt defensive,as it were,
we'll never have the psychic space to assess how we reallyfeel about wearing
Lycra-and a woman with a sizablebutt musthave an opinion about it" (25).
The facts remain,the myth of woman continues, ideal feminine comportment
stands as the norm, and subvertingthe performativesof normative femininity requiresvigilant dedication and a willingness to confront the productsof
the dominant culture-ideal bodies in Lycrapower-slips,push-upbras, and
microfiberunderwear,performingwhite, ruling-class,heterosexualfemininity.
Aubrycloses her essayby arguingthat the potential for subversionrestswith a
willingness to deal with our bodies, to confront the imagesof ideal femininity
in popularculture.2
However,as Aubry and hooks point out, this is difficultworkbecause ideal
femininity may be evidenced anywhere in popular culture, and women are
constantlyremindedof whatperformingidealfemininitymeans.This is perhaps
no betterdemonstratedthan in the role of contemporaryfoundationgarments.
These bras, bustiers,slimmers,shapers,microfiberunderwear,thongs, powerslips, and push-upbras workon the feminine body not only to shape, mould,
sculpt, and decorate, thus facilitating the feminine body as object, but these
garmentsalso workfor the feminine body, keeping it separatedand enclosed,
confinedand protected,thusfacilitatingthe femininebodyas subject.Therefore,
the foundationgarmentframesprecariouslythe feminine subject/objectcontradiction and as such performsitself as a signifierof the oppressionof womanwho
has been habituatedinto the performativesof gesture,movement,and motility
while confined within the moving frameof varyingshapes and sizes.
A contemporaryframing is depicted here in an advertisementfrom a Victoria'sSecret catalog (see fig. 1).3The model wearswhat is called "The Sensual
Shapers"slip which "hastummycontrol insets to cinch the waist... [and]lace
trim with hidden elastic for a stay put fit."This image illustratespreciselythe
stance that Bartkyoutlines, but what is perhapsmorenoteworthyis that, as the
imagein the advertisementsuggests,it is the foundationgarment,"TheSensual
Shapers"slip, that manipulatesthe body into its correctfeminine posture.
50
Hypatia
This controlled,contained,and restrictedfemininepostureservesto enclose
the feminine body in a protectivemove, to shield it from the gaze,or as Bartky
points out, to prevent an assault on female genitalia: "The fact that women
tend to sit and stand with legs, feet, and knees close or touching may well be
a coded declarationof sexual circumspectionin a society that still maintains
a double standard,or an effort, albeit unconscious, to guardthe genital area"
(Bartky 1988, 74). This posture is demonstratedhere in a Victoria'sSecret
advertisement,where the sitting posture of a woman in a satin corset reflects
the posturethat Bartkyarticulates(see fig.2). The modelappearswith shoulders
back,stomachpulledin, and chest out-in a move that suggestsan invitationfor
objectification-while her legs and knees are positionedclose together,almost
touching-in a move that suggests,as Bartkydoes, the need to guardthe female
genitals. However,the model's feet are far apart, which I might take as the
advertisement'ssuggestionof an allowabledegreeof provocativefemininity.
What I wish to point out in incorporatingthese foundationwearadvertisements into this analysisis an understandingof how these garmentssupportand
facilitatenotions of restrictedfeminine comportment;however,I do not simply
argue that these garmentsserve to limit woman'sperformativity.I arguethat
they workto maintain a social control of feminine comportmentthat operates
whether women wear these garmentsor not-and, perhapsmore complexly,
that part of the rationales for women wearing such garments stem from an
unconsciousidea that the feminine body in general,and the femalegenitals in
particular,must be protected.If I add to this analysisa recognition that there
has in recent yearsbeen a resurgenceof foundationgarmentsin fashion, the
suggestion that women are coming back to these garments in response to a
conservativesocial backlashcomplicatesthe role of foundationwearnot only
in termsof restrictingthe feminine body but also in termsof protectingit (see
Workman1996, 61-73).
However, in recognizing woman'sdesire to protect the feminine body by
enclosing and restrictingit, whether in terms of foundation garmentsor the
comportmentthey serve to reinforce,I mustalso be concernedwith the consequences of limiting the feminine body in this way.Susan Bordocomments on
the significanceof foundationgarmentsin their reinforcementof the cultural
contrastbetween the male and femaleformsin the nineteenth century:"Consider this particularlyclear and appropriateexample;the nineteenth-century
hourglassfigure,emphasizingbreastsand hips againsta waspwaist,was an intelligible, symbolicform, representinga domestic, sexualizedideal of femininity.
The sharpculturalcontrastbetween the female and male form,made possible
by the use of corsetsand bustles,reflectedin symbolicterms,the dualisticdivision of social and economic life into clearlydefined male and female spheres.
At the same time, to achieve a specifiedlook, a particularfeminine praxiswas
required-straitlacing,minimaleating,reducedmobility-rendering the female
Wendy A. Burns-Ardolino
51
body unfit to performactivities outside its designatedsphere"(1993, 181).As
Bordopoints out, it is the performativitythat must be alteredto coincide with
the body ideal that rendersthe feminine body inefficientoutsideits own sphere
of operation.To my mind this phenomenon as describedby Bordo continues
to threaten women because contemporarynotions of ideal bodies have and
continue to determinenormativefemininityin spiteof the fact that dimensions
of shape and size demandedof the feminine formhave variedhistorically(see
Melinkoff 1984 and Presley1998).
In her book, FiftyYearsof Fashion,ValerieSteele states, "Fromstiletto heels
and waspiegirdlesto white glovesand aprons,women'sfashionpromotedrestrictive imagesof femininity .. ."(1997, 29). Steele also cites Anne Fogarty's1959
book, WifeDressing,whereinFogartycomparesgirdlewearingto Chinese foot
binding,and confirmsthat in the fiftiesshe favoredwearing"cocktaildressesso
tight that sitting was impossible.... "You'renot meant to suffer,"she reassured
her readers,but the feeling "shouldbe one of constraintratherthan comfort"
(Fogarty1959,47). However,if in recognizingthat women are no longer obligated to wear cocktail dressesso tight they can't sit down I arguethat women
have been releasedfrom these body ideals and their physicalconstraints,I am
forgettingthat now as ever women are chasing after changing feminine body
ideals. They continue trading their ability to use their bodies to their fullest
capacitieson behalf of meeting conventional beauty standards.4
As Leslie Heywood suggestsin her book, Bodymakers,patriarchalnotions
of ideal femininity and its rigidbody idealscontinue to limit what women can
do: "Seekingbeauty,denying strength women line up at the Stair Mastersin
the gym in pursuitof the hot fitnessbody;the corset and the Wonderbrahave
come back, implantsand plastic surgeryare presentedas avenuesto individual
power,[and]advertisementsarefond of corpses"(1998a,55). Heywoodconveys
the degree to which women'sbodies have become so thin as to be corpselike.
She explains how the fitness movement has eclipsed female body building in
a move that eliminates the option of a visibly muscularbody ideal for women
in favorof a lean-lookingone. Heywood expressesthis exchange in the terms
"seekingbeauty and denying strength."
This lean ideal body can be seen in an advertisementfor the MiracleBra
in the Victoria'sSecret Catalog (see fig. 3). The ad simplyreads,"The Miracle
Bra:some curves you just can't get from workingout."It depicts an extremely
thin or lean-bodiedwoman whose breastsare supportedby "dramatic,push-up
shaping with revolutionarypadding that's actually contoured to fit ... [her]
shape."What Heywood suggestsis confirmedby the advertisement;the current feminine body ideal, the "hot fitnessbody,"is so thin, so flabless,that it is
necessaryto rely on synthetic mechanismsto create the illusion of breasts.
In her essay, "PartAnimal, Part Machine,"Leigh Shoemakeragreeswith
Heywood's assessment that while body ideals change historically, one form
52
Hypatia
of bodily constraint is exchanged for another. Shoemakeradds that advertising typically proffersfreedomwhile substitutingone kind of social constraint
for women for another. She concludes, "Thanks to the second wave feminist
analysisof beauty culture,we can see that fashion gives us corsets, hose, high
heels, underwirebras;the 'health and beauty' industrygives us paints, powders, dyes, silicon, liposuction; 'nutrition'centers offer diets and other ways
to become smaller and less present while remaining in continual states of
paralyzingobsession; the mental health industry offers Xanax, Valium, and
Ativan; and advertisingtells us, 'You'vecome a long way, baby,'pretending
to offer freedomby actually turning the key on a new form of imprisonment.
Femininitynow, as in the second wave and before,is aboutconstriction"(1997,
112). Shoemakerarticulatesthe reality of contemporaryAmerican society in
which women are bombardedwith imagesof what they are supposedto have
come a long way to be.
These images serve only to reify the feminine body as a manageableand
alterablesite, one that is kept under control through a myriadof bodily disciplines that subjugatethe feminine body,keeping it captive in its own habitual
practices.As Bartkynotes, "The influenceof mediais pervasive,too, constructing as it does an image of the female body as spectacle, nor can we ignore the
role playedby 'beautyexperts"'(1988, 74). The proliferationof beauty experts
in television programssuch as "FashionEmergency"suggests the extent to
which women are subjectedto a constant barrageof fashion do's and don'ts,
but much of the advice of "fashionand beautyexperts"goes beyondthe surface
of the body.This advice operateson the body itself. It attemptsto reconstruct
the ideal body while coping immediatelyand directlywith design flawsin the
lived body.
This fixation with reconstructing the feminine body is exemplified in a
"Fashion101Lesson"fromthe magazineIn Style,and is entitled "ProblemSolvers"(see fig. 4). This article/advicecolumn gives advice to women regarding
what they can do in orderto solve "braproblems."The language reads,"bra
problems,"but the majorityof advice blocks focus on "breastproblems"-two
different sizes, small breasts, large breasts, breastsfar apart."These bras are
specially made to work on the breaststhat do not fulfill the requirementsof
the ideal feminine body. In this way, the "experts"tell women what form of
discipline is appropriatefor their particularflawedbody.
This is furtherdemonstratedin a "Fashion101Lesson"(see fig.5) two years
laterfromIn Stylein which thongs are expressedas "problemsolvers[which]do
more than eliminate panty lines. The thongs are touted as "all-reasonthongs"
and are made to deal with every problemfrom pregnancyto tummy control.
New microfibermaterialsmakethese thongs and the majorityof "lightto heavy
control"seamlessunderwear"invisibleunderclothes. Women are encouraged
to wearthongs because they are sexy, they eliminate panty lines and they can
help to solve body problems.
WendyA. Burns-Ardolino
53
Bordo explains this fixation on self-modificationas "the pursuitof an everchanging, homogenizingelusive ideal of femininity-a pursuitwithout terminus, requiringthat women constantly attend to minute and often whimsical
changes in fashion-female bodiesbecome docile bodies-bodies whose forces
and energiesarehabituatedto externalregulation.. ."(1993,166).Thus, women
engage in the habituatedpracticesand performativesof regulatingtheir bodies,
of making them satisfactoryfor cultural consumption. Bartky confirms this
notion of self-regulationas she maintains,"Thedisciplinarytechniquesthrough
which the "docilebodies"of women are constructedaim at a regulationthat is
perpetualand exhaustive-a regulationof the body'ssizeand contours,its appetite, posture,gesturesand generalcomportmentin space and the appearanceof
each of its visible parts"(1988, 80). What Bordo and Bartkyboth conclude is
that such extremeregulationof the feminine body keepswomanoccupiedwith
achieving an ideal femininity alwayskept just beyond her reach.
Thus, as Beauvoirand Younghave suggested,woman is encouragedto take
up the body as a merething in orderto achieveor attain her desire.An example
of this can be seen in another"Fashion101Lesson"fromIn Styleentitled "Sexy
Looks"(see fig. 6). The article advises, "A bra is one of your most functional
garments,but never forgetthat it can also be your most enticing. Besides the
obvious sex appeal of a push-up,details like embroidery,lace, feminine colors
and appliquescan makeyourbraa tool of seductionthat won'tbe denied."The
article encourageswomen to take up the performativityof bra wearing, in a
move that exhibits the body as sex object.The body becomessexuallyenticing
as it is preparedas an object for consumption.The breastsare pushed-upand
decoratedwith "embroidery,
These brasare
lace, femininecolorsand appliques."
tools of seduction that renderthe feminine body as object when appliedto it.
That women'sbodies have been exploited as commoditiesfor centuries is a
well-knownfact. That images of women have circulatedin the media as "sex
symbols"is similarlyunderstood;however,the fact that moreand morewomen
"arespendingmore time on the managementand disciplineof our bodies than
we have in a long, long time" is perhaps a lesser known fact (Bordo 1993,
166). "New too is the spreadof this discipline to all classes of women and its
deploymentthroughoutthe life cycle. What was formerlythe specialtyof the
aristocrator courtesan is now the routine obligationof every woman, be she a
grandmotheror a barelypubescentgirl"(Bartky1988, 81). The proliferationof
the demographicgroupsof women engagedin discipliningthe feminine body,
coupled with the proliferationin the amount of time spent engaged in such
disciplining,constitute the presentcrisis of/forthe feminine "docilebody."
As Bartkynotes, "The disciplinarypowerthat is increasinglychargedwith
the productionof a properlyembodiedfemininity is dispersedand anonymous;
there are no individualsformallyempoweredto wield it; it is as we have seen,
invested in everyone and in no one in particular"(1988, 80). Bordo concurs
and notes, ". .. we must abandon the idea of poweras something possessedby
54
Hypatia
one groupand leveled againstanother;we must insteadthink of the networkof
practices,institutions,and technologiesthat sustainpositionsof dominanceand
subordinationin a particulardomain"(1993, 167).Thus, as women continue to
sit in the precariousand dangerouspositionof simultaneoussubject/object,they
must choose the correctperformativein a given moment to ensure survival.
But women should be doing more than surviving in society. They should
not be reducedor limited by conditions in which the habituatedpracticesand
performancesof everydaylife subsumethem. They shouldrecognizethat their
repeatedgenderedperformativeshave the capacityto proliferatesubjectivities.
As Butlerarguesin GenderTrouble,"Thetask is not whetherto repeat,but how
to repeator, indeed, to repeatand, througha radicalproliferationof gender,to
displace the very gender norms that enable the repetition itself" (1999, 189).
What I suggestwith regardto Butler'scall to action is an enactmentof ourbodily
capacities.We shouldopen up and inhabit a space in which we can experience
ourselves in terms of our intentionalities and aims. I suggest a return to the
1968 feminist protestof the Miss America Pageantin which women removed
their brasin an effortto confrontthe physicaloppressionof restrictivegendered
clothing. We should wearsportsbrasor go braless5instead of wearingpush-up
braswhile engaging in the repetitionsof lifting, carrying,stretching,walking,
running, and overall strength training. This does not come in response to
notions that women should attemptto be muscularlike men, but that women
should aspireto be strong like women by engaging their bodies to their fullest
capacitiesand using feminine strengths-lower body strength, flexibilityand
endurance-to achieve aims and accomplishobjectives.6
Lorberdetails such an example of subversiveperformativityin her article
"Believingis Seeing: Body as Ideology"(1998): "When women were accepted
as West Point cadets, it became clear that the tests of physical competence,
such as rapidlyscaling an eight-footwall, had been constructedfor male physiques-pulling oneself up and over and using upper-bodystrength"(1998, 19).
The women'sanswerto this challengewas,however,not to go over the wall like
the men, but to figureout a way to use their own strengths to get over. Yoder
observes,"Iwas observingthis obstacleone day,when a womanapproachedthe
wall in the old prescribedway,got her fingertipsgrip,and did an unusualthing:
she walkedher danglinglegs up the wall until she was in a position whereboth
her hands and feet were atop the wall. She then simplypulled up her sagging
bottom and went over.She solvedthe problemby capitalizingon one of women's
physicalassets:lower-bodystrength"(1989,530). Women'slowerbody strength
facilitatedcompletion of the same obstacle that men used upperbody strength
to overcome.This example serves to explain how women can use their bodies
to achieve aims in ways that are differentfrom men. Women do not have to
become like men to be physicallyefficient, capable, or confident. They must
simplyfind their own waysto achieve their own goals.
Wendy A. Burns-Ardolino
55
My recommendationsfor women to actively strengthen their bodies, to
engage in the subversionof women'sdocile bodies-bodies that are only consideredfit in termsof appearance-stems from the workof Lorber1998, Yoder
1989, and Heywood 1998a, 1998b. Heywood adds to the work of Lorberand
Yoderthat recognizesthe subversivecapacityof the feminine body to achieve
physical goals vis-a-vis a deployment of innovative feminine performatives.
Heywood arguesthat throughstrength training,women can engage in subversion of feminine body idealssuch as "thehot fitnessbody"-the feminine body
as lean, but weak. She also argues,perhapsmost significantly,that women who
strengthen their bodies also raise their capacitiesto do and to be: "Ihave seen
them go out of the gym with their shouldersback and their heads held high, a
little bit moreconfidentabouttheir positions in the world,a little less bounded
by limits that they've internalizedfrom years of absorbingcultural mythologies that impose drastic limits on women'sstrength and potentials" (1998a,
59-60). In mergingthe work of Lorber,Yoder,and Heywood, I can recognize
my own responseto the physicalempowermentI experiencedwaiting tables. I
can understandhow focusingon the physicalstrengthsof women-lower body
strength, endurance,and flexibility-have the potential to displace feminine
gendernormsand constitutea verydifferentkind of subjectivity.Being at home
in our bodies and enacting our intentionalities should be the goal whether
we are tootsie-rollingwalkers,baby-carryingmoms, tray-totingservers,wallclimbing cadets, or weight-liftingscholars. Engaging in these performatives
may not seem subversiveat all; however,if women can experiencetheir bodies
as capacities, they can inhabit a space of healthy subjective empowerment.
As Heywood points out, "[weight]Lifting can make a woman who has been
culturallydevaluedin any of the usualways-'You throw (or talk or act) like a
girl'-feel stronger,morecertain of herselfand her place in the world,the right
she has to take up space"(1998a, 187).
Women who can: take up space, live in harmonywith their bodies, be at
home in the world,operate their bodies to their fullest capacities-these are
not the representationsof most women we see on television or in magazines.
Most of the imageswe see are of women who: constrain their bodies-through
dieting,wearingfoundationgarments,and even undergoingsurgery-to present
themselvesin feminine posturesand gesturesthat renderthem objects,enclose
their bodies within the same garmentsto maintain any small measureof subjectivity, control and manage their docile bodies in a race towardan elusive
femininity that is perpetual and exhaustive. We have been taught to desire
to be the women we see most in the media, but we want to be constituted as
women of the firstset, the ones we do not see as often. We want to be able to
engage in repeatedsubversiveperformativesthat displace notions of normative femininity and proliferategendernorms so that it becomes possiblefor us
to be who we are, ourselves.We do not want to exchange one ideal body for
56
Hypatia
another,which is the trap that seems to be laid for us in so many gym and fitness advertisements.We do not desire a body like the one on television or in
magazines.We want ourbodies to be reflectionsof ourselves,empoweredby our
intentionalities and imaginations.In wanting this, in moving towardthis, we
must be critical of the demandsof normative,ideal femininity and choose to
parodythose performativesthat have disciplinedus. In her book, PrettyGood
for a Girl, Heywood finds subversionin her weight-liftingrepetitions. "Each
rep.Yes.Here I go. Here'sone forall the times someone told me a girl shouldbe
feminine and petite, that I'dbetter watch out or I'd get too big. Here'sanother
for each time I spoke or screamedand my voice spun throughthe air like dust.
And here'smy last torturedrep for those who said they could love me if only I
could be just a little bit nicer and quieter,please, not quite so intense. Here we
go, 205 to the sky:feel much better baby"(1998b, 194).
While I maintainthat a deploymentof physicalempowermentvia a focuson
the strengthsof women-lower body strength,flexibility,and endurance-and
a removalof confiningcontemporaryfoundationgarmentsaremovesto displace
gendernorms, what I really am calling for here is a raisingof consciousness,a
criticaleye towardfeminine performatives,and a recognitionthat the feminine
body cannot continue to bear the weight of cultureupon its embattledframe.
Foundation garments may cover the wounds and seem to protect the body,
but underneathit all, the feminine subjectis in crisis.We cannot continue to
allow ourselvesto be habituatedas weak, diminutive,docile. By removingthe
stricturesof normativefeminine performativesand ideal bodies, we make the
move of freeingourselvesfromstructuresthat limit our intentionalities,reduce
our capacities,and stymie our imaginations.Ultimately,we free our embodied
subjectivitiesby displacingthe foundationsof femininity.
Disclaimer:The author apologizesfor not including reproductionsof figures
1-6. Both Victoria'sSecretand In StyleMagazinerefusedpermission.Victoria's
Secretspecificallyrefusedpermissionto reprintthe imageson the basis of the
context of the articleas a critique,and In Stylegaveno explanationforits refusal.
Readerscan find the imagesas referenced:
Fig. 1: Sensual ShapersSlip. Advertisement.Victoria'sSecretCatalog Fall
1999,Vol. II. No.2.
2:
The
Satin Corset. Advertisement.Victoria'sSecretCatalog Fall 1999,
Fig.
Vol. II. No 2.
Fig.3: The MiracleBra.Advertisement.Victoria'sSecretCatalog Fall 1999,
Vol. II. No 2.
Fig.4: "ProblemSolvers:Fashion 101,"In Style.Feb. 2000.
Fig. 5: "All-ReasonThongs: Fashion 101,"In Style.Feb. 2002.
Fig.6: "SexyLooks:Fashion 101,"In Style.Feb 2000.
Wendy A. Burns-Ardolino
57
NOTES
I would like to personallythank Debra Bergoffenfor her diligence and persistence in
pushing me to revise this piece as well as my own perceptions of feminine embodied
experience. I am also gratefulfor advice and comments given to me by Gail Weiss, Iris
Young,Susan Bordo,Riki Wilchins, and Leslie Heywood. It seems importantto note
that I see a strong connection between feminist theories of the body and women and
sport, and I am equally indebted to those who publish in each field.
1. This is not to say that women cannot overcome this condition, nor that there
are women who may not experience their bodies in this way. I agree with Youngthat
womenfrequentlyunderusethe capacitiesof their bodies;however,manywomen-athletes and those who labor with their bodies-may not experience immanence and or
inhibited intentionality in the moment of performanceof a specifiedor repeatedtask.
Yet,athletes areparticularlysusceptibleto other kinds of alienation. Formore information on women athletes, "feminineapologetic"and "musclegap,"see Nancy Theberge
2000 and also Susan K. Cahn 1998.
2. For a discussion of representationsof raced bodies in high fashion magazines
and catalogs, see hooks 1992.
3. For a comparison of class in the catalogs of Victoria'sSecretand Frederick'sof
Hollywood,see Valdivia 1997.
4. For a discussionof the use of plastic surgeryto achieve dominant ideal beauty,
"which is male-supremacist,racist, ageist, heterosexist, anti-Semitic, ableist and classbiased,"see KathrynPaulyMorgan 1998, 156.
5. I agree that women can and should, of course, choose not to wear bras if they
feel comfortabledoing this. A good friend of mine offeredthat if we lived in a culture
where elongated breastswere valued, she would not wear a bra at all. For a previewof
sports bras designed for comfort, see the Title Nine SportsCatalogat www.title9sports
.com (referredto me by the same friend).
6. See Gloria Steinem's "The Politics of Muscle"(1994) for a discussion of the
importanceof physicalempowermentand the women'smovement.
REFERENCES
Aubry,ErinJ. 2000. The butt. In Bodyoutlaws:Youngwomenwriteaboutbodyimageand
identity,ed. Ophira Edut. Seattle: Seal.
Bartky,Sandra.1988.Foucault,femininity,and the modernizationof patriarchalpower.
In Feminismand Foucault:Reflectionson resistance,ed. Irene Diamond and Lee
Quinby Boston: Northeastern University Press.
Beauvoir,Simone de. 1989.The secondsex. New York:Vantage Books.
Bordo,Susan. 1993.Unbearableweight:Feminism,Westerncultureandthebody.Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Bourdieu,Pierre.1977.Outlineof a theoryofpractice.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity
Press.
58
Hypatia
Butler,Judith. 1987.Variationson sex and gender:Beauvoir,Wittig and Foucault.In
Feminismas critique:On thepoliticsof gender,ed. Seyla Behabiband Drucilla Cornell. Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press.
.1999. GenderTrouble:Feminismand thesubversionof identity.2d edition. New
York:Routledge.
Cahn, Susan K. 1998. Fromthe "musclemoll" to the "butch"ballplayer:Mannishness,
lesbianism, and homophobia in U.S. women'ssports. In The politicsof women's
bodies:Sexuality,appearance,and behavior,ed. Rose Weitz. Oxford: University
Press.
Fogarty,Anne. 1959.Wifedressing.New York: Sloan Publishers.
A culturalanatomyof women'sbodybuilding.New
Heywood, Leslie. 1998a.Bodymakers:
Brunswick:RutgersUniversity Press.
.1998b. Prettygoodfor a girl.New York:FreePress.
hooks, bell. 1992a. Is Paris burning?In Black looks:Race and representation,ed. bell
hooks. Boston: South End.
.1992b. Selling hot pussy:Representationsof black female sexuality in the cultural marketplace.In Blacklooks:Raceand representation,
ed. bell hooks. Boston:
South End.
Lorber,Judith. 1998. Believing is seeing. In The politicsof women'sbodies:Sexuality,
appearance,and behavior,ed. Rose Weitz.New York:OxfordUniversity Press.
Melinkoff, Ellen. 1984. What we wore: An offbeat social historyof women'sclothing,
1950-1980. New York:Quill.
Merleau-Ponty,Maurice. 1962. Phenomenologyof perception.London: Routledge &
Kegan PaulLtd.
Morgan,KathrynPauly.1998. Woman and the Knife. In The politicsof women'sbodies:
Sexuality,appearance,and behavior,ed. Rose Weitz. New York:Oxford University
Press.
Presley,Ann Beth. 1998. Fiftyyearsof change:Societal attitudesand women'sfashions,
1900-1950. In The Historian(winter):307-24.
Shoemaker,Leigh. 1997.Partanimal,partmachine.In Thirdwaveagenda:Beingfeminist,
doingfeminism,ed. Leslie Heywood. Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press.
Steele, Valerie.1997.Fiftyyearsoffashion:New lookto now.New Haven:YaleUniversity
Press.
Steinem, Gloria. 1994. The politics of muscle, In Moving beyondwords.New York,
Simon & Schuster.
Theberge,Nancy. 2000. Highergoals:Women'sice hockeyandthepoliticsofgender.Albany:
State University of New YorkPress.
Valdivia, Angharad N. 1997. The secret of my desire: Gender, class and sexuality in
lingerie catalogs, In Undressingthead: Readingculturein advertising,ed. Katherine
Toland Frith.New York:PeterLang.
Wilchins, Riki Anne. 1997.Readmy lips:Sexualsubversionand theend of gender.Ithaca,
N.Y.:FirebrandBooks.
Wittig, Monique. 1992. One is not born a woman. In The straightmindand otheressays.
Boston: Beacon Press.
Workman, Nancy V. 1996. From Victorian to Victoria'sSecret: The foundations of
modern erotic wear.Journalof PopularCulture30, no.2: 61-73.
WendyA. Burns-Ardolino
59
Young, Iris Marion. 1989. Throwing like a girl. In The thinkingmuse: Feminismand
modernFrenchphilosophy,
ed. JeffnerAllen and Iris MarionYoung.Bloomington:
Indiana University Press.
Yoder,Janice D. 1989.Women at West Point:Lessonsfor token women in male dominated occupations. In Women:A feministperspective,ed. Jo Freeman.4th Edition.
Palo Alto: Mayfield.