Take off your bedroom slippers, put on your marching heels!

    My generation came of age during Second-Wave Feminism.  By the time we reached 18, the country was already entering its 'post-feminist' phase.

    In these final years before the discovery of the AIDS virus, we were the direct heirs of the most recent Sexual Revolution.  We enjoyed easy access to birth control and the knowledge that, if we did get pregnant, abortions were legal and affordable.  Our spiritual forebears were slightly older women who still looked and acted like hippies, who went bra-less, who hitchhiked and camped alone, who didn't give a rat's ass about makeup (unless it was body paint), who lived in communal homes, and slept with anyone they wanted to.

    By 1982, most of us were more influenced by pictures of freedom-fighters in Latin America than fashion spreads in Vogue.  We had copies of Nancy Chodorow's Reproduction of Mothering and treated it like gospel.  Accordingly, the oppressor we sought to escape was not an abstract Patriarchy--the enforcer in Judith Butler-speak of 'regulatory norms'--but someone much closer to home:  a.k.a., our own mother, who, just as Chodorow said, was actively, energetically working to turn us into her.  Over Turkey preparation, she'd patiently endure our rants against Ronald Reagan, against his administration's gay-bashing, against U.S. intervention in El Salvador, before asking about that special boy, if he was possibly the one, and if we were taking necessary precautions--not to avoid an unwanted pregnancy--but to nail down our catch.

    After turning 18, I and others of my generation fled our mothers in countless ways: even in winter, we went around in bare feet and rarely laundered hippie skirts; we traveled the country solo in Greyhound buses, took jobs as cashiers, copy editors, or bicycle couriers to cover rent for a room of our own; in short, pursued a life of uprooted movement, animated by the drive to defer husbands and households for as long as humanly possible, if not forever.

    **

    And then, in 1985, Wendy Cheek was murdered in San Francisco.

    A lot of things came together in this incident.  Wendy went to the same College I did and, even though I only knew her from a distance, she was, to my mind, the embodiment of Free Spirit.  She wafted across campus in her diaphonous clothes, a sensuous, blond, California girl who made the rest of us, however hard we tried, feel like hard-bitten East Coast Calvinist prudes.  That's about all I knew of her until several years later when I moved to California for graduate school and read an article in the local newspaper describing how she's been raped, tortured, murdered, her body incinerated and abandoned under a heap of auto parts in San Mateo County.

    Like I said, up until that point, sex had never been scary for me or my friends.  In the shelter of our Counter-Culture, it had never occurred to any of us that we could mortally offend anyone by being female.  Especially because, in our minds, we weren't really women at all, but a new breed.

    A week before Wendy died, Robert Fairbank assaulted another woman.  After he'd hit her in the head several times, Arlene G, as she is named in the court records, pleaded with him to let her go, then, realizing that he was too drug-addled to reason with, sucked him off repeatedly while he phoned porn sites.  Afterward, he invited her out to dinner.  On the way to the restaurant, she successfully escaped and reported the incident to Police.

    Thanks to the War on Drugs (Wiki:  "In the 1980s, while the number of arrests for all crimes was rising 28%, the number of arrests for drug offenses rose 126%"), the prisons had no vacancies.  The Judge let Fairbank out on parole and Fairbank killed Wendy one week later.  He took her to the same room where he assaulted Arlene G, made her put on the same red jumpsuit, called the same porn sites.  The autopsy showed that Wendy died of multiple stab and puncture wounds.  I can't get it out of my head that Fairbank was pissed at Arlene G for tricking him and took out his rage--against all women--on Wendy.  But even worse, Wendy died, forced to submit to a gender rite we'd grown up believing did not and should not define us.

    Something was happening.  The original threat, of being dragged into domesticity and mothering, was matched on the other side by the hard reality of gender-based violence which it would also be--in numerous ways--our generation's lot to face.

    **

    Does anyone remember the story of the Peasant's Wise Daughter?  After being awarded a piece of land by the king, the peasant, in the course of digging up his field, finds a gold mortar and insists on returning it to his royal benefactor.  The daughter warns him that he should not do so, as the king will obviously demand the pestle that goes with it.  The daughter proves right.  The king, suspecting the peasant of withholding the pestle, throws him in prison.  "Alas, alas, if I had but listened to my daughter..." the peasant laments.  To which the king responds, "If you have a daughter who is as wise as that, let her come here."  In a way that definitely casts suspicion on the king's motives, he challenges the daughter to a test:  "[Come] to me not clothed, not naked, not riding, not walking... and if you can do that I will marry you."

    The wise daughter handily wins the bet by showing up naked in a fishing net dragged by an ass:

    So she went away, put off everything she had on, and then she was not clothed, and took a great fishing net, and seated herself in it and wrapped it entirely round and round her, so that she was not naked, and she hired an ass, and tied the fisherman's net to its tail, so that it was forced to drag her along, and that was neither riding nor walking.

    Being without boundaries was starting to make me nervous, as if it was dangerous to exist with so little definition.  But the boundaries other people threw up for protection, it seemed to me, made the problem worse.  Heavy duty security devices screamed out:  I'm valuable.  Steal me!

    The paradox of the Peasant's Daughter:  How does one repel violation while dismantling the walls of self?  How do we win by kissing dirt?

    **

    From 18 on, I was happy to be confirmed in my androgyny, my defiance of set roles and gender types.  But, on turning 29, something told me I would be safer in general--my experience of the world less organized around fear and uncertainty--if I chose, against personal resistance, to claim some form of gender definition.  In a move that might seem strange--or not--to young women now, my answer was, rather than take self-defense classes, or get a gun, to buy my own high heels.

    My first pair was not particularly high, but high enough to make walking feel unlike walking (another paradox).  Until that point, I had been padding around the world in the equivalent of bedroom slippers, trusting enough in circumstances and contingencies to think that nothing more stiff and upright was necessary.  The shoes were a revelation.

    I wasn't dressed for 5th Avenue.  I didn't pair the heels with sleek designer suits or dresses.  My clothes did not say:  I dare you to fight me for them.  I did not give off a sense of entitlement.  I did reek, however, of definition.  Starting that day, I walked everywhere.  150 blocks/day through every part of town.  It didn't feel at the time like I was trying to conquer fear, so much as meditate on what drove it, contemplating where the fear came from, how much it has to do with what a person thinks they have to lose, what they perceive as belonging to them.  So I wasn't just learning to walk in heels, but learning to wear my own sexuality, not like a possession someone can steal, but like something bone-deep.  A source, not of gratuitous provocation, but inviolable power.  Far from feeling like a target, I had never felt more warmly welcomed.  I was regaled with hearty support:  'Great shoes, great gams,' which seriously altered the outlook--and sense of connectedness--of someone who, until then, had passed through the androgynous back-alleys of life, dodging the shackles, not only of definition, but define-ability

    Evolution of the Species

    meet

    Evolution of Identity

     

    Taking long walks that summer through the Bronx, through East and West Harlem, down Riverside Drive to 11th and 12th Avenues--stopping to talk to people at corner stores, to construction workers, to families barbecuing outside their homes, to people living on the street, to new mothers and crack dealers--the summer of '91 was my Debutante Ball.  I learned that the people of New York City respond to nothing more warmly than a frank declaration, the place where hard edges and personal openness meet.

    **

    Two years ago I was in a Toronto sex shop buying gear for Halloween.  The salesgirl, a Women's Studies major dressed as Wonder Woman, apologized repeatedly:  for her costume, for the fact that her boyfriend wanted her to wear it, and beyond that, for the fact that she had let her boyfriend persuade her to wear it, performing mea culpas as if I were, well, her mother or one of her Women's Studies profs.  I have to remind myself--at 49 now--that young women her age were, indeed, raised and taught by women my age.  Whereas my generation defied our mothers by rejecting heels (and everything we thought they represented), this generation apologizes to their mothers for succumbing to the lure of those symbols.

    Symbols are collectively determined.  Judith Butler tries to play it both ways, saying what you can't escape you have to subvert.  Apologies to Judith, but, if you want to be an active participant in culture, you can't opt out and say:  I choose to parody the conventions, to exist tangential to definition.  The definitions will catch up with you, one way or another (R.I.P. Wendy).  Better, IMHO, to seize the reins and help re-shape the meaning.

    My own high heels, far from signaling a caving in to convention, a buckling to societal expectation, proved a calling card, a declaration of being ready to play by a set of established rules.  Since I turned 18, no one has told me how to dress.  Certainly not my mother.  Especially not the media.  I dress for my partner (not because he makes me wear stuff I don't want to, but because I want to reciprocate the many things he does for me) and in ways I hope will set a sex-positive example for my daughter.  Today, I am active not only in making my own shoes, but in making my own sexual identity.  When I walk in the world, I am neither armored nor undefined.  I am connected and grounded, through a pair of heels and a sex to proudly call my own.

    Cross posted to www.lesliekatz.ca

    Comments

    Great read.  The last line is one I particularly love:

    I am connected and grounded, through a pair of heels and a sex to proudly call my own.

    That is an intellectually satisfying line, it rolled around in my head while I was putting my shoes on and getting ready for the day, it felt good and right.


    Thanks TM.  I feel it too, knowing we share that sense of readiness!  Arc400


    This is terrific, really.  I'm more your mother's age, but I can relate.  High heels were a coming-of-age ritual for me, too, and now that I've given them up for good, I can both envy the women who still look good in them and pity them for the pain and inconvenience they've chosen to endure. 

    You've captured perfectly the angst of your generation, blending the shallow need to conform with the terrors associated with the new-found freedoms those brave women forced that generation to recognize. 

    Being comfortable in our own skin takes some mean doing.  I still wouldn't go off my island without makeup, but when I gave up hose and heels it actually felt liberating.  Almost as liberating as when I gave up my white bucks for the working woman's hose and heels.

    One common misperception, however, is that women my age were perennial victims who didn't recognize our own worth.  Not necessarily true.  Yes, Betty Friedan, and later, Gloria Steinem, opened our eyes to the need to fight for equal opportunities, but there were plenty of strong women in my generation who took no shit from anybody.  Plenty of  victims, too, imagined or otherwise.  Pretty much like today.

    Thanks for a truly great essay.  Glad to see it here at dagblog.


    Thanks Ramona for your great comment. 

    The question of victimhood is really important and I guess I balk when certain strains of feminism lean heavily on it.  Wendy C, for instance, was the random victim of a real crime, but that's really different from seeing oneself as a victim of invisible forces (like the 'patriarchy') we can't control. 

    Thanks also for the phrase, 'those brave women,' because that nails it.  My generation owes them an enormous hug.

    I remember my Mom telling me a story about how she had to submit a photograph with her application to veterinary school, and then how they didn't admit her because she was too 'pretty,' which was code for:  she's going to drop her studies to get married.

    The history of feminism, something Chodorow pointed to, is also the history of mothers and daughters.  I'd like to see more recognition of that fact, because it effects how our challenges get handed down. 

    I also wish for a Feminism that addresses more directly the connection between erotic and political gains.  I'm tired of the Old School stuff always linking porn to victimization (not that it isn't sometimes valid), but at this point I'd like to see--and contribute to--writing that embraces the power of putting on an erotic character (especially a heterosexual one), where sex isn't always about danger, or rather, where danger is something we get to enjoy, not always combat or hide from.

    Thanks again for the input and your help in advancing these thoughts--


    I've always disliked whiners, and had to work especially hard to avoid them when I was a young wife/mother in the 50s and 60s.  They were everywhere.  And when Betty Friedan wrote her book, every woman I ran into had an excuse to whine even more.  Now they had reasons.

    Betty herself later said, in so many words, she had created a monster.  The true success of feminism was at the workplace.  Things began to change, without a doubt.  As your mother told you, we no longer had to answer interview questions that asked about our personal lives:  Were we married? Yes?  No?  Why not?  Divorced?  Hmmm.  Did we have children?  Did we plan to have more children?  What guarantee would we give that this job, no matter how piddly, would come first? 

    Then the 70s brought  Kate Millett's "Sexual Politics" and Marilyn French's "The Women's Room" and we couldn't be feminists if we didn't hate men. (Or so it seemed.)  I looked around at the men in my life, from father to husband to son to father-in-law and suddenly it became personal.  I have always loved those men dearly.  I was being told to choose (or so it seemed), so I dropped my Ms subscription and gave it a rest for a while.

    It bothered me, too, that eroticism equated rape if it involved men (those bastards).  Men were the enemy and having sex with them meant we were being submissive fools.  I understood the basis for it -- too many women were treated like chattel or pieces of meat -- but on the whole, it was crap.

    So, as with most passionate and necessary causes, feminism went too far, at least for me.  I call myself a feminist today, but on my own terms, which doesn't involve  denigrating an entire gender in order to make myself feel whole.  (There's irony in there somewhere, but I'll pass on it.)

    I remember the first time I saw the Virginia Slims ad announcing, "You've come a long way, baby".  It was like a light bulb went on.  Yeah!  It didn't matter that I didn't smoke and didn't plan to.  It was affirming and fun.  Something that was missing from the then-current brand of feminism. 

    Now feminism is about where it should be, and I'm glad to see that men are calling themselves feminists, too.  (And that women can accept that men want to call themselves feminists.)  The battles are still there to be fought but they're no longer simply gender battles.  That can only be a good thing.

     


    I would have said the wise daughter was clothed in a fishing net, myself, but it sounds like a promising first date.


    What do you see them as doing?  On their first date, that is--

    In the story, after getting hitched, they suffer marital strife.  The King banishes the Wise Daughter from the Palace, telling her she can take only her most prized possession with her.  Accordingly, she drugs him and carries him to her banishment shack.  When he wakes and realizes that he is what she prizes most, they renew their vows.

    Addicted to mind games and riddles, aren't they?

     


    I'd suggest an afternoon of fishing.


    Riddle:  Hook, Line, or Sinker?

    Wise Daughter to King:  You choose.


    I was gonna suggest that net.


     @wisedaughter.net?


    No the one she was wearing.


    Thanks for a great blog.  I do, however, believe you've misrepresented Butler.

    A quote from her that I used in a blog here,

    I have to find cultural translation, modes of encounter, modes of democratic participation, which actually work to foster understanding, without mandating unity. And it also means that when I take responsibility it is not a grandiose act, it's not a narcissistic act, in which I am responsible for the entirety of the world. No, I place myself in a vividly decentered way in a world with others, who are their own centers, and which I must understand to live socially, to live democratically, to live in a polity, is always to in some sense be displaced by the subject. It is partially what it is to live in a culturally diverse, democratic culture. But if one finds that the modes of communication and deliberation that allow for that to exist in its complexities, then I think we have the chance to take a kind of collective responsibility. But one cannot take collective responsibility alone. It is something taken with others.

    Some people would say that we need a ground from which to act. We need a shared collective ground for collective action. I think we need to pursue the moments of degrounding, when we're standing in two different places at once; or we don't know exactly where we're standing; or when we've produced an aesthetic practice that shakes the ground. That's where resistance to recuperation happens. It's like a breaking through to a new set of paradigms.

    What's needed is a dynamic and more diffuse conception of power, one which is committed to the difficulty of cultural translation as well as the need to rearticulate "universality" in non-imperialist directions. This is difficult work and it's no longer viable to seek recourse to simple and paralysing models of structural oppression. But even her, in opposing a dominant conception of power in feminism, I am still "in" or "of" feminism. And it's this paradox that has to be worked, for there can be no pure opposition to power, only a recrafting of its terms from resources invariably impure.

    What is at stake is less a theory of cultural construction than a consideration of the scenography and topography of construction. This scenography is orchestrated by and as a matrix of power that remains disarticulated if we presume constructedness and materiality as necessarily oppositional notions.

    Indeed it may be only by risking the incoherence of identity that connection is possible.

    Another way of thinking about this is that "re-shaping the meaning" is just another way of saying "subverting" the meaning.  In either case, one is finding active modes of encounter and participation with others.

    There is no abstract Patriarchy which drives the definitions, but rather the definitions are emergent features arising from these encounters and participation through which as individuals and as a multitude of collectives we engage ourselves and the world. 

    When Butler writes "a recrafting of [power's] terms from resources invariably impure," she is speaking, I believe, of such examples as yours involving the high heels.

    The depth of Butler's theories regarding sex, gender, and identity make it difficult to discuss in such a short format as a comment on a thread.   But where you seem to have a break with Butler, as so it seems most do, is the continued embracing that constructedness and materiality as necessarily oppositional notions.

    Decentering is not the same as being tangential.  Rather it is, in part, the acknowledgement that materiality that appears as fact is instead involved in an interplay with constructedness which ultimately cannot be fully articulated.  In other words, the materiality upon which we believe we are constructing an identity, is itself a product of constructedness, which reaches back through time and all of our individual reiterations.

    As Butler states, "one cannot take collective responsibility alone. It is something taken with others."  Each of our choices plays into the collective, each constructedness which defines the materiality is one more voice in the definition of that materiality.  Like I said, it is difficult to provide short responses which make sense when Butler is invoked, but an example of what this all means, is by articulating (intentionally or not) of a binary between two sexes - male/female - this has consequences for cultural translations/modes of encounter involving "transgender" individuals, who do not fit within the concise binary.


    Thanks for the comprehensive comment. 

    Maybe, with your grasp of Butler, you can help me sort something out. 

    One of my problems with the theory--if I understand it adequately--has to do with the fact that, while establishing clear lines between decentering and queering, it doesn't make space for the political possibility of re-centering, of claiming cogent identities and enlisting them in the struggle against the status quo.

    In my other life, I write about Jean Genet.  The disciples of Butler always interpret the strength of Genet's characters as being located in their distance from the center, how they upset and confuse categories, highlighting the fiction of centrality and order.

    On some level, I disagree.  I don't think the strength of those outlaw characters comes from being queer, but from having cocks that shamelessly and unapologetically desire what they desire. 

    It seems like, for Butler, it's only radical to wear heels if you're a guy, or a strap-on if you're a girl. 

    I think it can be equally important, from a political standpoint, to re-center as to de-center.

    I'd love to hear more of your thoughts.

     


    Nice writing. The image I remember from working mid-Manhattan were the women who would carry their good shoes in a shopping bag and change out their tennis shoes, or boots, once they got to the office. That convinced me women were smarter then men--who would show up in soaked shoes having walked through slush.

    It was tough being a parent in the bare foot days, and also funny. My daughter showed up at a very fancy dinner in her bare feet and it didn't go over well with the boy friend's mother--which pleased me no end because I thought the family were stuffed shirts. But when my daughter would take off on a 300 mile road trip on her 10-speed and back pack, and sleep along the road somewhere my heart was in my throat for days until we would hear from her at a friend's or relative's.

    But some things don't change. The last time I was in Santa Cruz the lady was still doing her dances with the veils in the city center.


    One thing is, when you've made a commitment to heels, it's hard to go back to wearing flats, so women who trade off like that are superbly talented!

    I would love to have been a fly on the wall when your daughter showed up bare foot to the dinner party (as provocative as a fishing net any day).  You sound like a great parent. 

    Thanks for the pang of conscience:  I'm going to phone my own parents and apologize for the hell I put them through in the 80s, taking off on my bicycle, riding cross country before cell phones were invented.


    My daughter just finished five hard years going back to school, studying Spanish and getting a master's in teaching only to discover although she loves school she hate's teaching--at least in today's environment. She is now working in a fabric store and told me proudly she had become an assistant manager. We laughed a lot about her 18 year old Store Manager. (Reminds me of Albert Brooks' "Lost in America".) The Manager says she is tired of "business" already and wants to go to college so another  major promotion may be in the offing. My daughter is artsy-craftsy stemming from the days of modifying Osh Kosh wear and because many of the women who come in there are foreign, specifically Latino who have no English, it has unexpectedly become a neat experience and a place where she can be of great help to others. And there is a health care plan.


    Fantastic piece, arc. Thanks.


     Thanks G.  Ditto yours.


    Latest Comments