Sisterhood Isn’t Just Powerful, It’s Mean

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Unk's Wild Wild West : One Thread

By Danielle Crittenden FrontPageMagazine.com | November 27, 2000 URL: http://www.frontpagemag.com/archives/feminism/critt11-28-00p.htm

I’VE OFTEN THOUGHT that those women who declare "sisterhood is beautiful" have very bad memories. Anyone who has been a 12-year-old girl knows sisterhood is rarely any such thing. At best it is one good friend who sticks by you regardless of the pimples on your face or the unfashionable shoes you wear. More often it is an endless series of whispering campaigns and catty remarks by "popular girls" huddled around hall lockers; a merciless regime in which you are judged not by your merits, but by your willingness to conform slavishly to the popular girls' capricious rules.

The problem with this sisterhood is that it never goes away. Years after a woman supposes she has left it behind forever, its ugly claws reach out to scratch her face. It's Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris who's been designated by the popular girls of the media for this week's taunting. Only three weeks ago, Ms. Harris was a dynamic and successful woman who had achieved high elected office in an important state. She was one of those moderate Republicans to whom feminist groups grunt their toleration. She had headed Florida's affirmative action committee. She served on the Florida Supreme Court's gender bias commission and on the advisory council for a women's resource center. Her entry in "Who's Who" lists Habitat for Humanity as one of her causes -- one of Al Gore's pet causes too.

You would think these credentials would permit her at least to sit at the popular girls' lunch table. But that would be, as feminists are fond of complaining, to ascribe male standards to female behavior. By trying to enforce a law that disobliged Mr. Gore, Ms. Harris made the unforgivable error of applying school rules against the girls' favorite football captain. And therefore she had to be roasted.

"Her skin had been plastered and powdered to the texture of pre-war walls in need of a skim coat," wrote Washington Post staff writer Robin Givhan, describing one of Ms. Harris's press conferences. "And her eyes, rimmed in liner and frosted with blue shadow, bore the tell-tale homogenous spikes of false eyelashes. Caterpillars seemed to rise and fall with every bat of her eyelid, with every downward glance...."

And what was the point of this vivid commentary? To question, with "Clueless"-like logic, how a "woman, who can't use restraint when she's wielding a mascara wand, will manage to use it and make sound decisions in this game of partisan one-upmanship."

Well, like, yah. And, like, her suit, it was like, omigod, something like a chauffeur would wear with like, omigod, rows of gold buttons. Doesn't she know, like, gold buttons are. . . so wrong?

Ms. Givhan's meowing seemed almost restrained compared to the hissing of Boston Herald columnist Margery Eagan a week later. Ms. Eagan, who prides herself on being a staunch feminist, offered these incisive political insights on Ms. Harris: "Most likely. . . [she] will be remembered for looking just ghastly Tuesday night. At least by Wednesday her appearance seemed almost, if not quite, transformed. Like Dr. Richard Sharpe, the transvestite and alleged wife killer. Or Marilyn Manson. Or Dustin Hoffman as Tootsie. Or Cruella DeVil. . . . [She] appeared to have piled on 10 tons of mascara, four pounds of lipstick and day-glo blue eye shadow (and what was the deal with the neck?) for her grand moment before every TV camera in the free world."

Sticking the claws in more deeply, Ms. Eagan added: "Much as one would like to blame such nasty lookism on The Evil Patriarchy, I must admit it occurred to me instantly how old and hard she appeared. (Is she really just 43?)"

What is amazing about this bile is that it's written by the same women who blame the Evil Patriarchy for wasting so much ink on Hillary's hairstyles, and become infuriated when male colleagues make idle quips about a female co-worker's appearance -- even, or especially, complimentary ones. If these women were to be consistent, they would be lobbying for Donna Shalala to step down from the Department of Health and Human Services in favor of someone who looks more like, say, Kathleen Willey.

Had these columns been written by men, of course, they would never have appeared. When Post readers responded in fury to Ms. Givhan's descriptions, the paper's cowed male ombudsman acknowledged they may have been a bit over the top. But Ms. Givhan, undaunted, insisted that Ms. Harris's make-up was "a legitimate subject": "On the one hand, women do get a lot of unfair scrutiny. But they also have. . . a lot of incredible tools that men really don't have. . . She made a specific choice."

Mascara -- it's about choice. Ms. Eagan similarly bent herself into contortions trying to come up with a feminist explanation for her Tourette's stream of abuse. Ms. Harris is fair game, she reasoned, because the "expertise and reputations" of otherwise unattractive male spokesmen we see on TV -- whose appearances we don't feel the need to abuse -- "outweigh their borderline repellent interest."

It's really quite amazing when you think of it. Of all Bill Clinton's many legacies, perhaps his most astounding is to have turned feminism inside out. Before Mr. Clinton, feminists used to believe that you could tell a lot about a man by his treatment of women. That's no longer true. They used to believe a man credibly accused of sexual harassment or rape was unfit for high office. That's no longer true. They used to believe a woman should make it on her own, and not by exploiting the position of her husband. That's no longer true. And they used to be outraged when a woman was judged by her appearance rather than by the content of her character. As the feminist bitchiness towards Ms. Harris proves, that's no longer true, either.

What ultimately matters to feminists is the letter on your sweater. And if you're wearing the wrong letter on your sweater, sisterhood isn't just powerful. Honey, it's mean.

Danielle Crittenden is the author of What Our Mothers Didn’t Tell Us: Why Happiness Eludes the Modern Woman (Simon & Schuster, 1999).



-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), November 28, 2000

Answers

Response to Sisterhood IsnÂ’t Just Powerful, ItÂ’s Mean

Feminists are the female auxilliary of the American Left. Everyone knew this but it was not to be mentioned. Now they have blown their cover.

BTW, why does Hillary always wear slacks?

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), November 28, 2000.


Response to Sisterhood IsnÂ’t Just Powerful, ItÂ’s Mean

Because fishnet stockings (which are coming back, worn with hotpants) are the clothing version of "those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

Don't you know any women who wear pants, you silly person? Where ya been the past few decades?

As a Bush partisan, Harris should have recused herself from making decisions that came to bear on Bush. The fact that she seemed to use Silly Putty as foundation was certainly far less important than that, but was bizarre and clownlike enough to attract notice.

We are equally brutal on Ted Koppel's and Sam Donaldson's toupees.

-- Diana Vreeland (pinkisthenavyblue@ofindia.net), November 29, 2000.


Response to Sisterhood IsnÂ’t Just Powerful, ItÂ’s Mean

I agree with the article. Fortunately I went to an all girls high school, so there was never any need to "show off", no popular girls circle that gets the popular boys. It was great and I wish schools would continue to separate the genders. All too often, my daughter comes home crying about not being popular. I don't know how many times I comforted her and told her the merits of being your own person. I think that unfortunately this is a way of life for many women - to put down other women.

The point about the makeup: being as much as a feminist that I am, I rarely put on makeup, just another sexist tool. (I'd refuse to shave my legs - another sexist act - also but that would be too gross). Harris' need to put on that much makeup strikes the feminist hard. But I also look past the makeup, no matter how much is applied, to the women and her character. I think she did a great job in the terrible position she was in. She couldn't recuse herself; it was her job, elected by the people to do exactly that, to follow the letter of the law.

Now on the other hand, Cher wears way too much makeup, has done a gazillion plastic surgeries, and has no character. She should be put down, but somehow feminists don't. I wonder why.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), November 29, 2000.


Response to Sisterhood IsnÂ’t Just Powerful, ItÂ’s Mean

Diana Vreeland--

My question about Hillary's slacks was rhetorical. She wears slacks because her handlers advised her to cover her barrel legs and her thunder thighs.

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), November 29, 2000.


Response to Sisterhood IsnÂ’t Just Powerful, ItÂ’s Mean

DIANA VREELAND

-- (GeorgePlimpton@Paris.Review), November 29, 2000.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ