 Also: Bathroom products and gender identity
|
Jun. 3rd, 2009 @ 11:40 am 
|
|---|
So, my first reaction to my new Nivea for Men Facial Wash is more-or-less: wow, this is awesome! I really like how it makes my skin feel. Clean but not dry. Other products I've tried tend to leave my skin feeling stripped (I suspect these ones are intended to remove makeup, which I don't wear) and taut or greasier than ever. So, hooray.
But then I thought about it, and started wondering.
I bought several products that are, explicitly, for Men. In doing so I didn't, and don't, have to worry that people will question my womanhood or even my femininity; I've never been into ultra-feminine stuff, but I don't fear people questioning whether I'm a "real" woman. I am genetically, physically, biologically female; the ways in which society defines womanhood contrary to my own definition are things I don't have to think about. I'm not comfortable with them, but I'm okay with being female and they can't take that away from me without, I don't know, somehow rewriting my chromosomes.
On the other hand, say I wasn't approximately cisgendered. Say that, rather than my gender issues being "I do not like how society defines womanhood, and therefore, fuck that noise, but I won't think about it all that much" with my womanhood being a faintly uncomfortable default, I felt like I do - but had XY chromosomes and a penis. (Let's not bring breasts into this - flatties are still women.) This would be a lot more difficult, because:
Society has messages about what a "real" woman is. A lot of them are absolute bullshit, and I know it - but they still make me uncomfortable, sometimes succeed in making me feel like I'm not a real woman. Ultimately, I can realise it's misogynistic fail. Because nobody's ever tried to tell me I'm not a woman.
(Well, technically, a friend of mine suggested once I should consider whether I would really be more comfortable if I were a man. Said friend is, in fact, a trans woman; my reaction amounted to: "Nah." Well, that and reminding her that just because she's a lot girlier than I am doesn't mean I'm not just as much a woman. I'm just still kind of a tomboy.)
I suspect that if I were trans, especially if I were still trying to claim my proper, womanly identity, I'd find using a product "for Men" kind of hateful and reject it as an option. The fact that the product that seems to be right for me is "for Men" would hurt, be a reinforcement of the messages that I wasn't "really" a woman.
(Note: This is me hypothesising about my own mental processes, my own awareness of the kind of things I, myself, am vulnerable to. I'm not trying to draw or suggest conclusions about the experiences of actual trans women. I'm not in a position to do that - but I know what would hurt me.)
So. Here's what I'm trying to pin down.
Buying "for Men" products, on my part: cisgendered privilege, feminist transgressive act, or both?
The fact that I have to get "for Men" products to get packaging that's in soothing monochrome and products that suit me (e.g. a facial wash that isn't designed to remove makeup, and therefore likely to strip my un-makeup-touched skin, or "moisturising", and therefore hideously greasy, or both): misogynistic, stupid, or what?
(Also, seriously, Corporate World. If I want to moisturise, I'll use moisturiser. I have some. It's a tub of sorbolene cream - it costs me like eight bucks for a six month supply, and I apply it exactly when and where I want it, and it works brilliantly. Shut up.)Current Music: Smile Empty Soul - With This Knife
|
![[User Picture Icon]](https://v2.dreamwidth.org/86758/119696) |
| From: | ![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png) nicki |
|---|
| Date: |
June 3rd, 2009 04:23 am (UTC) |
|---|
|
|
|
|
(Link) |
|
Buying "for Men" products, on my part: cisgendered privilege, feminist transgressive act, or both?
Sensible acknowledgment that a lot of the gender identity specific stuff that society pushes is artificial and stupid.
The fact that I have to get "for Men" products to get packaging that's in soothing monochrome and products that suit me (e.g. a facial wash that isn't designed to remove makeup, and therefore likely to strip my un-makeup-touched skin, or "moisturising", and therefore hideously greasy, or both): misogynistic, stupid, or what?
Stupid in that it is labeled "for Men", vaguely sexist in assumptions about women and vaguely reinforcing artificial gender bilateralization that is unnecessary in this case.
![[User Picture Icon]](https://v2.dreamwidth.org/16080982/8491) |
| From: | rainbow |
|---|
| Date: |
June 3rd, 2009 05:22 am (UTC) |
|---|
|
|
|
|
(Link) |
|
I never thought of it that way, as being either privilege or transgressive.
I grew up with a single working mother (and an early support of Ms Magazine) who bought what we could afford and didn't care what labels said if it worked, and I did a lot of reading in the 80s about how products targeted to specific groups are designed that way only to increase profit to the manufacturer (as is advertising that suggests one will be more desireable/sexy/feminine/masculine/healthy/popular/etc if one uses their product). Advertising pisses me off because it's so insidiously manipulative.
I can see what you mean that if one is better socialised than me* and non cis gendered, it could be a very problematic issue rather than an annoying one, though. I'd never realised that before.
(* I was socialised in a geeky, non-mundane, sf&f/renfaire/sca-centric social scene in the SF Bay Area; half my male friends in the late 70s/early 80s wore more makeup and used far more hairspray/mousse/etc than me *g*)
![[User Picture Icon]](https://v2.dreamwidth.org/254881/16290) |
| From: | willow |
|---|
| Date: |
June 3rd, 2009 11:57 am (UTC) |
|---|
|
|
|
|
(Link) |
|
I've had lots of experiences where the things I liked, were labeled male. I like the scents men get to wear as aftershave and cologne. They're often woodsy and subtle. I don't like flowery scents.
I remember a time I tried to buy a man's cologne (later I learned I liked it because it was something my Dad had worn and my nose was remembering) and my mother, well, pitched a fit.
For a long period in my life, my mother complained that most of the things I did were too manish. Now, this phase was meant to imply I was a lesbian, more than it was meant to imply I might be transgendered. Trans was never on my mother's radar - I dont think. Or if it was, Transmen and Transwomen to her were gays and lesbians 'going all the way'.
How I walked, what I liked to wear, the fact that I kept my hands in my pockets a lot. The fact that I liked functional clothes and underthings, thought lace scratched and was useless and liked living in jeans, was all 'too manish'. Not liking heels and preferring boots 'too manish'.
When I ended up living with my father for a short while, he too found these things too manish. And I ended up dressing in horrible uncomfortable clothes, with crappy shoes and wearing make-up, I not only didn't like, but likely werent the right colours for -me-, but were colours I liked (cause I figured I should like -something- about it), for a long while.
It's taken a lot to get me to a place of accepting myself, as myself. And accepting and allowing myself to have moods and personality fluctuations and not counting them as me going against myself, or me conforming to people's expectations, etc.
So on the one hand, somethings are transgressive. But we only have the ability to make them transgressive, due to privilege.
I have no enlightenment on question one. On question two, however:
The fact that I have to get "for Men" products to get packaging that's in soothing monochrome and products that suit me (e.g. a facial wash that isn't designed to remove makeup, and therefore likely to strip my un-makeup-touched skin, or "moisturising", and therefore hideously greasy, or both): misogynistic, stupid, or what?
Yes, yes, and also a sign of how ridiculously overspecialized the consumer goods industry is.
|
|
