Further to recent comments regarding Laurie Penny and her struggles with reality, let’s turn to the New Statesman, where, thanks to Laurie, “pop culture and radical politics” are given a “feminist twist.”
This latest trend shows that female sexual shame remains big business.
Which heinous trend would this be? Why, vajazzling, of course:
The burgeoning celebrity craze for shaving, denuding and perfuming one’s intimate area before applying gemstones in a variety of approved girly patterns. The end result resembles a raw chicken breast covered in glitter.
It’s not for everyone, then.
As the name implies, this one is just for the girls – nobody, so far, has suggested that men’s sexual equipment is unacceptable if it doesn’t taste like cake and sparkle like a disco ball.
Ah. I fear some presumptuous rote feminism may be lurking in the bushes. As it were. But wait a minute. Who’s suggesting that an unadorned ladygarden is now “unacceptable”? Are husbands and boyfriends nationwide lecturing on the woes of unglittered panty parts? Do the manufacturers of vajazzling kits put ominous hints of inadequacy on their packaging? (Incidentally, any male readers in search of a sequinned sack or other “dickoration” will find suitable products online, and New York’s Completely Bare Spa does, I’m told, oblige.)
Surely it can’t catch on. Surely, no matter how ludicrous, painful and expensive consumer culture’s intervention in our sex lives becomes, nobody is disgusted enough by their own normal genitals that they would rather look like they’ve just been prepped for surgery by Dr Bling. Or are they?
I hate to be a nuisance, but I do have more questions. How, exactly, does “consumer culture” – i.e., a faintly silly fashion product – intervene in “our” sex lives? Aren’t vajazzling kits bought by women voluntarily – for amusement possibly? Are women everywhere, or anywhere, being coerced into vajazzling – and if so, by whom? And why should we assume – apparently based on nothing – that the obvious motives are insecurity and self-disgust?
Suddenly, my teenage friends are popping off to get vajazzled.
Thank goodness for Laurie’s friends, to whom she turns, conveniently, whenever evidence is needed. No doubt they too are mere playthings of the all-powerful vajazzling conglomerates.
During the biggest shake-up of higher education in generations, someone at the University of Liverpool advertised a vajazzling evening for female members of the student body.
Peddling body hatred, clearly. The patriarchal fiends.
All of this is sold as a fun, pseudo-feminist “confidence boost,” as if what women really need to empower themselves is not education and meaningful work, but genitals that resemble a traumatic, intimate accident in a Claire’s accessories shop.
An interest in all three being utterly inconceivable. Vajazzling, it seems, is the latest burden of the demoralised and put-upon woman. And not, say, just a fad. It must be quite strange living in Laurie’s world, where there’s so little room for taste, or bad taste, let alone frivolity. Practically everything – even pubic glitter – has to be framed as a sociological issue and cause of feminist angst. There must always be some dastardly agenda beyond parting punters from their cash.
Vajazzling has nothing to do with sex and everything to do with the cruel logic of identikit, production-line womanhood, in which “fun” means slavish adherence to the joyless motifs of corporate pornography and “confidence” means submission to a species of surveillance whereby your nether regions are forcibly reshaped into a smile.
Whoa, Neddy, whoa. Someone fetch the blow darts. We’ve a runaway mule.
It’s all about making us feel that women’s bodies – which are supposed to smell, leak and grow hair – are shameful and need fixing.
Let’s be clear then. Vajazzling isn’t merely a diversion to amuse the wearer or enliven a seduction. It’s a patriarchal tool for propagating uniformity, insecurity and submission. What power those sticky little gems must have. And what, then, are we to make of Laurie’s own publicity shots, including the one displayed proudly above her article? Should we take the author’s own grooming and careful hairstyling as indicating some kind of “submission” and “slavish adherence”? Is that also a sign of “sexual shame”? Wouldn’t unkempt, unwashed hair be more… empowering and authentic? Does Laurie not deodorise? Does she not paint her nails to match her hair? Or are cosmetics, coiffure and careful lighting an entirely unrelated matter? Dare we enquire whether Ms Penny has piercings or tattoos – presumably to signal her liberation and womanly might?
As so often in supposedly feminist pieces of this kind, there’s an urge to pathologise the prosaic and an implicit disregard for women as autonomous beings with preferences of their own. It seems we’re supposed to believe that women – other women – are largely passive and adrift, at the mercy of advertisers and trivial social tides. Apparently the women who choose to stick beads and glitter on themselves are being duped and manipulated in ways never quite made clear. Unlike fearless leftwing columnists who wear their hair just so.
Practically everything – even pubic glitter – has to be framed as a sociological issue and cause of feminist angst. There must always be some dastardly agenda beyond parting punters from their cash.
This is Laurie Penny we’re talking about. There’s got to be a ‘sexist-capitalist-oppression of the week’ story. What else could she write about?
“It’s all about making us feel that women’s bodies – which are supposed to smell, leak and grow hair – are shameful and need fixing.”
Think of your body as a car, sweetie–if you take it to the car wash once in a while, and clean out the interior, you’ll likely feel better about yourself. If you get a bitchin’ custom paint job and some snazzy looking rims, why, then you’ll be rolling down the street in style–people will look at you and say to themselves, “Ooo, cool looking ride.”
But maybe the thought of car maintenance and customization would provoke in poor, joyless Penny an attack of…wait a minute…waiiit just a minute…oh, man, I just had a brilliant idea! Imagine matching ones’ girlfriends’ hoo hoo to ones’ car–that would be awesome.
And a new class to compete in at Concours d’Elegance.
Baldazzling..
Anna wins the thread.
“Baldazzling.”
That’s not what I was expecting. Which is probably for the best.
Does it surprise anyone that she has “teenage friends”?
Yet another day in which I’m eternally glad that I don’t chase ANY fashion fads.
Except cardigans with handkercheif hems, of course.
Feminists have an awfully low opinion of other women’s intelligence and strength of character.
As a slaphead, I feel Anna is oppressing me.
Trimegistus,
“Feminists have an awfully low opinion of other women’s intelligence and strength of character.”
Well, some do. It’s one of the reasons identity politics devotees have such trouble making a case. It often requires being sly.
If, for instance, you want to claim that lots of women are being oppressed and made to feel shameful by the menace of pubic glitter, or that they’re only buying the stuff because they’re riddled with insecurity and self-disgust, you can’t blame the women actually buying the glitter. That wouldn’t sit well with your egalitarian credentials and notions of sisterhood. It would also imply some degree of individual agency, which tends to undermine the argument you’re trying to nail together. Instead you have to insinuate some variation of “false consciousness,” whereby the women choosing to wear pubic glitter are victims of some ill-defined but morally corrupting power. They, unlike you, can’t see through advertising. They, unlike you, don’t know their own minds. That’s why they do things of which you disapprove. (Yes, if only they were freed they’d all agree with you.) But of course it’s not their fault they see things differently. It’s capitalism, corporate pornography, the patriarchy or whatever. Yes, that must be it.
Those fiends!!
Peter,
But baldies look better than hairies in winter hats. 😉
Hats are just a symptom of sexual shame.
I’m not sure if this is a related topic but when I was reading this I couldn’t help but think about women and uncomfortable high heeled shoes. When I ask women why they wear high heels they usually respond that they like to look “cute” or “taller”. I assume that if I were to ask Ms. Laurie she would respond that women wear these instruments of torture because they are under the influence of a male dominated heteronormative society that demands women to be cuter and taller at all times. I correlate high heels and “Vajazzling” in that women willfully do these things to their own bodies purely for their own satisfaction and to impress other women. It appears to me that the problem lies not with men’s notion of beauty, but with how women judge other women. I can say with a fair amount of certainty that at least 90% of men don’t care or even notice what shoes women wear or how their lower bits look. The only time I care about these things is when a woman demands I shell out 20 bucks for a 3 minute cab ride because she is too uncomfortable to walk two blocks in shoes that I didn’t even notice she was wearing. And that concludes my rambling thought of the day….
Laurie Penny has overlooked the practical side of Vajazzing: it provides an invaluable tactile guide for men who have a poor ‘sense of direction’, rather like the little bumps in the pavement that help blind people find a zebra crossing.
…which are supposed to smell, leak and grow hair…
Oh. Ohhhhhh.
Thank christ this woman’s not an illustrator.
The only thing we know for sure after all this is that Laurie Penny has a big hairy fanny.
. . . . as if what women really need to empower themselves is not education and meaningful work, but genitals that resemble a traumatic, intimate accident in a Claire’s accessories shop.
I tried. I really tried. But I couldn’t help wondering, “what kind of train wreck has she got down there?”
Excuse me while I autoclave my brain. . . .
genitals that resemble a traumatic, intimate accident in a Claire’s accessories shop
Gotta hand it to her though, that is a pretty accurate description of the process… 🙂
“The only thing we know for sure after all this is that Laurie Penny has a big hairy fanny.”
HAHAHAHAHA *fist bump*
Is anyone more patronising to women than feminists? They’re so busy arguing with each other over whether it’s due to the patriarchy forcing it on them or due to capitalism forcing it on them that the idea that women who do this might actually voluntarily enjoy it doesn’t even rate consideration.
“This latest trend shows that female sexual shame remains big business.”
I’m confused. Wouldn’t a women who is ashamed of her sexuality be less likely to shave and garishly bejewel her hoo-ha for the purpose of display?
I don’t know. Maybe the practice originated seventy years ago in the Presbyterian community, and I just never heard about it.
Grant you, “vajazzling” sounds like a stupid fad. But if Ms. Penny’s parts are leaking and smelly, she needs to see a doctor.
Just wait until she gets started on buttock-enhancement…
Instead you have to insinuate some variation of “false consciousness,” whereby the women choosing to wear pubic glitter are victims of some ill-defined but morally corrupting power. They, unlike you, can’t see through advertising. They, unlike you, don’t know their own minds.
Spot on.
EBD,
“Wouldn’t a woman who is ashamed of her sexuality be less likely to shave and garishly bejewel her hoo-ha for the purpose of display?”
Well, you’d think that might be at least as probable. But that would only get in the way of the predetermined rhetoric.
Rafi,
“Spot on.”
It’s a rough sketch, but it captures some of the dynamic. And it’s a Guardian staple. Ms Penny churned out something similar not long ago with her ”bikini ideology” piece, in which women only exist as dupes of advertising, anxiously fixated by “fairytale lifestyles” and the latest “cellulite-busting body scrub.” A caricature that doesn’t describe any woman I know. Long-time readers may recall Tanya Gold, who blamed her alcoholism and overeating on “sparkling advertisements,” pubic waxing and Heat magazine. Rather than on, say, her own disposition and incontinence. (At no point did Ms Gold – a grown woman – pause to ask why it is she chooses to care about the contents of Heat magazine.)
Hmm, nice to see Ms Penny at the forefront of cutting-edge issues for feminists, rather than wasting time on such trivial matters as the Taliban’s treatment of Afghan women.
the all-powerful vajazzling conglomerates.
Band name, definitely.
“It seems we’re supposed to believe that women – other women – are largely passive and adrift, at the mercy of advertisers…”
As I’ve said before, if only that were the case – my job would be so much easier.
Damn you.
Yesterday, I’d never heard of vajazzling. Now in one step I learn how exploitative it is. I missed the stage in between where I could enjoy an innocent pleasure before I learnt how wicked I was.
@Adam
Yes, one of the most ignorant tropes is this cack about men oppressing women because of Men’s beauty demands, or whatever. Sure men together will be rude and filthy about women and how they look etc, but seriously, unless a woman is seriously unkempt/obese etc men don’t really care. I have never once heard a man complain about bloody cellulite, or stretchmarks, or whatever. Women though, Jesus, they can be evil. I remember a minor epiphany understanding this, watching two female chums – who are intelligent, well-paid & thoughtful – cackle snarkily like stereotypical valley girls over some celeb on the front cover of heat. Women largely dress for other women, so far as I can tell. Men aren’t that particular.
On a general point, rather like the South American who refused to convert to Christianity before execution as he had seen it in action via the Spanish, and wanted no part of it, so I think one of the reasons I am not an -ist, or of ‘the left’, is that I simply don’t hate people enough. The staggering nose-aloft contempt these people have for the ‘lower orders’ is constantly astonishing. Whether it’s ‘women’ are too thick to see through their oppression – unlike the sainted Pen; or ethnics who are Uncle Toms for stupidly voting for Boris, unlike the sainted Yasmin; or the great unwashed who are too cretinously gullible to see how they are manipulated by advertising, unlike the sainted Guardian columnist, the colossal snobbish arrogance never fails to amaze me. And yes, I know this is a standard failing of the left, documented by Carey and Aron amongst others, but still. The sheer fury of such people when confronted with others who dare to believe and behave differently, and must therefore be wrong, failed, and are thus to be dismissed, is very interesting psychologically, I must say.
I agree with the comment in that ‘consumer culture’ which disempowers women which is a patronising concept.
However, having read the original article, I think Laurie has a point, especially when she talks about labioplasty (I mean – would you have thought a few years ago that this actually exists??) and the fact that our ‘nether regions’ are supposed to look more and more like porn stars’. That is a fact – that female body hair is seen as vaguely disgusting and that porn ‘culture’ has had a huge influence on this.
That said, you can still say Stuff it and make up your own mind, but having been a teenage girl once, the peer pressure that thrives on these fads can be very damaging.
The epiphany I had was to notice that when women talk about beauty treatments that sound totally tedious and uncomfortable to me, they talk about “pampering themselves”. Women don’t want to change any of the stuff they’re “expected” to do, from cosmetic treatments to fashion to ridiculous shoes to taking time off work to look after the baby. They know they have the better side of the bargain – the luxury of greater leisure and financial support – but they want us to believe it’s the worse side so they don’t lose it.
Nele Schindler,
“The fact that our ‘nether regions’ are supposed to look more and more like porn stars’.”
A fact, you say? I didn’t get that memo, nor did anyone I’ve asked. How many people are casually talking to you about the appearance of your genitals?
“That is a fact – that female body hair is seen as vaguely disgusting and that porn ‘culture’ has had a huge influence on this.”
It’s not exactly my area of expertise, but I suspect that if you asked around you’d find a variety of views on female body hair. Some keen, some not so, some indifferent. And if porn stars are an exaggerated fantasy and employed to appeal to an audience, it’s hardly surprising that some people – some people – choose to emulate certain attributes. This isn’t without historical precedent, nor, in itself, is it particularly distressing.
“Having been a teenage girl once, the peer pressure that thrives on these fads can be very damaging.”
Broadly speaking, it’s as damaging as you allow it to be.
I occurred to me that when I’m out on a date or out with friends I’ll put a little gel in my hair and wear some nice clothes in order to appeal to the opposite sex. I don’t particularly enjoy buying expensive clothes or putting grease on my head but I do it because I feel like I need to live up to the preconceived notions of the matriarchal society that we live in that demands men look like preteen girls. They even have men’s makeup now. It’s all about making us feel that men’s bodies – which are supposed to smell, pass gas, and grow hair – are shameful and need fixing. Victimization in all directions!
When I was a teenager, punk happened. Clever marketing people like Malcolm McLaren packaged up rebellion and sold it to teenagers. It wasn’t just music, it was a whole look. Pretty soon girls were wearing the sub S&M bondage clothes of Vivienne Westwood and buying day-glo cosmetics to look like Poli Styrene, Siouxsie, Jordan (not that one) or Toyah. Ersatz revolt with a label.
And here’s the thing, the clever educated arty lefties of the NME celebrated this commercial success as something “good” that allowed people to be individuals. None of then had palpitations at the thought that these were victims of hidden forces. Of course, there were “shocked” people but they weren’t on the progressive left.
I can’t see a qualitative difference between this latest idea, and other adornment ideas. I’m going to make a wild guess: Penny conforms to bien pensants that I know in being okay with some body adornments, eg. tattoos and piercings. Why are tattoos good and stick on crap bad?
How many people are casually talking to you about the appearance of your genitals?
😀
Had to de-lurk for this one. Hair is a lubricant, right? Makes the old in-n-out more smooooooth and flowing. I have this horrible vision in my head of post-vajazzaling coitus gone wrong. Picture it: a chick on the poorer side getting the kmart hoo-ha special (imported from china and supposedly lead free) and both he and she mowing the lawn so to speak before the big night. Frictions burns, screams, poor production quality of the vajewells scraping and slicing tender delicate flesh….I cant wait till the first 911 tape is released. Almost makes up for not being able to get the image out of my head.
TDK,
I’m going to make a wild guess: Penny conforms to bien pensants that I know in being okay with some body adornments, eg. tattoos and piercings. Why are tattoos good and stick on crap bad?
Some body adornments are more equal than others.
http://twitter.com/PennyRed/status/35765316348809216
I remember watching a TV news bit about women getting their feet surgically altered so that they could fit the cutest heels. Apparently if your feet aren’t just the right size or something, heels don’t fit. So I turned to my friend and said, “You know that somewhere, a crazy feminist is saying it’s all the fault of the oppressive patriarchy, forcing women to mutilate themselves in order to fit into heels that validate men’s views of female beauty.” He agreed. Then I said “You know what the worst part of it is? If you ask the average man what kind of shoes his girlfriend or wife looks best in, he’ll say ‘shoes? I didn’t even know she had feet! I’ve never looked down that far!”
Your blog is the biggest pile of shit I have ever seen, and I’ve crawled through some festering heaps man.
Boil Yourhead,
If you’re hoping to hurt my feelings you’ll need a much bigger stick.
And now everyone’s second-favourite lefty rad-fem weighs in.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2011/feb/11/womens-pubic-hair-removal-porn
Tom,
“Women have responded with unquestioning servility… pruning their pubic hair in a desperate bid to gain approval… At least now we can confront the naked truth about women’s submissiveness… Are women so ashamed of their bodies…?”
Heh. The rhetorical similarity is quite eerie. Grand assertions and leaps of assumption apparently based on nothing, with no supporting evidence or substantive argument, and a conviction that people who choose to behave differently must be “servile,” “submissive” and desperate for approval. Women, it seems, are unthinking, feeble creatures – unlike the fearless author, whose moral and intellectual superiority is simply dazzling.
pruning their pubic hair in a desperate bid to gain approval
So everyone must be doing it because of the shame and need for men’s approval… but between them Laurie and Bidisha can’t even find one woman who said that’s why she does it?
Women, and the more effeminate of men, are masters of manipulation. I see this vajayjay obsession as a ploy by women who already have boyfriends, etc. to keep their competition occupied with time and budget consuming nonsense. The more time they can get other women to spend doing something so obviously useless as this, the less time they will have to manipulate and/or steal away other men. After all, by the time any man would notice the effort, the deal would already be sealed, so to speak, so really there is no point in it.
‘Boil Yourhead’, it’s good to see that someone as articulate as yourself can explain why David’ blog is ‘the biggest pile of shit I have seen’. Such incisive and unanswerable criticism. I presume you don’t need to use your fingers and toes whenever you have to count.
Odd. I had always assumed Bidisha’s whole purpose on the Guardian was to provoke comments, and thereby hits, and thereby advertising revenue. Yet here she is, writing a provocative piece on a provocative subject, and no comment thread. What’s going on? I’m reliably informed that calling her “Biddie” or mentioning her surname will get your comment removed, so maybe they’re giving their poor exhausted moderators a break.
I’m reliably informed that calling her “Biddie” or mentioning her surname will get your comment removed
Isn’t having a surname a bit bourgeois? I thought she was too edgy to have one.
According to Wikipedia, she’s “Bidisha (born Bidisha Bandyopadhyay)”