I recently attended a debate about modern
feminism hosted by the editor of
Elle magazine, Lorraine Candy. The topic was "Does feminism need a rebrand?" Of course, I didn't need the panel to confirm the obvious: worldwide resistance to the oppression of women is hardly something that needs to be in the business of rebranding. And brands – a cluster of images and stories that are expertly put together to create illusions that will generate money – are not in the business of resistance.
Still, the lively panel was hosted in the offices of Mother, one of the three advertising agencies that
Elle had recruited for the rebranding job. Which meant I did get to see a photo exhibition by the name of
Project Bush. There, in a loft in east London (of course!), I discovered a delightful room comprising two parallel wall panels. Each was tiled with collages of female pubic hair of all sorts – depilated, tattooed, au naturel, you name it. The pubic topiary was certainly diverse.
Mother says that Project Bush is "a call to action for women to stand up to the pressures of modern society and present their bushes in all their glory". The rhetoric becomes quite high flown: "Whether waxed or never tended, young, old, black, brown or white, we want to display London's lady gardens in all their variety, and demonstrate the choice that many young women – particularly – may not realise they have when it comes to waxing."
At this point, let me state my "stance" on women's pubic hair, should one need one: each pussycat to her own is my line. Sure, I am attuned to the conflicting debates on whether styling is hygienic, attractive, unfeminist, yada yada – yep, feminism now finds its battles in all parts of life. But what's more interesting is that while pubic hair is a neutral fact of adulthood for men, for women it is much more than that. Why, then, has modifying it become a thing? Why are women taking control, playing round, having fun?
It would be wrong, I think, to assume that in all the lovely variations – "Brazilian", sphinxed, heart-shaped, vajazzled or bushy and untrimmed – women's choice are simply pandering to male fetishes or indeed their fear of hair. Instead, it's a way of recouping a body part that, like so many female body parts, has a history of being subject to interpretation by everyone but women themselves.
French artist Gustave Courbet's 1866 painting,
L'Origine du monde (The Origin of the World), provoked a huge scandal not only because it exposed the "cleft of Venus" but also because it portrayed a woman's vagina in its full hairy glory, rather than classically bare.
Throughout history, male-dominant attitudes in art, religion, ritual and schools have shown equal fascination and repulsion with female hair and the sexual power it implies. From artistic depictions of the virgin birth of Jesus to Rosario Dawson's bare vagina in this year's movie
Trance, feminine sexuality has been mystified and vilified in equal measure.
This is not to say that there are psychological profundities lurking beneath every woman's pants; choices can also be unconscious responses to an exploitative culture or resistance to it. But one thing seems certain; whether meant or otherwise, the choices are often to do with social attitudes. And rather than shy away, critique or nag, we should take interest in what women's choices tell us about wider female sexuality.
Often, having absorbed the cultural negativity and mystery surrounding their sex, girls, upon the arrival of their first pubic hairs – a symbol of becoming a sexual adult – find it a disturbing experience. Girls are taught from a young age to feign no interest whatsoever in their intimate parts or, worse, to be ashamed of them.
Perhaps they might want to learn a bold lesson from 1940s Nigeria. A group of women led by women's rights activist Funmilayo Anikulapo-Kuti (mother of musician Fela Kuti) gathered outside the reigning ruler's house to protest against women having to pay taxes when they did not even have the right to vote. They chanted: "Alake [King], for a long time you have used your penis as a mark of authority that you are our husband. Today we shall reverse the order and use our vagina to play the role of husband." Their protests led to the king's abdication.
Talk about using your bodies with intent! I'd like to suggest that women's varied choices are not simply aesthetic reactions to sexual objectification. They are also a retort to a culture where a girl's coming of age is turned into something shameful. Regardless of the style a woman chooses, alterations for the 21st-century woman can be a way of getting rid of any embarrassment and regaining a sense of sexual energy and power. "Designing" her own look can be a way for a woman to get to know her sexual self, an expression of being an erotic being in her own right.
Consider, then, the Project Bush exhibition, an education, for men too, one that might prepare them a little more than visual education of the past. Whatever else art historian John Ruskin might have accomplished in his life, he will forever be remembered as the man who was so terrified to discover his wife's pubic hair that he was unable to consummate their marriage on their wedding night.
It's safe to assume that the classic marble statues Ruskin was familiar with did not prepare him for the glories of real life. The very diverse glories in 2013, to judge from the 93 varieties of womanhood in Project Bush.
My Thoughts
The following are my thoughts regarding the article written by Salami. Overall I agree with her position on women and their pubic hair. I argue with societies erroneous outlook on gender norms concerning body hair, bottom line it is imbalanced and biased in favor of men. In favor of men because men do not have near the societal expectations toward their body hair and shaving than do women. I do not agree with these weighty expectations that society has placed upon women. I do not agree because I am a man who loves to shave his legs and arm pits. I shave these body parts for myself as do I with the hair on my head. I do not have to shave the hair on my head but I do because it is easier to upkeep and unfortunately I inherited head hair from my father's side who all look slightly like Friar Tuck. I shave my legs and arm pits, well, because I like shaving them. I shave them for myself, and I shave them because I reject societal gender norms when it comes to body hair. However, I reject the societal expectation on women to shave their pubic hair because the hypocrisy of the expectations. Men expect women to shave the pubic hair, but men do not shave their own. This is all of course generally speaking.
I agree with Salami when she explained that girls and women are raised to be embarrassed of their genitals, and as a result when they get their first pubs they are even more ashamed because society has ingrained in their minds that body hair on women, besides their head hair, should be something embarrassing to have. Western society, especially in the United States, is a world obsessed on appearance. A world where the individual is devalued because self worth is based upon how you look, or how much money you have. Forgive me, perhaps money and looks. I minutely forgot that America is also obsessed with their wealth too. But I digress from the appearance factor.
Women should never be embarrassed to be who they are. As much as horny men may be resentful of the following statement but Porn is a contributor to this societal expectation of women because the women in Porn videos are often smoothed in their nether regions. Other contributors are the media and Hollywood.
Sandra Bullock's character in "
Miss Congeniality" was a strong woman who fought to preserve the law. Her character, Gracie Hart, was ordered to go undercover in a Miss America pageant. The movie attempted to change Hart by saying the hard core masculine FBI Agent that she was was not acceptable and anti-feminine. She was ordered by her superiors to undergo a makeover of epic proportions. She was waxed, plucked, was made to put gunk on her face, she was peeled, chemicals were put in her hair, she was forced to wear heels and a tight really short revealing dress. Bullock did an incredible job at acting the role in this movie. The movie successfully portrayed the argument as to what real femininity is.
"Miss Congeniality" perfectly aligns its story with the article that Salami wrote. The question now becomes - To shave or not to shave. Many men like John Ruskin in Salami's article make their women feel embarrassed to have body hair. In my opinion a man expecting his woman to shave is just as negative as calling her fat or ugly. Society puts too much emphasis on looks and devalues the person's personality and intelligence. Salami and Mother London attempt to combat this erroneous societal expectation by supporting Project Bush. It is utterly absurd that Ruskin would not consummate his marriage to
Effie Gray because she had pubic hair around her genitals. She was willing to consummate the marriage and Ruskin no doubt had pubic hair, the hypocrisy of it all. As illustrated by a painting by British portrait painter in the time period Thomas Richmond, Effie Gray was incredibly beautiful. According to Richmond's painting and opinion Gray was incredibly beautiful:
Topically specific men should not expect their female counterparts to undergo habits that they themselves are unwilling to do themselves. To expect someone to do something that you are unwilling to do is called hypocrisy. As a man who has himself shaved his own package to have a greater depth of experience and insight into how women feel, it was not a pleasant experience especially when my hair grew back. It was terribly itchy. After this experience I never shaved in that area again. I shaved because I want to experience has much of femininity as I can to add depth to my knowledge. One day I wore 5 inch stilettos and was on my feet for two hours straight, my feet were killing. I did this as well to add depth, but heels and feminism is a discussion for another time.
At the end of the day I embrace the school of John Stuart Mill, "Live and let Live." It is not emotionally healthy for women for men to continue their barrage of hypocritical expectations. It was not revealed in the article by Salami but Ruskin divorced Gray primarily because of his dissatisfaction with her body. Because of this divorce he ruined her social life. Society looked down upon her, even Queen Victoria would not see her. It is the tragedy of women, regrettably even in modern society, that divorce often ruins their lives financially and socially.
Note: As my first Blog post explained I invite all to comment and welcome your thoughts. Please remain objective whether you are for or against the argument. As in all of my posts I expect mature, objective, and constructive arguments. Thank you.
