Dr. Socks Wouldn’t Be Caught Dead In This
It seems I alarmed some readers yesterday with a display of girliness and latent pinkness that was totally unexpected from these quarters. As I hastened to explain to my shell-shocked commenters (well, Will), that’s really not my style. Yes, I am capable of baking and decorating cakes in the shape of bunnies, and yes, I do own doilies, but my personal aesthetic veers strongly away from anything involving bows, ruffles, or the color pink.*
In fact, I said (and I quote myself verbatim): “I despise ruffles and bows and never wear pink.”
In a remarkable bit of coincidence, my inbox this morning provided a perfectly-timed visual aid to demonstrate exactly the kind of ruffly pinkness I eschew: a spring pattern from Butterick, suitable for a “garden party.” Note how the pink ruffles on the jacket are charmingly set off by the astronaut-wife hair, the Stepford smile, and the cruel shoes. Butterick says that if I wear this “pretty pastel pick” to a spring event, I will be the center of attention. I bet.
(And if any of you are wondering why I’m getting e-mail from Butterick in the first place and whether this possibly indicates that I sew: don’t worry your pretty little heads about it.)
*****
*Except for throw pillows. Throw pillows occupy a rift in the space-time continuum and are thus exempt from normal rules of taste.
52 Responses to “Dr. Socks Wouldn’t Be Caught Dead In This”
-
Vinnie Vespisti says:
Vinnie has suspected all along that Dr. Socks is not a feminist at all but, rather, a female equal rights advocate.
March 25th, 2006 at 5:48 pm EST -
Violet says:
What is Vinnie’s definition of feminism again? Something involving Ft. Lauderdale and spring break?
-
will says:
Ah, but how to do explain why you get the Fredericks of Hollywood catelog?
-
Violet says:
It was always my impression that the Fredericks of Hollywood catalog was for men.
-
will says:
exactly! Thus, my bewilderment.
-
Vinnie Vespisti says:
from the commentary:
In fact, I said (and I quote myself verbatim): “I despise ruffles and bows and never wear pink.”
-Dr SocksVinnie wonders how you might quote yourself any way other than verbatim?
-
Pastor Pistle says:
That picture is hauntingly like the image of dear Mrs. Pistle before she fell out of the apple tree into the woodchipper. It was a horrible accident, but the apples were larger than usual for a couple of years afterward. God always provides a silver lining.
-
gordo says:
Pastor–
Your story was so tragic that it caused me to spit coffee all over my work area. You owe me for 1 keyboard.
-
Kimberly says:
Who knew that Butterick pattern photos could cause growing-up-in-Texas flashbacks?
Curling up into fetal position and quivering now…
-
Steve says:
Vi: I have kept our secret long enough. Everyone should know that you are in fact the women pictured in the pink dress. Why didn’t you tell everyone? And why didnt you use a picture of you in that halter top that you wore on our last date?
-
Pastor Pistle says:
Miss Kimberly, the tragedy occurred in Freehold Iowa at the Landover Baptist communal orchard. Sadly, no one discovered that Mrs. Pistle had gone missing for several weeks. By then, several hundered itenerant messkin pickers had been through the area and it was impossible to determine the sad circumstances of the accident.
I always say a little prayer when I open a jar of jam from that tree.
-
Profaner says:
It’s pretty but not a color to go with my complection. Maybe in blue or marroon. I think it’s nice that Butterick is still around. Maybe the world hasn’t completely gone to pot after all.
-
Profaner says:
Being also female it’s comforting to see things ‘female’ becuase I do get overwhelmed at times with what I call “man world”. That’s becuase i am the only female in my personal “man world’in which I live. “Man world” is fun at times, exciting and full of interesting things- but sometimes it’s too much for me. It makes me retreat into “girl world” where it’s safer, quieter, and not so intense.
-
will says:
I heard that Dr. Socks wears pink tube tops when she blogs. Just to get into the feminist blogging mood.
-
Violet says:
I’m a sex-positive radfeminist, so I wear a push-up bra and Birkenstocks when I blog.
-
will says:
Wow. Me too!
-
Violet says:
Actually, I’d better clarify for any drive-by readers: I don’t identify as a sex-positive feminist. That was a joke. I like sex just fine, but the sex-positive movement seems to involve a lot more than just liking sex.
-
CR says:
I am a drive by reader- but I don’t know what sex positive means. I didn’t get the joke. But that’ nothing new. I don’t know what on earth anyone is talking about most of the time.
-
CR says:
Oh, sorry, I’m Profaner- but I thought I’d use my own initials now.
-
will says:
“I like sex just fine, but ..”
What a ringing endorsement of sex or your partners!
-
Violet says:
Silly. It’s just that sex-positive never really seems to be about liking sex per se, but about liking BDSM, sexbot outfits, male-created pornography, and the Happy Hooker.
But you should ask an actual sex-positive feminist. They always say that they’re just about empowering sexuality, but when it gets down to brass tacks and you ask them exactly how sex-positive is different from other feminism, it always comes down to the same thing: BDSM, fuckbot outfits, male-created pornography, and the Happy Hooker.
-
CR says:
I think I know someone like that. I couldn’t figure it out becuase the lady doesn’t seem to really like men that much- yet she is not gay. She doesn’t trust them. She makes fun of them and puts them down alot.
I thought maybe she did that whole sex-bot stuff because she was trying to understand men by embracing the very thing she disliked the most. Male sexuality is the most frightening thing about men to many women. Because it the very thing that can hurt us the most. So she does all that happy hooker stuff in an attempt to belay her fears about males. Yet with each encounter she solidifies her fear and distrust of them even more. Odd behavior. -
will says:
I really dont know anything about “sexpositive.”
Although if you have to think about whether you are positive or negative about sex, you are not doing it right. -
Violet says:
CR, don’t look to me for a good understanding of sex-positive feminism. Seriously. It’s not my scene and I’m probably not doing it justice.
Also, a lot of feminists now seem to embrace the sex-positive label as a way of stating that they do in fact enjoy sex — which kind of irks me, because it implies that other feminists don’t like sex. Aaarrggghhh.
Theoretically, sex-positivism just means (I think) that attention is being paid to sex as empowering, and that women can take control of sexuality — including existing patriarchal norms — and shape it to their own feminist ends. Theoretically. And that sounds fine: sign me up. I’ve just noticed that in practice what it really seems to mean is: “Just because I’m a feminist doesn’t mean I can’t still wear latex bustiers and 4-inch stiletto heels, play BDSM games, and get off on Penthouse, pole-dancing, and prostitution.” To which I would say: you’re right, you can still be a feminist and do all those things. But to pretend that “those things” are part of your feminism, and not the residue of the patriarchal deformation of your psyche, is perhaps just the tiniest bit self-delusional.
But I should probably just shut up on this. If some sex-positive feminist out there wants to do a better job of explaining the movement, be my guest.
-
CR says:
Thanks for the explaination. I still don’t understand it very well. But bless you for giving it a good try to explain. I’m sure there’s something there that relates to feminism. I almost undertand it- but every time I go to grasp it, it slips farther away.
You have opened a new world for me. I’m having a lovely time reading everyones postings- especially yours. And Vinnies posting also included. I’ve learned alot so far.
-
Violet says:
Thank you, CR.
Do not be deceived by anything Vinnie says. He’s a professional jerk.
-
Alon Levy says:
First, “sex-positivism” is a cover term for several very different views, which range from completely mainstream to completely nutty.
The most mainstream view is that it’s stupid to regulate how people can commercially exploit sex, and in particular that porn and prostitution should be legal. Usually it also involves a rejection of the ideas underlying the word “objectification.” Today this view is completely mainstream within liberalism, even within liberal feminism (the three most widely read feminist bloggers – Amanda, Lindsay, and Dr. B. – all seem to agree with it).
Historically, I think sex-positive feminism began as a reaction against the porn crusades, which at the time dominated radfem discourse. A big part of the porn crusade involved scary statements about sexuality, such as “Penetrative intercourse is, by its nature, violent” (from Dworkin’s denial she ever said sex was rape), and vicious attacks on anyone who cared about unimportant principles like free speech.
In addition, part of the porn crusade involved tryign to shame any woman who engaged in practices the crusaders didn’t like, most importantly prostitution. When you believe that all prostitution is patriarchal, you need some mechanism to get choice prostitutes out of your way; today the mechanism is to claim that they’re a small minority, but the older argument seems to be along the lines of, “You’re just serving the patriarchy.” The average choice prostitute is willing to take shit from porn crusaders about her choices to about the same degree she’s willing to take similar shit from godbags.
Then, there’s the distinction between sex-positive libfems and sex-positive radfems. Sex-positive libfems are typically of the “leave me alone” variety; for them it seems to be more a question of free speech, privacy, and individual morality than one of activism or flamboyance.
In contrast, the flamboyant ones who flaunt their sex-positiveness are typically the sex-positive radfems, who are defined by their belief that the most oppressive form of the patriarchy is the view that women shouldn’t enjoy sex. In particular, they view notions such as penetration-equals-domination and prostitution-is-demeaning as inherently sexist notions meant to keep women in their places; hence the best way to fight the patriarchy is to celebrate prostitution, BDSM (which is a lot more egalitarian than most people think it is – e.g. compare attitudes toward switching today and 30 years ago), and so on.
Now can someone get here one of the participants of the Carnival of Sex-Positive Feminists so that we could get an explanation from someone who is actually a sex-positive radfem? I’ve once read a pretty strong article by a sex-positive feminist about how there’s nothing sexist about BDSM, but I don’t remember how I found it.
-
Violet says:
Alon, I think I’ve mentioned this to you before, but you have a very one-sided view of the porn crusades. You seem to be getting your information from people who are biased against Dworkin or who are too young to really know what it was about. The feminists who think prostitution and pornography (as currently configured) are tools of the patriarchy that oppress women are not godbags or moralists trying to scare people away from sex. When you say things like that you’re just perpetuating shallow misunderstandings.
I also think you’re somewhat misunderstanding the nuances in the attitudes of people like Amanda (who has agreed that traditional male porn is sexist and rages frequently against the sexbot objectification of women) and Dr. B. (who I’m pretty sure has said that sex trafficking and economically-coerced prostitution cannot be justified).
And you know what? Penetrative sex is by its very nature violent. That’s not so much a value judgment as an observation about the experience of being fucked. If you’re a straight male you probably cannot understand that on a visceral level. One’s body — one’s very innards! — are invaded in a rather shocking way. Not to say it isn’t enjoyable, but it is unquestionably a sort of violation. As a matter of fact, I think one of those popular sex-positive columnists like Susie Bright even noted that Dworkin was exactly right about that, about the profound violation that sex involves for a woman (or anyone I suppose who accepts penetration).
-
will says:
“Penetrative sex is by its very nature violent. That’s not so much a value judgment as an observation about the experience of being fucked. If you’re a straight male you probably cannot understand that on a visceral level. One’s body — one’s very innards! — are invaded in a rather shocking way. Not to say it isn’t enjoyable, but it is unquestionably a sort of violation.”
You need to get off your back and stop being a submissive!
Reverse cowboy baby!
-
Alon Levy says:
Alon, I think I’ve mentioned this to you before, but you have a very one-sided view of the porn crusades.
I’m just stating the view of sex-positive feminists as I understand it. Complain to them, not to me.
I also think you’re somewhat misunderstanding the nuances in the attitudes of people like Amanda (who has agreed that traditional male porn is sexist and rages frequently against the sexbot objectification of women) and Dr. B. (who I’m pretty sure has said that sex trafficking and economically-coerced prostitution cannot be justified).
I don’t know if Dr. B. said sex trafficking is bad, but I’m certain that like everyone else, she thinks it’s bad. However, she also said we shouldn’t fault women for choosing prostitution over the alternatives the patriarchy gives them. As for Amanda, as far as I understand it she rejects most feminist critiques of pornography, and in particular the one based on objectification, which seems to be the most common one.
-
Violet says:
You need to get off your back and stop being a submissive!
But God wants me to submit! That’s God’s plan for women!
However, she also said we shouldn’t fault women for choosing prostitution over the alternatives the patriarchy gives them.
She’s right, and I’m pretty sure most anti-prostitution feminists would agree.
As for Amanda, as far as I understand it she rejects most feminist critiques of pornography, and in particular the one based on objectification, which seems to be the most common one.
In my dialogue with Amanda, I’ve come away with the impression that her basic view is “traditional porn is bad, so make better porn.” I don’t think she would argue that the Playboy-Penthouse-Hustler crap isn’t sexist. She just thinks that porn can be remade in a non-oppressive way, with equal-opportunity objectification for everybody!
Too funny that my little post about the Butterick pattern has turned into this. One of these days I suppose I’ll have to do a proper post on the Big Controversies in the Feminist Blogosphere (currently porn, prostitution, and BDSM) and where I stand on each. O joy.
-
Violet says:
One other thing I should say, I realize:
To anyone reading this who is a sex-positive feminist — please don’t take offense. My flippant remarks above were a commentary on the kind of stuff that seems to take up endless column inches in every feminist blog war that erupts.
The truth is, there are elements of sex-positive feminism I completely embrace, and elements I think are silly, but what really matters to me is the ‘feminism’ part. I have friends on both sides of the porn debate and both sides of the prostitution debate, and I can usually see both points of view. I think we (as feminists) need more respectful, informative discussion on these issues, and I try to encourage that.
-
foilwoman says:
Pastel colors are the enemy of women who want to be taken seriously everywhere. And what’s with the ruffles on baby clothes. Yeah, cleaning poop & vomit out of babyclothes is so much more fun when they’re ruffly.
-
Alon Levy says:
Oh, about violation, different women report different experiences. I don’t disagree with you that you find being penetrated a violating experience (although I will dispute the equivocation of “violating” with “violent”). But not all women do – for an example from the blogosphere, Amanda reported once that she considered the idea that penetration was violation so outlandish, that she was surprised to find that the difference between rape and sexual assault was one of penetration.
Anyway, what do the other women here (and gay men, if there are any) think? Do you find penetrative sex a violating experience?
-
gordo says:
Alon–
Well, I’d find penetration plenty violating, since it would be done without my consent. If consent is given, though, I don’t see where there’s a problem.
-
Violet says:
Alon, I think maybe you’re reading too much into my use of the word “violate,” similar to how Amanda interpreted violation. I mean it as a violation in the sense of an invasion of one’s personal space — and more, one’s own body. The female (which is all I can talk about) must allow herself to be vulnerable and completely exposed. I’m not talking about patriarchy, just about the realities of human mating.
You know, we’re all animals, and we have a fundamental instinct to preserve our own bodily integrity. It’s true across many animal species that in order for mating to occur, the female must repress her natural instinct to resist that kind of personal invasion — and in some species the line between fighting and fucking is never clear. Humans obviously don’t have that trouble, but a human female is an animal nonetheless with her own base instincts.
The shocking thing about sex for the first time if you’re a girl is that breaking down of the most personal of barriers. My own initiation certainly wasn’t in any way forced, and I was an ethusiastic participant. But it nevertheless felt like an invasion of my bodily integrity — a violation, if you will — that was emotionally as well as physically profound.
When I was in college and comparing notes on sex was the norm (being the young things that we were), other women always said the same thing, about how amazing and freaky it was to have another person inside your body. Thrilling and pleasurable, but also deeply shocking in a way. And the guys would say that they couldn’t imagine it, since sex for them was something external, something you do TO somebody else, not something that gets done to you.
I’m not complaining, you know. I think men might be missing what it is that can make sex feel so profound and intimate.
As for the “violence” involved in intercourse, ahem, ahem. Rather than try to explain I’ll just refer to Amanda’s* term for it: “bedrocking sex.” Being on the receiving end of that is a lot of fun, but I don’t know how anybody could say that it isn’t in some way violent.
(*I think it was Amanda.)
-
Older says:
Well, I don’t know that I consider “bedrocking” sex to be violent against *me,* because I also am contributing to that bedrocking action. That said, I do agree that penetrative sex could be considered “violation” if not done by mutual consent, but so could any other form of sex. In my opinion.
-
KC says:
Dr. Socks said:
You know, we’re all animals, and we have a fundamental instinct to preserve our own bodily integrity. It’s true across many animal species that in order for mating to occur, the female must repress her natural instinct to resist that kind of personal invasion — and in some species the line between fighting and fucking is never clear. Humans obviously don’t have that trouble, but a human female is an animal nonetheless with her own base instincts.
It’s not so clear that humans don’t have this trouble. Consider the Darwinian “purpose” of female orgasm and particularly of the fact that females can be stimulated and reach orgasm without penetration (or any substitute for it). Isn’t that an evolutionary mistake? Women can get what they want without perpetuating the species? But presumably the evolutionary value of the clitoris is just what you describe for other animals–it provides a means to override the female’s natural instinct to avoid personal invasion.
-
Alon Levy says:
I thought the clitoris and the female orgasm have no evolutionary value, but are simply pleasurable by-products of the evolution of the penis, just like the male nipple is a by-product of the female nipple.
-
alphabitch says:
Oh yes, the porn crusades.
I was one of them, back when I was an innocent young lesbian. I even went around and did the slideshows and facilitated those discussion groups about it. And I can remember endless discussions about how of course sex with men == violence == rape — and so did penetrative sex of any kind, even if we did it with another woman — and in fact if we were going to be pure, we had to admit that the female orgasm itself was an oppressive tool of the patriarchy (I swear I’m not making this up), that sex shouldn’t be so “linear” or “goal-oriented,” and since some women couldn’t have orgasms at all, none of us should.
Or something.
I think, historically (sorry – herstorically) speaking, the “sex-positive” feminist thing was at first a reaction to that kind of mindset. We were feminists & everything, but we wanted to get laid, too. And it really pissed off a lot of our so-called sisters, back in the day.
Plus, I mean, isn’t the whole multiple-orgasm thing one of the best things about being a girl?
-
Chris Clarke says:
I thought the clitoris and the female orgasm have no evolutionary value, but are simply pleasurable by-products of the evolution of the penis,
An incentive for women to engage in behavior that might lead to reproduction has no possible evolutionary value? You usually think things through better than that, Alon.
-
Violet says:
alphabitch, the first time I encountered the “no more penetrative sex!” idea — in an article in Ms. magazine in the 70s — it seemed like a spring fashion show from Paris: utterly absurd and nothing anybody could ever wear; just an exercise in ideas.
Most mainstream hetero feminists never took any of that seriously, so in that sense the sex-positive movement was a reaction to something that most of us weren’t even on board with in the first place.
But I suppose that leads into the whole split between academic radical feminism and mainstream feminism…
-
gordo says:
Chris–
He didn’t say that there was not –possible– evolutionary value. I find the “clitoris as by-product” theory more plausible than the “clitoris as evolutionary necessity” theory. It’s my contention that women would still desire the intimacy of sex, even if they had no clitoris. And there are women who have undergone female circumcision who still consent to sex.
-
Violet says:
Gordo, I don’t think your contention actually speaks to the evolutionary issue. The clitoris probably evolved millions of years ago. I don’t think our hominid ancestors had deep feelings about intimacy and whatnot.
As for mutilated women in the modern world, like all modern humans their behavior is shaped by their society.
-
alphabitch says:
VS: If only I’d encountered it first in a magazine, I could have avoided all manner of heartbreak. No, I first encountered it on a date. Or what I’d been hoping was a date.
I was sorely disappointed to learn that the hot radical feminist
babeswomyn I found so fascinating were way more controlling & moralizing & uptight about sex than, well, than anything I’d ever encountered in my permissive hippie-liberal upbringing.Talk about yer consciousness-raising. I liked sex way too much to travel very far down that road, though my intentions were good. I did learn to sort of pretend that I wasn’t having an orgasm, though. That’s a useful skill, eh?
-
Ampersand says:
You know, we’re all animals, and we have a fundamental instinct to preserve our own bodily integrity. It’s true across many animal species that in order for mating to occur, the female must repress her natural instinct to resist that kind of personal invasion…
Janine Garofalo, in her stand-up act, once said something that I think was getting at what you’re talking about here (paraphrasing from memory): “Have you ever been having sex and the guy’s on top of you, and you’re having a great time, and then suddenly you just punch him in the face as hard as you can? You know, just… pow! Stop fucking me!“
-
cicely says:
I was sorely disappointed to learn that the hot radical feminist babes womyn I found so fascinating were way more controlling & moralizing & uptight about sex than, well, than anything I’d ever encountered in my permissive hippie-liberal upbringing.
Is it too soon to laugh about this, alphabitch? (No, it isn’t… ) Until recently though I was still pretty angry about it all. I had to work through some stuff from my past when I was triggered by discussions on a mainly radfem, lesbian-feminist board last year. I always thought back in the time that lesbian-feminists should have called themselves feminist-lesbians – then we’d have had a better chance of knowing who was who before the dating stage! Much havoc and yes, actual pain, was wreaked(?) on an already vulnerable subculture, and my feeling is that this is still rather glossed over or otherwise under-acknowledged. Pain on both sides (of the sex wars) as has been pointed out to me, but I think harder on the lesbians who weren’t part of it and never saw it coming.
-
Bitch | Lab says:
OK. So a lot’s changed since the days of the goddess sculpture. However, it appears to me that Butterick is still making patterns that I swear to dog I saw 1980 while browsing patterns for Home Ec class.
-
alphabitch says:
Cicely,
If one can laugh, and laugh without dismissing the pain, then it’s hardly ever too soon to laugh about stuff, in my opinion, or it festers and oozes and hurts like hell. In my case, however, this was twenty-some years ago, so it’s safe to laugh.
I see what you mean, though, about the pain on both sides. And as I think about exactly why it’s so painful, I’m struck by something obvious: our sexuality (whatever form it takes) is so essential and intimate and deep, that an attack to it, whether in the form of rape, or censure/judgement by our peers, or those godbag pharmacists calling us sluts and refusing to dispense emergency contraception, or dickwad legislators trying to ban abortions. Obviously, there are differences in degree and the nature of the pain/rage response, but there it is. I’m not saying that everyone who judges or labels another’s sexual behavior is a rapist, but both are using a person’s essential sexuality as a weapon to — on some level — control them. And it’s a damn powerful weapon.
I’m going to have to think this through a bit more.
And B|L: yeah, I think I made that freaking suit in about 1977. In yellow.
-
belledame222 says:
I get the point about penetration as violation, although I think the word “violent” and its relations have such strong connotations that it’s hard to put them aside. Certainly there is something profoundly…existentially unsettling, I want to say, about *having another person inside you,* yes. Or vice-versa (the whole “vagina dentata” thing suggests that there is indeed some deep-rooted fear of engulfment as well as penetrative invasion of one’s own space).
Ultimately it comes down to boundaries; as does, I’d argue, the whole notion of “objectification” in general (I am thinking of the psych notion of “the object” here, among other things). Next series of posts on this, I think.
But ultimately I think the “no penetration” thing, like everything else, is maybe best viewed as a reification of a deeper, more symbolic protest:
“Get out of my space. I feel like there’s nothing left of me, I can’t see myself anymore, I can’t breathe”
or, more simply,
“Good fences make good neighbors.”
As with most reifications, it tends to get a bit silly-sounding, once reified, especially as a dictate for all (as opposed to a personal preference).
-
belledame222 says:
…and by the way, to follow up on a thread I think I left hanging somewhere way back on this board, it’s partly this existential oddness that I mean when I say that that eating and fucking have a lot in common. In some ways, eating is even weirder: you’re taking a creature, or a part of it, that was once alive and had an identity in its own right (even a plant counts as such, after all) and incorporating it into your own body, to *become* part of your own body.
-
Violet says:
“Have you ever been having sex and the guy’s on top of you, and you’re having a great time, and then suddenly you just punch him in the face as hard as you can? You know, just… pow! Stop fucking me!“
Amp, I’m still laughing at this.
