Anonymous # 8. August 2009, 03:24
Becky writes:

I think Merkin makes a good point that although Maddow is considered "butch," the studio softens ("prettifies") her appearance with makeup, a familiar entity worn by any straight/feminine female journalist counterpart. Maddow and the studio underhandedly blur gender lines with a typically "male-gendered" butch wearing makeup, culturally coded for feminine individuals.

This author points out it is Maddow's agency in being aware of the system; ndeed, appealing to more audience and reaching more viewers with her message. This author assumes it is the "male viewers" that will have the problem with a more hard butch appearance. But still, Maddow does not tuck away her butch identity.

Dear Becky,

Thank you for your comment.

(1) It is not my contention that Dr. Maddow is really hiding her gender identity - although to fully explain this would require a conversation about the inherent deliberateness (even if unthinkingness) of gender presentation, and I suspect that this is not the time for that.

Maddow is not ‘considered “butch”’ - she self identifies as butch. In fact, as long as we’re talking about other people’s perceptions of her gender identity, there are a significant segment of people who do not consider her to be butch, even off screen (without the makeup and lady-clothes, with the poindexters). These things are worth noting.

(2) Re blurring gender lines - anyone who does not conform to the current socially accepted and mandated gender cues which are indicated for their sex is blurring gender lines, or at least calling attention to them. This is not specific to Maddow or MSNBC, although her show is a highly visible example of such a situation. To say that she and the studio are ‘underhandedly blur[ing] gender lines’ by putting her in makeup that she normally would not wear and that is not generally understood to be within the realm of butch gender identity signifiers is a statement which, because of the use of the word ‘underhandedly,’ indicates intention - we cannot be sure that they have this. That is, we cannot actually say with any accuracy (at this point) whether or not they are blurring gender lines intentionally.

If they were, I don’t think that I would use the word ‘underhanded’ with its distinctly negative connotation to do so. Assume that Maddow and MSNBC are intentionally calling attention to the interplay of gender, sex, and sexuality in our culture - they aren’t doing it in secret, seeing as how it’s on television, and they aren’t doing it dishonestly either, as Maddow is open about her gender identity and that she is wearing the ‘assistant principle’ clothes because that is what is required to be on television.

(3) At any rate, for the reason why her makeup and other feminine signifiers (those she would not wear normally) disturb me, look to what you pointed out in your comment about the type of makeup Maddow wears on air as ‘a familiar entity worn by any straight/feminine female journalist counterpart.’ It isn’t a problem for me to see Rachel Maddow in particular wearing it, and as I tend to follow her other television appearances as well, I am aware of the contrasts between how she presents herself on her show, not on her show, on vacation for photos with a caught fish, etcetera. You’ve realized that every female news personality, whether they are an actual journalist or not, presents with certain feminine signifiers on the air. Heavier, or more dramatic, make up than what most of them (or most women) would wear off air is one of these. Clothing that ranges from business casual to professional but is also very clearly chosen to indicate their lady-ness is another signifier. Jewelry is a third; actually, I find that Maddows presentation on air is rather conspicuous in its lack of jewelry.

(4) Actually, a case can be made that most female news personalities wear clothing that is not strictly professional, or at least not held to the degree of professionality that the clothing of their male counterparts is. What I mean to say here is that the standards for conservativeness of cut, colour, style, and decoration are very different for male and female news personalities. Although conservativeness in clothing and professionality in clothing are not the same, and should not necessarily be the same, right now our social definition of what is professional business attire mandates a high degree of conservativeness in those areas for both men and women. Find photos of actual lawyers (not tv lawyers) practicing actual law for this. At any rate, the standards of conservativeness for male and female newscasters are noticeably different. Often, these differences are utilized to further emphasize femininity.

If I had more energy this is where I would put the analysis of clothing style, function, and decoration throughout time as it has related to proscribed sex roles in society. At any rate, I shouldn’t have to, it’s fairly obvious that men’s clothing (and clothing made for women but which is not perceived as ‘feminine’) includes an emphasis on basic function, such as walking, standing, sitting, reaching for things, and so on. Women’s clothing is mostly made to look pretty, and the industry of women’s clothing revolves around appearances and maximizing conformity to certain standards of beauty. If you doubt this, google ‘dress for your body type’ - the results will not help you find cuts of clothing that fit you better. Also, go see ‘Good Hair’ when it comes out - it looks awesome, and should also serve to make it clear that there are also class, socio-economic, and racialized elements at play here.

This is not to say that style and fashion are bad, and that people should strive to pay as little attention as possible to what they put on their bodies (I don’t think this), but fasion and style, and we when we participate in them, perpetuate things which are highly problematic and also rather harmful.

(5) For the most part, in order to be a lady anchor, one must wear one’s hair in a feminine manner, colour it, use products on it so that it appears shiny and healthy, wear conspicuous make up, and wear conspicuous clothing and accessories. For the most part, Maddow actually bucks this. But what is important here is that almost all female news personalities, with the rare exception, must do this to be considered acceptable for television. This is a problem. It is not just a problem in Maddow’s case, when she wears make up that she would not normally wear, but a problem for any woman, whether she would normally dress that way or not. It is also a problem for any man. This is a human problem, not a woman problem, as is the continuing need for feminism (which today I like to style as the open acknowledgment and acting out of the truth that women, regardless of gender, sexuality, reproductive situation, and so on are human beings with all full dignity, personhood, individuality, and worth which that entails).

So, yes, it is a problem when any anchor is prettified in order to be suitable for television, and this is not in the least because extraneous make up, hair styling, and deliberately feminine clothing styling are absolutely irrelevant to their jobs.

(6) Being aware of something does not constitute agency. This is something which it is important to know for life. In addition, participating in something does not always mean that the person participating is doing so absolutely of their own free will and would also do so with no constraint. In this case, Maddow has been open about the fact that the suit jackets are a requirement for television. She does not wear them otherwise, as she does not wear makeup otherwise.

(7) It is also worth it to note that with the exception of her recent appearance on Late Night with Conan O’Brien, she appears on television shows that are not her own with a decidedly more natural gender presentation - one that does not include extraneous make up. There is the odd jacket in the mix, however.

(8) You seem to take it on faith that because Merkin writes that Maddow is reaching a wider audience, straight men specifically, because of her altered appearance, it is true. Please do not believe everything you read in The New York Times. Especially, do not believe everything you read by Daphne Merkin; she does not exactly have a history of being responsible for actual journalism.

I understand that you probably won’t be back to read this, and that’s fine. But since I actually wrote this much, I’m making it it’s own blog post. That way, I won’t feel bad about not posting for at least a couple of weeks.