THE COMPLEXITIES OF FEMINIST BODIES:
NEGOTIATING ENGENDERED SPACE

Charlotte A. Kunkel
Luther College, Decorah, IA 52101
E-mail: kunkelch@luther.edu

and

Linda Boynton Arthur
University of Hawaii at Manoa 96822
E-mail: larthur@hawaii.edu

Abstract: 
The relationship between women and their bodies has been an uneasy one for most of this century, and that relationship is accentuated for some feminists, due to the social, political, economic and gendered complexities of modern life.  Nearly thirty self-identified feminists, from varied locales and statuses across the United States, volunteered as participants in this study.  Using an innovative qualitative methodology called photoelicitation, the respondents were photographed and interviewed about their images. They were asked to consider how their feminist ideologies played out in terms of the visual expression of their feminist identities.  Specifically, they were asked to consider how feminism intersects with their bodies, and how this interaction is expressed in terms of body image and appearance. 
      In this paper, we focus on one of the emerging themes of the interviews, that of bodies and space. Through a feminist and self-reflective lens, we encouraged the women to discuss their images in terms of what feminism meant to them. Several salient themes emerged in the feminists' interviews about bodies and space. Among the most pertinent themes were power, visibility, vulnerability, and body size or weight.  As might be expected, ambivalence and incongruity also surfaced as there was frequently dissonance expressed between the photographed image and the mental image of the subject.
      Although similar themes emerged, there was a marked difference in this study in terms of participants’ level of politicization.  While each of the participants considered herself a feminist, they did not share similar feminist identities or visibly express that ideology in a similar way - each negotiated her interpretation of feminism in her own way. 

Key words: photoelicitation, engendered space, feminist identity, body image, body & space

I feel that I have an investment in keeping my body large.  I like the idea of taking up space, of being bulky, of being someone who has more physical presence, perhaps than someone who is really slim.  It goes completely against all this stuff I’ve ever been taught and the fact that when I was younger, all I wanted to be was thin, thin, thin (Savannah, a woman’s health professional).

      Identity construction is closely tied to the presentation of self in everyday life.  How we look and what meanings we ascribe to our appearances help us to create and negate identity claims.  In this study we interviewed feminists concerning the gendered nuances of appearance.   We asked how they created and maintained their appearances.  Further, we sought to understand what meaning these feminist participants ascribed to their dress and self-presentations.  
	Our research is grounded in the understanding that appearance is a primary form of communication (Stone, 1962; Roach-Higgins et al., 1995), and a mark of identity (Goffman, 1971).  As Banner (1983, p. 3) suggests, appearance is a “primary mark of identification, a signal of what they consider themselves to be.”  An understanding of appearance as a mark of identity implies subjective meanings of dress in addition to cultural meanings.  Complicating the understanding of identity construction are feminist and postmodern critiques of dualistic and universalistic notions of identities (Butler, 1990; Haraway, 1988).  Further problematizing the issue are the tensions around agency (Davis and Fisher, 1993).
	Many have written and hypothesized about the cultural significance of the body and appearance (Douglas, 1982; Shilling, 1993; Smith-Rosenberg, 1985; Synnott, 1993; Turner, 1984).  A sociology of the body perspective examines how the body is controlled internally via restraint mechanisms, and externally via appearance standards (Douglas, 1982; Shilling, 1993).  Turner (1984) connects the social control of the external body with patriarchal societies.  Most of these works however, remain at the cultural level of analysis.  For example, feminism has raised the issue of appearance in the context of patriarchy in which women are often (and only) valued for their appearance (Bordo, 1993a; Brownmiller 1984;  Chapkis, 1986; Henley, 1977; Schur 1984).  Standards of beauty derive from idealized images (Arthur, 1992) which have been documented as very narrowly defined and anglo-centric (Arthur, 1992, 1997; Bordo 1993b; Hill Collins, 1991; hooks, 1992).  Consequently, most women can not meet the beauty standards of western industrial culture, but strive nonetheless to meet these ideals.  The consumer culture feeds off the tension and ambivalences that exist between idealized images and reality (Faludi, 1991; Wolf, 1991).    In spite of the tension produced by these unreal images, beauty standards persist, and function within patriarchal systems as a means of social control of women (Arthur, 1992, 1997). 
	Western cultural norms of femininity, in which women are expected to be both beautiful and dependent on men, for example, have been well documented through critical analysis, as have pressures to conform to ideals of femininity (Freedman, 1986; Schur 1984; Wolf, 1991). Women’s bodies have also been analyzed as a site of resistance (Arthur, 1993; Bhaskaran, 1993;  Bordo, 1989; Fisher & Davis, 1993; Grosz, 1994; McAllister 1991). Unfortunately, scholars have less often taken an empirical approach toward documenting how women, much less feminist women, negotiate these boundaries between the real and the ideal in everyday life.  To focus on feminists is especially interesting because a feminist consciousness suggests awareness of the critiques of societal beauty standards as well as the awareness of social controls on the body. The question we sought to answer in the current study is, how then does a feminist consciousness in a patriarchal society play out on the surface of the body, through dress? To paraphrase hooks (1992), what ARE feminists doing about their appearance?
	In the current project, we extend a previous study  (Kunkel, 1995) that focused on asking feminists what appearance means to them.  In the current study, we expand the question to include feminist clothing and textiles scholars from the International Textiles and Apparel Association (ITAA) to develop the sample and explore the meanings attributed to appearance by clothing and textiles scholars.  In this way, we capture varied feminist subjectivities of dress, or the processes feminists themselves use in creating meaning.  We can then better answer empirically how some feminists make sense of appearance issues, how they choose to present themselves to the world, and whether (how?) feminist consciousness mediates appearance.  

Methodology
	The current research expands upon an earlier study (Kunkel, 1995) in which 35 self-identified feminists were interviewed about the meanings they assigned to their dress.   While the feminists from the original sample were articulate about their politics, they were less insightful regarding interpretations of their dress.  Consequently, in the present study, the authors included participants from ITAA to provide depth to our understanding of the relationship between feminism and appearance. In the current research project, we asked how feminists of varied backgrounds and occupational statuses made subjective meanings of dress.  We compared a sub-set of the original sample (14 women) of self-identified feminists to the ITAA sample (14 women).  We choose a sub-set of professional women in order to create the greatest comparability between samples (we excluded students).
	The feminist participants were all volunteers. The feminist participants from ITAA are academics and fashion designers who range in age from their 20s to their 60s, with most being in their 40s.  They were all white except for one Asian American.  No one openly self-identified as non-heterosexual.  The subset from the 1995 study is an occupationally professional yet “eclectic” group comprised of self-identified feminists ranging in age from their 20s to their late 40s, with most being in their 30s.  Their occupations vary, although many of their working environments are oriented toward women’s services, i.e., working in women’s studies, counseling, and women’s centers and health clinics.  The eclectic group is a bit more diverse racially and sexually than the ITAA group with four members of American minority groups and two women who openly self-identify as lesbian.
The same data collection methods were used for both groups.  All of the feminists chose to participate by responding to an ad calling for feminists to partake in an appearance study.  The method used to collect the data is photoelicitation, a technique developed by Collier (1967) and increasingly used by visual sociologists (Harper 1994).  Photoelicitation involves open-ended interviewing guided by photographic images.  Typically the images are made by the researcher (Harper, 1994), but as (Kunkel, 1995) argues, having the participants make their own images further develops the collaboration between researcher and subject.  This collaborative and dialogic approach between equals reflects the goals of feminist research methods (Frankenberg, 1993; Rienharz, 1992).  
In the study, the researchers provided participants with a self-timing camera.  Using the timer, most of the participants chose to structure their own images for the camera and took anywhere from two to 15 pictures of themselves.  A few asked the researcher to shoot the photos or provided their own photograph.  Face to face interviews using an open-ended questionnaire lasted on average one hour.  Interview questions included, “Please respond to your slide/photograph.  What do you see?”;  “What does feminism mean to you?”; ” Does your feminist consciousness ever conflict with your feminism?”; and “Are you happy with you image, body, appearance?”  Following the interview, photographs were collected and the recorded interviews were transcribed.  Using extensive quotes from the interviews in this paper, we give the feminists in our study their own voices, in order to explain their perspectives regarding feminism and appearance.  
 
Feminist Bodies and Space
	We began this project by examining the interviews on their own merit.  Using a grounded theory method, a salient theme that emerged from the current study was the issue of negotiating a feminist body in various physical and metaphoric spaces all of which are foregrounded in the landscape of hetero-patriarchy.  What we add to the literature is the inclusion of the subjective and nuanced meanings attributed to appearance as they are compounded by feminist consciousness.  
	In this paper, we report on several sub-themes that clarify the issues of bodies and space for the participants in this study.  The issues centered around themes of negotiating the  body as a powerful or serious image, negotiating visibility, avoiding vulnerability, creating comfort, and managing body size or weight.  

Power
	Participants regularly articulated having the desire to achieve an image that would be perceived as powerful.  The feminists often interpreted the image they saw in their photograph in terms of power.  The women discussed whether they appeared powerful or not powerful enough.  For example, Kristen, an entrepreneur, saw her image exuding power as she stood in a flowered print dress in front of her handmade fireplace:
I also like the contrast of what I was wearing and the kind of physical labor I had to put into that fireplace, contrasted with a dress that I wouldn’t do any of that kind of work in.  Even hunched over, I feel powerful. … I’m looking straight at the camera, which feels presently powerful.  Relaxed feels powerful to me.  [Tension is] there to dis-empower me.  So if I’m feeling relaxed, that says powerful.  And I look relaxed there  (Kristen).

Faith, on the other hand, experienced a bit of cognitive dissonance with regard to the visual image that apparently did not coincide with her mental image.  She did not feel that she presented a powerful image in her photograph, but to the contrary:
I don’t look like a politically active feminist kind, I feel like I look like a suburban housewife.  Kind of dumpy body, sort of conservative haircut, sort of WASPy, sort of whitebread kind of face, I don’t look like a streetwise person.  With all the flowers there, it just sort of adds to the innocence.   Frumpy, dumpy, over-feminine (Faith, a community activist). 
  
What is interesting to note is that both Kristen and Faith present conventional femininity cues in their self-presentations, but their evaluations of the feminine are quite the opposite.  For Kristen it adds to her composure, whereas for Faith it creates a “frumpy” housewife image.  
      A related power dynamic centered around presenting a professional appearance  while having the freedom to experiment with dress.  In the following quotes, the participants articulate the tensions of being a woman in a professional, albeit male dominant, work world, as well as being feminist.
I enjoy putting on makeup--I enjoy it and the heels and the whole bit.  For work I try to look professional, but feminine, whether I’m in pants or a skirt or whatever I happen to be wearing.  I think, to me a stereotypical feminist tends to be more butch and androgynous (Diana, a secretary). 

The whole thing is about makeup.  The only place I wear makeup is work.  I don’t wear it on weekends, I don’t wear it if I go out.  And the reason that got started was an age thing.  When I started at the [place of work], I was twenty-one years old and I had a big credibility problem.  So I dressed very professionally and wore makeup everyday.  And now, it’s what I do and if I stopped doing it, everyone would know.  And there are people giving me a bad time about it. ...This is an endless problem for me  (Tammy, business).

This [feminist]viewpoint created some interesting discussion over the last three years [since I have been department chair] as chairs and deans on our campus tend to wear suits. I was determined not to do that and received lots of comments, mostly in admiration from other administrators, that I had the guts to violate the unwritten code for female administrators (Helen, ITAA).

For example, when I have a breakfast meeting with members of the Board of Curators, I dress up--but not too much.  I want them to remember I’m a faculty member and cannot therefore, be intimidated by men, rather than a female administrator who is intimidated by them (Annie, ITAA).

As one of two female department heads, among 12 departments (and the other female is 6’ tall), my clothing and demeanor are intentionally serious, to avoid the ‘cute’ label that is often applied to women of my height (5’3 3/4”) (Debbie, ITAA).

I did smile in my photo, which is rare...  I don’t like to smile unless the photo is of a social event, because I INSIST on being taken seriously!  In my high school graduation photo I was very solemn--which was a real irritant to my Mom since there were many other good choices, but that attitude, about not being just a cute blonde, has been with me a long time (Sandy, ITAA). 

"The image I want to convey is more liberal, professional, someone who’s assertive, but not ... overly feminine"  (Melissa, ITAA).  

Professional appearance for these feminists involves being taken seriously and being seen as credible in a male dominated work world.  This entails avoiding labels of “cute,” and being seen as “overly feminine.”  This often becomes a visual achievement.  Additionally, conformity to the feminine cultural norms is remarkable, whether it is interpreted positively (as in Helen’s case) or not (Melissa) depends upon the individual.
Visibility
Many participants remarked on their visibility in their interviews.  Some dressed to be seen, while others dressed to avoid it.  (In)visibility was a common concern.   Mary ties her feminism to activism by “visual noise” when she describes her choice to have her photograph taken while she was in suffragette costume because it showed: 
… a couple of different things to me.  One is that feminists and suffragettes have been around for a long time. … [the costume has] a banner with ‘votes for women’ across it.  In those days, they didn’t wear buttons and I’m a very button wearing person.  Normally I have a minimum of one, usually three, and some of my pins.  But I’m a very visually noisy person, so I like having this picture because it joins feminists across time, as well as being something that I was involved in (Mary, a computer analyst).

Mary sees herself as an activist at the everyday level of wearing her feminism on her “sleeve.”  Being visible is part of that struggle for women’s rights.
      I am a bona fide, card-carrying feminist, and proud of it. This has gotten me into trouble occasionally.  I will not be passive, I will not be ignored.  Because of both my attitudes and my size, I can’t fade into the woodwork and that benefits me in teaching.  In some ways it allows me to be dominant and obnoxious.  I think I get away with behavior because I’m heavy (Sandy, ITAA).”

The necklace is my constant ploy for uniqueness and as such is the key feature to my dance between not standing out but yet not fading away.  My necklaces are a touch of individuality in a wardrobe that is generally neutral or black (Connie, ITAA).

Others see minimizing appearance as the route to equality. 
I think in real life, I try to fade into the background.  And I think I’m pretty successful at it too, in fact.  But for purposes of the captured image, I don’t want to do that at all.  I do want to foreground myself (Naomi, ITAA).

I think I’m a pretty forgettable person.  When I’m introduced in a crowd, people don’t remember me.  ...I don’t have any features that make me stand out in a crowd particularly, I think (Bianca, ITAA).

For a long time, I didn’t see myself as a feminist.  Yet I have spent my whole life resisting being treated like a female second class citizen.  To that end, I have gone to great lengths to neutralize feminine cues and maximize androgynous cues in my appearance and mannerisms (Connie, ITAA). 

Minimizing some features but calling attention to presence is another take on visibility.  As Paula illustrates, the presentation of a feminist self may be paradoxical.
I like that vest a lot.  It’s red, it’s a bold color.  I like that, but at the same time it covers my butt--very important feature in all my clothing.  I don’t own things that don’t cover my butt.  Yeah, and it’s weird because I don’t like attention to be called to myself very much, but I end up wearing these clothes that do that.  I don’t get it.  I guess my fear is to be boring and to be seen (Paula, researcher). 

Still others prefer conformity to traditional feminine roles regarding appearance: 
I think being a feminist is being a person who is not outspoken but assertive in ways to say that I’m on equal basis with males in what I do. I want to make my voice heard.  I think being a feminist is portraying female attributes in terms of being nicely dressed, well-groomed.  I think it means being recognized for my opinion (Barbara, ITAA).

I think women should be clean, shave their legs and underarms, use restraint when choosing jewelry to wear, always wear a bra in public, rarely wear heels (and never really high ones), only wear nylons when climate allows it, have long well kept, beautiful nails, be sparing with makeup, and pierce only their ear lobes (Lynn, ITAA). 

While Lynn presents a fairly rigid and narrow description of acceptable women’s appearance, what is common to the participant’s talk is the acknowledgment of patriarchy.  The notion of femininity and its problematized relationship to feminism is not clearly a positive or negative but is nevertheless present in the interviews. Naomi argues that feminism provides the space for the conversation to continue.
     I think there are a lot of people who are still trapped in the idea that feminists think that makeup is not OK, nice clothes are not OK and looking sexual is not OK.  But that is not what is in the current feminist literature. ...  in addition to which there has always been, I think, enormous space in feminism for breadth of ideas, for a really wide scope and alternative viewpoints (Naomi, ITAA). 
Vulnerability
A closely related theme to visibility of bodies in space is that of vulnerability.  Many participants identified a vulnerability of body to appearance and sexual objectification.  These feminists articulate a self-conscious attempt to avoid sexual objectification by controlling their own appearance.  Several participants in fact articulate their coming into a feminist consciousness specifically in terms of their appearance. 
     I do specifically remember my consciousness changing really dramatically when I was sixteen years old.  …  I would walk to school and down a busy street and I would get honked at and whistled at and that felt okay.  At the same time, I was experimenting with the very beginnings of sexuality and not seeing any problem with hugging and kissing and doing light playing around with guys. … I was told that the boys were flipping coins to see who would get to walk with me out to the parking lot and smooch.  I was appalled.  I felt totally depersonalized and trashed.  Within a month, I cut off my hair, stopped wearing pretty clothes, didn’t wear a bra, didn’t shave, started wearing T-shirts and overalls and frumpy clothes--I will not play this game...yeah.  I said basically inside my head, “You will take me as I am" (Kristen, entrepreneur). 

      It was just as I started graduate school in 1975 that I stopped using my body as a sexual invitation and began to use it as a resource for a professional accomplishment.  Walking almost a mile through a trucking district brought home to me how powerful your appearance is in broadcasting your intentions to others.  I couldn’t handle being treated as a sexual target and I needed to be taken seriously so I could focus on building the framework for the life I chose to have versus one that was culturally and genetically determined (Connie, ITAA).

      Both Kristen and Connie juxtapose a change in consciousness with similarly powerful stories of sexual objectification.  In each of their stories the resultant change in consciousness necessitates a change in appearance.  Many others told of how they manage their appearance choices to avoid sexual objectification and misinterpretation, and were careful not to expose too much of the body.
      For people to see that part of your body is intimate, to me at this point.  There was a time in my life when I didn’t care.  But as I started going out and doing things in the world...  Like I said, for my job, the clothes I wore covered up and I wasn’t really doing society sort of things in my personal life.  Now I am.  I’m doing political, I’m doing community, I’m doing other things where I don’t want them to be looking at my breasts.  I want them to look at my eyes (Nancy, political activist).

I know a part of my appearance has something to do with what you’re talking about, I mean asking those questions about feminism. … I don’t like exposing my body.  Or I mean, I don’t like to feel vulnerable to men.  So I know I dress a certain way (Jill, counselor).

I don’t like clothes which reveal my body a lot and I avoid them.  When I am in Indonesia, I am very careful to dress in a way that doesn’t offend THAT country’s codes, which are stricter than ours (Toni, ITAA). 

I suspect that my clothing... is a form of camouflage.  I don’t want to necessarily deal with a sexual level of my body.  I’m working, I’m an intellectual, and I prefer not to deal with sexual signals (Ginger, ITAA).

My feminist consciousness tends to conflict with dressing in a sexually inviting manner.  I am never comfortable in clothing that emphasizes sexuality (Connie, ITAA).

Each of the above quotes illustrates a desire not to appear too sexual to men in order to avoid harassment.  Many of the women in our sample used their dress to avoid feeling vulnerable to men sexually.  Jill and Lynn specifically mention the tension of objectification and appearance in relationship to men.  The desire to avoid objectification occurs simultaneously with the desire for some feminists to appear attractive and pleasing to men, i.e., “I don’t look sexy in jeans!”  Ironically, Lynn discusses dressing for a man, her husband, while Jill articulates a refusal to be available or “vulnerable” to men visually.  This tension is interesting because it highlights the extent to which these feminist women see themselves as in control of objectification while most are aware that objectification is done by men to control women. That feminist women change their appearance to avoid sexualization implies an active role to avoid objectification.
Physical and Psychological Comfort 
The pendulum between dressing so female you look like a playboy [bunny], as to dressing so male you look sexless, really needs a midpoint to be balanced.  I am happy to be working toward that midpoint where appearance can be attractive AND functional...  That is true comfort. (Connie, ITAA).

      Following on visibility and vulnerability, participants talked of striving for comfort in their appearance both physically and mentally.  As an ITAA member noted with regard to psychological comfort, “I want to be comfortable with who I am” (Naomi, ITAA).  Jill articulates the need to balance physical comfort within the confines of the norms of feminine fashion.
      I guess being comfortable is really important so when I wear heels sometimes it’s fun and sometimes I think “what’s the point, this is a ridiculous shoe”.  Sometimes it might conflict in that way, but not in a serious way.  It’s not like this isn’t me. … I mean I like to look nice but I like to look nice maybe in a different way than other people like to look nice.  I mean I always try to make sure that my clothes are clean and that I’m neat.  And my hair looks like it isn’t unkempt or whatever.  I don’t know what a feminist really looks like I guess.  I just know I like to feel comfortable (Jill, counselor).

Others also articulate the importance of physical comfort in their dress.

My clothing must be comfortable and convenient.  It should not droop down, ride up or cause me mental or physical discomfort.  It should be easy enough to care for that I can keep it neat and clean with minimum effort (Debbie, ITAA).

I think individuality [makes me comfortable].  Non-conformist in the sense that not being structured in dress.  What I mean by structure is wearing prescribed outfits that you can buy right off the rack, I guess.  Cookie cutter appearance.  Non-descript where everyone sort of looks like you.  My idea, I like color and texture.  But that’s just personal, I’m not sure that really makes me a feminist.  I do like comfort and self expression (Betty, ITAA).

Achieving comfort as a standard of feminist belief echoed throughout the interviews.  Costume historians have long noticed that there is a direct relation between restriction in women’s clothing and restriction in women’s roles.  Grace Vickary noted that “restriction in women’s clothing is the universal aspect that makes clothing feminine” (Morris, 1987).   Sandy (ITAA) stated “If my body is comfortable, then I am free to move, to act, to be whoever I want. If I am tightly bound by a straight skirt, I feel as if I am in chains and can’t wait until I take it off.”  Beyond the issue of garment fit, was discomfort caused by body size, again an issue with physical, psychological and sociological ramifications for our feminist interviewees.
Body Size
Body image arose as a salient issue in the participants’ interviews in several ways.  Body size encompasses issues of size or weight, mental incongruencies, and invisibility.  A fundamental concern of participants was body size, which arose in terms primarily in terms of participants being dissatisfied with their weight.  “My body appearance has always been a problem, even when I weighed 125 lbs. and had a 24 inch waist.  I was never as slim as some of my friends”(Lynn, ITAA).  “I am too fat; my stomach is too big” (Annie, ITAA).  Conversely, several participants saw their current weight as an advantage because of the cultural emphasis on thinness.  For example, 

My body today is much less lovely yet I am more comfortable with it because I no longer have to disguise reality.  Odd that gaining a mature body form helps in being taken seriously!  Now that I am bigger, my body actually helps in an image of personal strength (Connie, ITAA).

Additionally, several of the participants articulated tensions around body image by describing an incongruity between their mental image of themselves and the photographic image before them.  For example, 
What I see in the pictures isn’t what I see in my head.  When I’m face to face with that, I’m oh...it makes me look too round.  What I see in my head is ...a much more slender person than what’s there (Diana, secretary).  

Because even though I have an investment in remaining large, I still have...when I look at pictures of myself, I still have an expectation that I’m not going to look large in pictures (Savannah, women’s health advocate).

I see someone who is overweight and dresses to try to distract or camouflage it.  Contradiction?  Yes--My mental image of myself is when I was 21 and had no double chin and a 25” waistline (Lynn, ITAA).

Without the ‘truth’ of a mirror, I imagine my cheekbones are slightly more defined, eyes slightly bigger and upper lip fuller.  Overall I imagine I am definitely thinner;  1-2 dress sizes.  ...I usually have only one mirror in my living environment.  Knowing exactly what I look like I find can be really off-putting.  ... My image is changing with age.  I find the ‘real‘ and the imagined are getting further apart (Ginger, ITAA).

I don’t think of myself as being heavy. I was 104 lbs. when I graduated from college and I still think of myself as 104.  It’s when I look at a picture like this that I go “oh my goodness, I really am fat!” (Pat, ITAA).

This is a particularly icky picture because I had just no idea I was so heavy.  I had not seen myself as that heavy.  ...It’s always a shock to me that I’ve turned into a middle aged body.  ...I really do mind having changed in body shape a lot.  I think it would be untruthful ...to say that I don’t mind getting to look like a middle aged person... (Naomi, ITAA).

In the picture, I look shorter than I see myself, and larger in the hips despite the black clothing.  In my mental image, I am a MUCH taller, larger person.  The person in the photo is not particularly imposing in size or appearance.  ...Even though I look in the mirror every morning getting dressed, I don’t think I really see or look at myself.  ...I am not unhappy with my image but I think that’s because my mental image isn’t real accurate.  I’ve been this height [under 5’4”] and almost this weight since I was in 6th or 7th grade, so I still think I’m a giant. ...I don’t think I’m particularly attractive, but since I’m not stone ugly, I don’t really care, either (Debbie, ITAA). 

In candid pictures, I am always surprised to see a woman who’s not near so tall, not near so attractive, or near so thin as I see myself in my own head.  ...In this society, women are often evaluated by their looks in addition to other measures of success.  Generally what happens is if a woman looks good, she feels good.  If I feel good, because I’m very successful professionally, doesn’t it make sense then, that I should then think I must look good as well? (Sandy, ITAA)

If society expects women to be attractive in order to achieve success in whatever field they enter, perhaps the reasoning above makes sense.  If a woman becomes successful in her career, then the halo effect – that what is good is attractive -- might be used to explain her mental image of herself as more attractive than she finds her picture.  Perhaps the reasoning above is the inverse of that used by anorexics who believe that they must be thin to be successful, and if they are thin, then they are a success. By contrast, feminist women who have achieved success may use similar logic in viewing themselves as attractive.   
Discussion
In this study, we investigate feminist subjectivities of the visual expression of feminist consciousness.  We expanded on a previous study to further refine what meanings feminists attribute to their own presentations of self by including clothing and textiles professionals.  What we found is that for all of our participants, including the clothing and textile scholars, presentation of a feminist self is not neat or easily defined.  Rather, negotiating a feminist self is difficult for feminists. This study reveals that the negotiation of body and space is complicated by a feminist consciousness, given that we live in a patriarchal culture.  Negotiating the body in space necessitates meaning making of traditional femininity, the feminist critiques of femininity, and the visual stereotypes of feminists. Several salient themes emerge around body and space. These feminists articulate that presenting powerful images is important. They also relate the tensions around (in)visibility and vulnerability of dress. Furthermore, comfort and body size complicate the presentation of self.  
	Perhaps most significantly, this study finds that as feminists, there are variant strategies of identification, presentation, and activism.  We need not create hierarchies of feminist consciousness, but rather, as Sandoval (1991) argues, through acknowledgment and examination of differential consciousness, we can make clear the different spheres of theory and practice of feminisms.  This study is significant in that we clarify some of the diversity and complexity of presenting and ascribing meaning to a feminist self.  
      In addition, our study draws attention to some issues that need further exploration.  Our participants articulate several attitudes and strategies of appearance that reflect the varied phases their careers.  Future studies may elaborate on how dress and appearance are negotiated through ones’ career.  For example, does the academic notion of tenure allow for more freedom of dress after it is achieved?  Are there similar career benchmarks for other professions?  Does professional success mean not visually challenging the patriarchy?  Does it mean different things for different occupations?  
      To conclude, what we can say about feminist presentation of self is that we all must make sense of appearance, and whether or not it is a deliberate choice, we do present appearances to the world. These appearances are not presented in a vacuum or background of our own choosing, but are submerged in the social and interactional expectations of the occupations and contexts within which we find ourselves.  For feminists, that means making sense of, and devising strategies of, presentation in a patriarchal context.
References

Arthur, L. B. (1992).  Idealized images:  The social construction of femininities in two exclusive organizations.  University of California at Davis. UMI Microfilms.
Arthur, L. B. (1993).  Clothing, control and women’s agency:  The mitigation of patriarchal power.  In S. Fisher and K. Davis, (Eds.), Negotiating at the margins:  The gendered discourses of power and resistance. (pp. 66-86).   New Brunswick: Rutgers.
Arthur, L. B. (1997).  Clothing is a window to the soul:  The social control of women in a Holdeman Mennonite community. Journal of Mennonite Studies  15, 11-30.  
Banner, L. (1983).  American beauty.  New York:  Knopf.
Bhaskaran, S.  (1993).  Physical subjectivity and the risk of essentialism.  In the women of the south Asian descent collective, (Eds.), Our feet touch the sky:  Women of the south Asian diaspora (pp. 191-202).  San Francisco:  Ante Lute Books. 
Bordo, S. (1989). The body and the reproduction of femininity: A feminist appropriation of Foucault. In Jaggar and S. Bordo, (Eds.),  Gender/body/knowledge: Feminist reconstructions of being and knowing (pp. 13-33).  New Brunswick:  Rutgers.
Bordo, S. (1993a).  Material girl: The effacement of postmodern culture.  In C. Schwictenberg, (Ed.), The Madonna connection:  Representational politics, subcultural identities, and cultural theory (pp. 265-290). Boulder: Westview Press. 
Bordo, S. (1993b).  Unbearable weight:  Feminism, western culture and the body.  Berkeley:  University of California Press. 
Butler, J. (1990). Gender Trouble:  Feminism and the Subversion of Identity.  New York:  Routledge.
Brownmiller, S. (1984).  Femininity.  New York:  Linden Press.
Chapkis, W. (1986). Beauty secrets:  Women and the politics of appearance. Boston: South End Press.
Collier, J. (1967). Visual anthropology:  Photography as a research method.  New York:  Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Davis, K., and S. Fisher. (1993). Power and the Female Subject, in Fisher, S. & Davis, K.  Negotiating at the margins:  The gendered discourses of power and resistance.  New Brunswick: Rutgers.  3-20.
Douglas, M. (1982). Natural symbols:  Explorations in cosmology.  New York:  Pantheon. 
Faludi, S.  (1991). Backlash:  The undeclared war against American women.  New York:  Crown Publishers, Inc.
Fisher, S. & Davis, K. (1993). Negotiating at the margins:  The gendered discourses of power and resistance.  New Brunswick: Rutgers.  
Frankenberg, R. (1993). The social construction of whiteness: White women, race matters. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Freedman, R. (1986). Beauty Bound.  Lexington, MA:  D.C. Heath. 
Garner, D.M., (1997).  The 1997 Body Image Survey Results. Psychology Today. Sussex Publishers, Inc.
Goffman, E.  (1971).  Relations in public. New York:  Harper and Row.
Grosz, E.  (1994). Volatile bodies: Toward a corporeal feminism.  Bloomington:  Indiana University Press.
Haraway, D. (1988). Situated Knowledges:  The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective, “ Feminist Studies 14:3.
Harper, D. (1994). On the Authority of the image:  Visual methods at the crossroads, In N. S. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln, (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 403-412). Thousand Oaks, CA:  Sage. 
Henley, N. (1977).  Body Politics:  power, sex and nonverbal communication.  Englewood Cliffs:  Prentice-Hall.
Hill Collins, P. (1991). Black feminist thought:  Knowledge, consciousness and the politics of empowerment.  Boston:  Unwin Hyman.
Hooks, B.   (1992). Black looks:  Race and representation.  Boston:  South End Press.
Kunkel, C. (1995).  Visualizing identity:  Feminism, the body, and the politics of representation, University of Michigan:  UMI Dissertation Services.
McAllister, P. (1991).  This river of courage:  Generations of women's resistance and action.  Philadelphia:  New Society Publishers.
Morris, D. (1987).  The human race.  Television show. British Broadcasting Company.
Reinharz, S. (1992). Feminist methods in social research. New York: Oxford University Press.
Roach-Higgins, M.E., Eicher, J.B., & Johnson, K.  (1995).  Dress and identity.  New York: Fairchild Books.
Sandoval, C.  (1991).  U.S. third world feminism:  The theory and method of oppositional consciousness in the postmodern world, Genders, 10: 1-24.
Schur, E.  (1984). Labeling women deviant:  Gender, stigma and social control. Philadelphia:  Temple University Press.
Shilling, C. (1993). The body and social theory.  London: Sage. 
Smith-Rosenberg, C.  (1985). Disorderly conduct: Visions of gender in victorian America.  New York:  Alfred A. Knopf.
Stone, G. (1962).  Appearance and the self. In A.M. Rose (Ed.), Human behavior and social processes:  An interactionist approach (pp. 86-118).  New York: Houghton Mifflin.  
Synnott, A. (1993). The body social:  Symbolism, self and society. London:  Routledge.
Turner, B. (1984).   The body and society.  Oxford:  Blackwell.
Wolf, N. (1991). The beauty myth. New York: William Morrow.