UP until now, most women in advanced age maintained outward vestiges of femininity, belonging as they did to a culture that honored it. Though they might wear pants, detracting from the softness of their form, they would also wear light-colored, feminine blouses, have their hair done into puffy styles, and perhaps use lipstick. But these were women who did not grow up under the true Cult of Androgyny. These were women who took pride in their femininity and did not despise it, as feminists have taught us to despise ourselves.

Now the first women who were introduced into the Cult of Androgyny in youth or middle age are approaching the extremes of life. Yesterday, I saw a depressing sight.

She was a woman, probably in her eighties, slowly walking down the street with a cane. My first thought was that she was a tiny old man. Her hair was short and no-nonsense. She wore jeans and a dark green, zippered sweatshirt. There was nothing decorative about her. There was not a shred of anything useless. Feminine ornamentation brightens our surroundings and defies utilitarianism even on a very old woman. These clothes, normally ugly on a young person, look dramatically worse on an old person.  Old age alone removes many signs of the woman. Add unisex clothes to the mix, and the woman is gone. Femininity does not ultimately consist of clothes. The clothes express the person. So when we say the woman is gone, she is gone because she left her own essence. But clothes, in turn, affect the mentality and styles are imposed by a culture. What does a no-nonsense woman in very advanced age do with her no-nonsenseness?

There are going to be lots of Puritanical man-women like her soon. Perhaps they are truly in the American tradition, as the Puritans abhorred ornamentation too.

John Singleton Copley, Mrs. Anna Dummer Powell

I wonder if these Puritanical, androgynous … What are they? We cannot call them ladies! But can we even call them women? How about persons? I wonder if these persons will be unhappy in some way they cannot pinpoint. After all, they have been robbed. They should feel cheated. A feminine older woman, in her delicacy and fragility, evokes warmth from others. One senses in her, maternal affection and tenderness, things of which the world never, ever, ever has enough. One senses her feminine dignity. A tiny, fragile gnome is interesting perhaps, but not attractive. Androgyny has cheated her of her essence.

We should love these elderly gnomes. After all, they are ours. Like all very old people, they do not have to have any usefulness or even be likable. Their purpose is to be and to sanctify us by eliciting our charity and protectiveness simply by their being and by their undeniable state of dependency. But their androgyny will rob us too. It will rob us of some of the reassuring landscape of age.

— Comments —

A young woman writes:

I think it is sad that lipstick is presented as an essential element of femininity. This is not only far from true but also quite absurd. Lipstick by absolutely no means makes one more of a woman. In fact I would argue that such things go beyond upholding femininity and dignity and rather fall within the realm of superficiality and vanity. They are additional, falsifying features after all. I say this in regard to all make-up. Our Lady would never have worn make-up. I believe that it is unbecoming for Christian women and there are quotes by the Church Father’s to prove this attitude.

Another topic that has recently struck me is that of women’s hair. I did some research on this topic, having been told by some Protestants that it is was not until feminism that women began cutting their hair and wearing them down. I found that in fact the attitude towards women’s hair in the Middle Ages was strong and consistent: this represented woman’s femininity and hence was to be uncut, but it also, in the fallen world, displayed her seductive power over man and hence it was to be tied back (in varying fashions).

My counter-revolt against feminism continues now with learning to wear my hair in elegant styles attached to the head.

Laura writes:

I’m glad for your counter-revolt. I applaud your efforts and appreciate your concern, but I never said, or meant to suggest, that lipstick is an “essential” element of femininity. That would be quite a ridiculous argument — and something I positively do not believe, as there are may feminine-looking women who never wear make-up. I gave it as an example of how women have tried to enhance their appearance and look less masculine.

I do not think make-up is “essential” for any one.

I understand why some people find all make-up distasteful, artificial, false or unhealthy and just don’t like the way it looks. It can indeed be a sign of a decadent culture or person. But I don’t view it as immoral when used in moderation or with the right attitude.

Our Lady was beautiful in ways we can never be because she was without sin and that was evident in her appearance. Many Catholic women through the ages have becomingly ornamented their appearance in ways Our Blessed Mother never would have done. It is the vocation of some to follow absolutely her simplicity and poverty, and by doing so they enrich a culture at large and counter tendencies toward vanity, but it is not immoral for others to enhance their dress and appearance, even to seek sumptuous dress and appearance, provided they aren’t vain or over-indulgent. Beauty that is the result of artifice is not evil. It is not all superficiality. It is not immoral.

Long hair is very feminine and there are so many beautiful things one can do with it. It is the feminine ideal. However, again, I do not accept the idea that it is any kind of dogma of the Catholic Church that women must wear their hair long or cannot be feminine with shorter hair. Hair stylists are able to accomplish great things today, very feminine looks, with shorter hair (there are also very masculine looks too). Many women cannot afford these great looks, and long hair is practical and beautiful when arranged in different ways. When women all had long hair, they often wore headpieces, some of which could become elaborate and expensive. Perhaps that style will return, and perhaps it is better, but then most certainly some will criticize certain head ornamentations as being artificial.

I also think women would wear less make-up if they had more beautiful clothes to wear and not the mass-produced uniforms that are generally available. By “beautiful,” I don’t mean necessarily expensive. Women in peasant cultures have had beautiful and practical clothes in the past, and in some parts of the world they still do.

The young woman responds:

In fact I was not sending that response to your brief comment “and perhaps use lipstick.” I was responding Rachel from Alaska who wrote “I often remind our daughters (11, 9, and 7) that when I am old ‘no matter what put my lipstick on.’ They know what that means… that I still want to look like a woman!”

Perhaps she means for her daughters to understand that she is using an expression, that “lipstick” is representing femininity. But in that case my point would still stand.

I agree with what you wrote about Our Lady. But it was also in a way her purity of soul that manifested itself in her body.

About hair, one could say the exact same thing about women wearing pants. There is no dogma of the Church that states women cannot wear pants. But it is nevertheless of the Catholic spirit. Moreover, there are supposedly “tasteful” pants and women most often still look like women (especially since the pants are usually tight and hence actually emphasis the figure, in which case they are immodest but perhaps still “feminine” in some sense). If the Church always had an attitude toward something, it sounds modernist to say “well now the culture is different so we can do differently.” I don’t see why we could not have had hairdressers in the past who could cut the hair short in varying fashions. It’s not like we have become a new species, and it would be strange to think we’ve “progressed” in regard to hair. In fact the hairstyles of the past were much more elaborate and required much more talent (and arm strength). I’ve found in trying to learn new styles that most of us women are untrained or quite lazy about doing our hair.

Laura writes:

It occurred to me in retrospect that you were responding to Rachel. But her comment was more about the importance of wearing a dress. My response about make-up applies to her comments as well.

Long hair is more feminine and is the Catholic ideal for a number of reasons. I am confident women are going to relearn the interesting things they can do with long hair. You mention pants, and that’s a good analogy. However, while it is common for priests to insist on no pants for women in traditional chapels, I have never heard of one insisting on long hair or banning make-up. So I do think they are not quite the same.

This article in Tradition in Action puts the case for long hair very well.

Notice in this lovely photo of Queen Matilde of Belgium, she has long hair and discreet make-up:

Please follow and like us: