Geek Love: Female Liberation = Female Mutilation?

Following up on my previous entry on Arty’s cult of deformity, as well as a brief in-class discussion of Miss Lick's attempted feminism, this post is about Miss Lick’s ideas about women's liberation from their bodies. Her goal seems to be to render women’s bodies so unappealing that they couldn’t possibly get by on looks alone, thereby forcing them to foster their more worthwhile qualities. She resents or dislikes the use of bodies as a source of profit, especially when there is an exchange of sex or sexual titillation involved. Psycho-analytically speaking, it could stem from her own insecurities or experiences as a conspicuous and asexual being. Her own lack of sexuality may lead her to believe that sexuality is a mere interference in an otherwise straightforward, profitable life. But, moving on. Her philosophy is laid out as follows:

“Miss Lick’s purpose is to liberate women who are liable to be exploited by male hungers. These exploitable women are, in Miss Lick’s view, the pretty ones... If all these pretty women could shed the traits that made men want them (their prettiness) then they would no longer depend on their own exploitability but would use their talents and intelligence to become powerful” (162).

The novel touches on some of the obvious flaws in the philosophy. Some women are happier being exploited than being covered in acid or having their thyroids tinkered with so they become afflicted with morbid obesity. One of her subjects attempts suicide. Others say it was the best thing that ever happened to them, allowing them to discover their inner talents. Yet, not every pretty woman has a brilliant interior waiting to be realized. Miss Lick is attempting to save these women from a life of prostitution and the dangers that lurk there. A noble goal, perhaps, as prostitution does have some inherent risks. Yet one would be foolish and shortsighted to argue that a major cause of prostitution is “prettiness”, and that a world full of ugly women is a world free from exploitation. Immobilizing or mutilating women’s bodies isn't exactly be a viable solution to the systemic problems that render women’s bodies exploitable on a massive scale. The novel demonstrates, in fact, that it probably isn’t a solution at all.

Much of the rest of the novel seems to prove that making a woman ugly/unusual looking does not guarantee that she will not be exploited. Later on in her career, Miss Lick changes tactics. Instead of targeting traditionally pretty women, she begins scouting the women at the Glass House. This place proves that there are virtually no physical features or bodies that are immune to what she sees as exploitation in one way or another. The very existence of the Glass House seems to render Miss Lick’s campaign a pointless endeavour. The men leer and cheer for all sorts of bodies; the more interesting or "freak"ish they are, the greater the interest. Further demonstrating the flexibility of bodily exploitation is the Binewski family, who make their entire living off the interest generated by their purposefully deformed bodies. Freakshows demonstrate that any of these people can definitely be “exploited” for profit. For instance, there is a fat lady in the family carnival; Miss Lick’s fat lady's on the other hand work in her office. I suppose the exploitability depends on the interests of the person occupying the "freak"ish body and the opportunities that are present to them.

Moving on to some questions and half-baked theories that came to mind during my reading. Exploitability comes about from the interest others have in someone's body. I’d suggest that if the interest in the body exceeds the interest in the person that inhabits the body, then that body can be considered “freak”y. The designation of freak is culturally informed, based on common consent (i.e. most people in a given time and location think a body is unusual/interesting, worthy of discussion, deviant). If a society agrees that a certain body is “freak"y then it is probably because the body deviates from some sort of expectation, specifically whatever the current idea of “normal” may be. Then, are women’s bodies inherently “freak"y? Miss Lick’s campaign fixes both tails borne of purposeful genetic manipulation as well as more mundane features (large breasts, pretty faces and slender bodies), as both are prone to being exploited (by men). But since when are breasts and attractive facial features deviant, in need of correction? Is their deviation just being female? Are the women more, or less, “freaky” when Miss Lick is done? Is an acid-worn face less exploitable than an attractive one? Further, are women only free to shine when men want nothing to do with them? Why is deformity liberating, especially, it seems, for women?

These are some of the thoughts I had when dissecting Miss Lick's ideas. Most problematic to me was the notion that it is the female body itself, instead of an oppressive system that places undue value on said bodies, that is the arena where the problem of exploitation should be rectified. Returning the emphasis to the bodies of these women in a new way does not seem to me to be progressing the "cause", as it further emphasizes the female body as a locus of meaning and power.