An article in the Washington Post today talks about some historians who are trying to counter the ideas about Martha Washington.
This just in: Martha Washington was hot. Or at least hotter than we thought.Our image of the mother of our country, vague and insubstantial as it is, is drawn from portraits painted after her death showing a frumpy, dumpy, plump old lady, a fussy jumble of needlework in her lap, wearing what could pass for a shower cap with pink sponge rollers rolled too tight underneath.
But today, 250 years after Martha and George tied the knot, a handful of historians are seeking to revamp the former first lady's fusty image, using the few surviving records of things she wrote, asking forensic anthropologists to do a computerized age-regression portrait of her in her mid-20s and, perhaps most importantly, displaying for the first time in decades the avant-garde deep purple silk high heels studded with silver sequins that she wore on her wedding day.
I'm all about providing more accurate historical representations of important women, but the focus on her looks and her weight is more than a tad offensive.
What do you all think?
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Even founding mothers can be sexy!.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/11753
Agreed, I'd be more interested in who she was than what she looked like. But I think some of this is a new technology that someone somewhere is all proud of, because I recently saw a similar thing on TV about George Washington's appearance, and I think Lincoln too. Not that that excuses it.
People should probably realize in general that when you only have one portrait of someone done when they were old, they probably didn't look like that when they were young.
I was interested to hear the new details they've uncovered, but it doesn't really seem like that big a deal. Everyone was young once.
Well, you know - women are only interesting if they're fuckable.
It is highly insulting, because had she not been considered attractive, would she have been any less successful as a business woman?
Also, something women seem to gain in retrospect (you know, the looking at old photos and saying, "Damn, I looked good! Why was I so hard on myself?")- is that most people are attractive or attractive to SOMEONE. It's the same problem I have with historians painting Cleopatra as some haggish woman with a big nose. Who cares?!?!
I think it's interesting to see images depicting people who have become part of our cultural myths, or who were around pre-photography, as they "really were".
The picture of young Martha from the article:
http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2009/02/02/PH2009020201304.jpg
The rendition looks well done, in that she doesn't look much different than you or I might at age 25 or so... like what MissKitty said, everyone was young once.
Seeing royals, etc as they really were, and not how someone imagined them years later, or made them look to gain favor, is interesting as well, going to show that looks really have nothing to do with anything if you were born into power or were capable enough to gain some power for yourself. (Cleopatra, Napoleon, etc.)
And Charles II of Spain, woah. Paintings are unkind enough...
How is imagining what Martha Washington looked like as a young woman any different than the publication of President Obama's baby pictures in various mediums in the past few months? Other than the fact she's a woman. And this article seems to be written as publicity for Mt Vernon, which is displaying her shoes for 3 more weeks, until they go back under lock and key for ten more years.
Oh. My. God. Seriously?
Number one, computerized age regression is just a really nifty, more scientific looking, shot in the dark. The validity of its results is debated throughout the scientific community making it a very controversial technique; essentially because there is a human controlling the regression process and no matter how unbiased they are, a certain degree of personal judgement is involved, thus inadvertently involving some of the programmer's deep-seated cultural beliefs. But, of course, whereas this technique has become controversial within the professional setting, in the media it's been widely accepted because it provides a visual image and we are visual creatures. Age regression and other physical reconstructions are to the social sciences what a questionable eyewitnesses is to a jury.
Number two, are we so age-obsessed that regardless of their impact, people are useless, boring, and "dowdy" if they're not young and beautiful? I'm somewhat comforted by the comment that the same thing has been done to Washington and Lincoln, from a feminist perspective, but the fact that we're spending research funding in the middle of an economic crisis because we can't bare to think of our founders as anything but youthful and "sexy" is just so ageist and disheartening.
Oh, and as for Cleopatra, lucky for her, because she was considered so beautiful back in her day, at least historians still pay attention to her, even if it is only to refute her great beauty - there were at least three other female pharaohs and no one writes much of anything about them.
I'm gonna kill somebody. This idealization of women needs to stop.
She was who she was! We're not gonna change the dollar bills because George's cheeks look too saggy!
I hate to be the loan contrary opinion, but I think the article focuses on her looks and weight, while the historians it seems are trying to portray her as a whole person with the ability to run an estate participate in politics (as much as possible) and even have a sexual life.
But, yes, the article is offensive.
Jesus Christ on a cracker. Will women never be exempt from the fuckability requirement?
I'd be much more interested in "surviving records of things she wrote", hopefully, personal letters, something that showed me who she was. That to me would be rather interesting, much more so than what she looked like. This culurial/media obsession with valuing a woman's worth based on what she looks like is highly irratating. It seems down right ridiculous when applied to Martha Washington whose been dead for some 200 years now. wth people.
That said, I'd probably be up for seeing her deep purple shoes, as a curiosity, but only because old shoes are interesting to me. Her value as a person isn't changed by whether or not they are "cool" or whatever. I just think it would be neat.
I AM interested in historical figures in their youth-- pretty or not. It gives you more of a connection with them and the times if you don't think that they sprung up out of thin air aged and distinguished. Makes them more human. Fleshes them out. It also helps inspire the youths of today to see that historical figures had their own childhoods. Plus, I have an interest in historical fashion and style.
(Did you know that "macaroni" was a overblown fashion style for the foppish gents of Europe, as in "stuck a feather in his cap and called it macaroni")
hey. always enjoy coming across somebody who knows or even more CARES to know what a macaroni was ;-)
I've never heard of this quote before though. Where is it from, I'd love to know if you remember!
You've never heard "stuck a feather in his cap and called it macaroni" ? You must not be American. Its from the song Yankee Doodle.
This isn't a new idea. I remember hearing years ago on a tour of Mount Vernon that Martha Washington was considered very pretty and much was written of her fashionableness. Granted, this wasn't sensationalized like it is here.
Actually, plumpness was considered attractive back in the day. Beauty ideals change over time, and it was only very recently (in the past 50 years or so) that thin has become attractive.
Yay, changing the view past so that it can further reinforce the beauty ideals of today. /sarcasm
ok....not gonna lie, i want to see the shoes. picture link anyone?
I saw a picture along with the article posted elsewhere... not sure where, sorry. Anyway the shoes looked really strange, maybe they have deteriorated somewhat over the years.
Oh thank goodness, she was doable. History can continue, now!
oh, i'm so glad you posted this. it made me so mad when i read that article yesterday. apparently patriarchal beauty standards apply even 200 years posthumously. no suprise there's a media "controversy" surrounding jessica simpson's weight.
As a historian, I think it's important to remind people that historical figures were not their painted images. It may sound silly, but it's true. Winston Churchill comes to mind. When he was young, he was rather handsome and had curling golden hair. Seeing a picture of him as a young man can be shocking, because everyone's mental image of him is as an old drunk.
I see this much more as, "Look, she's a real person, just like people you see every day". The comments that she was pretty seem more like a compare and contrast to *old*Martha. Nowhere does it say she has a nice rack...Because that sort of thing really would be wrong. The only really specific comments I recall were that she was generally tiny when she was young, with tiny hands and feet, which speaks to a small frame. Just my two cents...
Hm, I thought we were supposed to be able to be both smart AND sexy. What I find more offensive is that every great woman leader from before modern photography is portrayed only in chaste matronhood and not as a full, nuanced woman who (god forbid) may have wanted to wear purple shoes with sequins.
I personally think that it's great if it paves the way for me and my daughters not to have to "pick" between brains and beauty.