Angel in a pink dress under a pink glass ceiling

“You may try, but you cannot imagine what it is to have a man’s force of genius in you, and to suffer the slavery of being a girl.” George Eliot, Daniel Deronda, 1876

There are two glass ceilings for female writers and artists, arranged one on top of the other, a crystal palace of prejudice and illusion. There’s the transparent political and economic one, the barrier to equality of status and pay.

The other, under that, or above, I can’t see that far, I don’t understand technical details ’cause I’m a girl, and the light refracts so prettily, I wonder if I should buy that pink hat, is a rose-pink coloured barrier to having your work taken seriously.

This one, the pink one, was smashed in the 19th century by the Brontë sisters and Marian Evans, but they knew they could only break through if their ideas were camouflaged under male names.

They were not worried about commercial failure, or shocking people; they were worried about not being taken seriously.

Currer, Ellis and Acton Bell, and George Eliot, would have sold their books under their own feminine names and been admired for their romance and intelligence, for the local colour and dialects of their novels, their compassion for underdogs and their understanding of children and servants, for provocative scandals and the delicacy of their sentiments and morals. Pink.

Compassion, but not passion; feelings but not reasons; intelligence but not intellect; morals but not politics; wit but not humour; nurturing not building; melodrama not abstract symbolism; social satire but not revolution.

Even today, as in her own time, there are readers who attribute the philosophical and scientific principles driving Mary Shelley’s Gothic fiction Frankenstein to her husband.

Writing under male names was not female writers’ modesty, it was a covert declaration of war: “J’accuse”.

Shocking_Pink_SchiaparelliThe 20th century’s rediscovered PINK through Elsa Schiaparelli’s use of textiles dyed in “Shocking Pink” in the 1930s . Image: Wikipedia

Readers still expect women to write pink books, and make pink films, and there’s an awful lot of those, and literary agents and publishers are looking for boy-blue to flag the earth-moving big ideas.

Pink. Tender as baby’s flesh, innocent as the blush on a maiden’s cheek, the scent of rose petals and the sweetness of strawberries with cream, a poetic dream of love, the silken negligée strewn on the candle-lit bed, the colour of a coquettish tongue, the suggestion of sex without the mess.

From the softest bloom of dawn to the blazing glory of sunset, pink is our rescue from darkness, the wistful yearning to touch something greater and better than ourselves, and nostalgia for the people we might have been if experience and temptation hadn’t got in the way. That shade of pink is the colour of creation.

There’s another shade of pink which still giggles and trills and simpers more tea, vicar? Don’t the children look sweet? Look at that baby! A posy for your wife. And it’s charitable, too, a badge of Empathy and Do-Gooding.

Oh, bring me a devil dressed in pink, quick.

Gentle, caring, feminine, innocuous, virginal – wait! Pink can be powerful, depending on the woman wearing it.

195_24434_1 3x 001

Martin van Meytens, Portrait of a young woman said to be Maria Theresa, Archduchess of Austria, later Holy Roman Empress and Queen of Hungary and Bohemia. She had to fight a major European War to win acceptance of her right to rule, as a woman, the hereditary Habsburg territories. Image: Wikipedia

I, declares the Female Author, might wear pink, look pink, have been born pink, but I write with blood and iron. Dressed in a pink dress, with a garland of pink roses in my hair, I wield a sceptre of fire and hold the scales of justice. I am a woman, but I have the heart and stomach of a writer.

The most successful tragedienne of the late 18th and early 19th centuries, the only actor of either sex who fused the two dominant cultural ideologies of the age, Neoclassicism and Romanticism, was rare in having her work taken seriously, but she herself was not. Though she was acknowledged by many to be  a better actor than her male contemporaries, she was not given equal status to them.

And she was furious: Perhaps in the next world women will be more valued than they are in this.” (Sarah Siddons.)

Soon after publication of the Bells’ first novels, and a decade later of George Eliot’s, everyone knew or at least suspected that the authors were female, just as Robert Galbraith’s cover was quickly blown in 2013. But the books had shouted so loud that they had already shaken the glass ceiling until it smashed.


“I have as much soul as you — and full as much heart! …I am not talking to you now through the medium of custom, conventionalities, nor even of mortal flesh: it is my spirit that addresses your spirit; just as if both had passed through the grave, and we stood at God’s feet, equal — as we are!”

If the first dear readers of Charlotte Brontë’s Jane Eyre had known the writer was a woman they would have smirked over Jane’s cry for freedom. Oh, poor, plain, chatty Jane! How embarrassing for her. An hysterical woman screaming for attention. Love me love me Mr Rochester even though I’m poor and not pretty.

Under the impression that a man was communicating to them through an imaginary female body, the reader thinks – oh, if HE says so, perhaps there’s a point to all this spiritual and sexual equality thing after all.

And collusion with prejudice was the reason Charlotte wasn’t comfortable pretending to be a masculine writer: it felt like sleeping with the enemy. But, traditionally, playing along with the patriarchal system was how women had achieved enormous power over sexes and nations.

mariatheresa ghent

Martin van Meytens, Empress Maria Theresa, Town Hall Ghent. Image: WGA
A Serious Woman in a Pink Dress
Like the dress choices of Elizabeth I, and to some extent the present Duchess of Cambridge, everything the great Habsburg empress and European matriarch wore in public was laden with political and diplomatic significance.
The pink dress she wears is covered in Flemish lace, a gift from the states of Flanders. She presented this formal portrait to them as a reciprocal gift, and it still hangs in Stadhuis Ghent.
She was an able, pragmatic and hardworking statesman, who passed many reforms though deeply conservative in her convictions and a devout Roman Catholic instinctively intolerant of religious diversity.
Though she held the real power, she only bore the title Empress by virtue of being married to the elected Holy Roman Emperor, because no woman could be a candidate, and after his death, as co-ruler with her son Joseph II. In her domestic life, too, she observed the glass ceiling: she was an obedient wife who had sixteen children by her faithless husband.
It is easy to understand why Elizabeth I never married.

Prejudice is resilient. It is ancient as the time when Eve replaced Lilith – and which of them wore pink, then? Every time the ceiling cracks, it is quickly repaired, by as many women as men, afraid of their shade of pink, the eternal feminine, being subverted by female literary terrorists.

Once upon a time, the most powerful of angelic messengers wore pink when they brought good news.


Fra Angelico Annunciation 1433-34 Tempera on wood, Museo Diocesano, Cortona. Image: WGA
The announcing angel Gabriel is wearing a pink dress and an expensive gold leaf unisex haircut.
Rose-pink is the liturgical colour of rejoicing.

Pink should not need an apology. There are many shades of pink. I’m not going to give it up; it is a misunderstood colour reclaimed by women writers every day. The best things in life are ambivalent.

Irony is pink.

Yes, dear reader, you can be a woman, wear lipstick, high heels and a pink dress, and be a feminist. You might even grow up to be a writer one day.

Pink. It’s a mistake not to take it seriously.

12 comments on “Angel in a pink dress under a pink glass ceiling

  1. […] am I getting at? Let’s turn our attention to Lilith, an ancient figure pre-dating Eve, not created from a rib but formed from the exact same stardust […]


  2. This I love: “Pink should not need an apology.”

    I also loved how you ended your post with an admonition to never underestimate pink.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. PJR says:

    Thank you, Pete XX I think you are quite right, as usual. I didn’t think I was writing about biological destiny or what have you, either, BUT a) I seldom know what I’m writing about when I start following a train of thought – I’m winging it – blithely hoping for landfall – or at least a few patches of clear blue sky in the cloudy muddle – and often end up arguing with myself; b) it is just as valid to present an argument in writing that you don’t believe in as one you do; c) pink hues are widely diffused, bleeding into one another; some of them are corporeal and visceral; some of them have a terrible beauty and those are the colours that the great women writers have described. They should inspire awe, not be Photoshopped into mere prettiness.

    Liked by 2 people

  4. beetleypete says:

    I was married to two women who chose not to have children, or perhaps to go along with my own desire not to have any I can never be 100% sure. Then I married a woman who already had four children, so I have seen both sides, so to speak.
    I also know a couple so desperate to have children, they spent ten years, and a small fortune, on IVF with no success. I am close to someone who has chosen to have children so as not to work, as she feels that ‘motherhood’ is a career in itself.

    When I was still working, I saw many examples of the modern ‘super bitch,’ (not my phrase) women who had risen high in the workplace, then seemed determined to make everyone else appear inadequate, by intimidation or humiliation, whatever their gender.

    But I didn’t think that this was what you were writing about here. I saw it as something else, a feeling, a clever concept. A well-written article; cleverly constructed, intelligently debated, and lavishly illustrated.

    As always, Pete. x

    Liked by 1 person

  5. But does biology play a role in all of this? It’s difficult to ignore the women who for centuries actually felt their roles as wife and mother were noble; who created and informed little humans; who created wonderful art for the home and community (though not famous). I think sometimes we compare the very few highly successful men against the average women of the past (and present)—this being unfair to both sexes. There were and are many ceilings for both sexes created by a small minority of people at the top

    The average men and women of history have had little time for art and politics. We’re all guilty of complaining that our sex has it harder–but I’m at a point after many feminist years of finally reveling in the very good things about being a woman.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. segmation says:

    What a wonderful post. Very informative. Thank you for sharing and for liking us.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. […] via: Pippa Rathborne’s, Angel in a Pink Dress under a Pink Glass Ceiling […]

    Liked by 1 person

  8. billierosie says:

    Currer, Ellis and Acton Bell aka Charlotte, Emily and Anne Brontë..writing with blood and iron indeed!

    Liked by 1 person

  9. beetleypete says:

    I was brought up at a time, and in a place, where the roles of the sexes were clearly defined. Men stood at the bar, women sat at tables. Women cooked and ironed, as men cut grass, or wallpapered rooms. I unconsciously ( perhaps even consciously, truth be told) carried this through to my first marriage, in the more enlightened 70s, with disastrous results.

    I thought Harper Lee was a man, when I read To Kill A Mockingbird. I knew that Wuthering Heights was written by a woman, so too The Alexander Trilogy, and the Regeneration Trilogy. I didn’t enjoy them any the less for that, or consciously approach them from a masculine perspective. I am sure that others do, as I am also sure that those writers must strive harder for acceptance.

    When I think of Boudicca, Elizabeth I, or Catherine of Russia, I do not consider them to be less than Scipio, Henry VIII, or Tsar Nicholas. If anything, the opposite is true. Experience has taught me not to examine differences based on sexuality, at least in History, or the Arts. Yet I know it exists, has existed, and will probably go on existing. So, I am only fooling myself.

    Of course, your writing reinforces your argument. It is just so good.

    Best wishes as always, Pete.

    Liked by 1 person

  10. PJR says:

    Scared of my own pinkness, I split the post in two just after I’d posted it, because it was so long – I might have misdirected Eric’s very kind reblog. I will restore the missing half for that purpose. Also, the “I might wear pink” declamation was meant to be a collective Feminine I speaking, in the spirit of the Virgin Queen, not me in particular. I’ve no blood nor iron, just strop and gab. Thank you for not just following, but encouraging and inspiring.

    Liked by 1 person

  11. […] Angel in a pink dress under a pink glass ceiling « LAST POST. […]

    Liked by 1 person

  12. erickeyswriter says:

    “Writing under male names was not female writers’ modesty, it was a covert declaration of war: “J’accuse”.”

    A wonderful spiritual stratagem – to take on the image of maleness to subvert it.

    “I might wear pink, look pink, have been born pink, but I write with blood and iron.”

    Indeed! Blood and iron – a wonderful image the accurate describes your intellect.

    “The best things in life are ambivalent.”

    Sadly, wonderfully, horribly, beautifully true.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s