Historically, westernized or heteropatriarchal societies utilized female bodies to display or communicate the male accumulation of power—and wealth. This westernized or heteropatriarchal societal construction of femininity inherently oppresses women. Looking at the experiences of women within this societal construct illuminates how these societies construct and coerce how women perform their own femininity; heteropatriarchal societies’ expectations focus on constructing women in such a way that they submit to societally normalized images and models of femininity. In this context, being feminine often means using one’s body to portray or communicate powerlessness. Consider the following examples of social behaviors of women:

A feminine person keeps her body small and contained; she makes sure that it does not take up too much space or impose itself. She walks and sits in tightly packaged ways. She does not cover the breadth of the sidewalk or expand herself beyond the chair that she occupies.

In short, (some) women shrink themselves or relinquish their autonomous power in a multitude of ways in response to the expectations their respective culture or society demands of their performances of femininity. Likewise, massiveness, abundance, or power in women’s bodies is often met with distaste; as such, acting feminine or performing one’s femininity overlaps with performances of submissiveness.

The female body communicates powerlessness in the transient spaces for where power differentials are addressed – where power is relinquished or exchanged by a woman to another, whether that be another woman or a man (or non-binary person). This act of powerlessness manifests through the nuances and idiosyncrasies of how each woman performs her femininity – this powerlessness arises in a myriad of mediums: body language, diction, presentation, self-awareness, self-objectification and/or self-esteem. Daniela Dorneles de Andrade, in her article “On Norms and Bodies: Findings from Field Research on Cosmetic Surgery in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil,” argues that the cult of the body, as she coins it, has become a mass phenomenon that has taken on an important social dimension in a society where norms and images are broadcasted widely – often globally–by the media. Dorneles de Andrade states that this trend towards body-modification, by cosmetic surgery at an early age, is increasing dramatically – exponentially even. The author further suggests that self-realization of the individual through body-modification, regardless of the medium (tattooing, piercing, cosmetic surgery, etc.), proceeds, and for a growing number of people, the body is becoming the locus of self-expression and self-determination. Dorneles de Andrade concludes that individuals, specifically women, have all been taught by their respective societies and cultures through images, media, and social expectations value visibility. These norms and standards for the expressions of femininity and portrayals of the female body are highly valued and play an important role in the formation of the feminine self. Consequently, each individual, each woman wants to be both visible and yet conform to the social standards and norms expected of her.

Utilizing de Andrade’s research and subsequent conclusions, one could surmise that women communicate powerlessness with their bodies through body modification(s). The author focuses on the example of socially pressured or coerced cosmetic surgery in Brazil as an example of how women express their individual self through the use of their body. However, with this specific example, it seems as if the societal pressure to appear a certain way or to maintain certain physical features eliminates or erases the autonomous nature of the individual woman’s self-expression. Simply, if a woman chooses to have a particular procedure as a result of societal expectations and pressures regarding the maintenance and beautification of her outer appearance, then the choice, inherently, is not hers at all. Rather, what the woman perceived as an act of power and control over her body, inevitably, when performed, was still an act of powerlessness – which she communicated through the manipulation of her body.

A secondary example of this form of powerlessness through body manipulation appears in Mark Oppenheimer’s article “Catholics, Plastic Surgery, and the ‘Truth of the Feminine Self.” Oppenheimer discusses the arguments surrounding the article, “Women’s Cultures: Equality and Difference,” which a group of women submitted to the Vatican plenary assembly on women. After presenting several differing opinions and responses to the article, itself, as well as the potential implications and interpretations this document provides Catholic women, Oppenheimer states that the construction of beauty in America pushes women to perform or act in ways motivated by marketing. Subsequently, the author claims that the question for Catholic women, regarding this document, concerns rejecting unrealistic standards or norms of beauty for women. However, the article manages to demean women in other ways; for example, the article uses antiquated language – positing, “the feminine identity is the point of convergence of daily fragility, of vulnerability, mutability, and multiplicity between emotive interior life and exterior physicality." Similarly to de Andrade’s research, this article concludes that inherent societal standards affect the way women use or modify their bodies. However, the difference herein, is that Oppenheimer contextualizes these societal standards and norms of beauty within a religious context. He proposes that some women may resist the temptation of social or societal influence on the performances of their femininity, but still contort their performances in order to fit another set of standards or norms for the bodily performance(s) of femininity – in this specific case, those norms result from the demands or expectations of Catholicism on the female body and a woman’s performative femininity.

Again, this article highlights the demand for the powerlessness of and through the female body. Despite differing norms and standards, religious expectations of femininity still require expressions of powerlessness that the body or manipulation of the body can display most effectively. In an effort to show deference to God (arguably a male figure), religious women adopt different, often more demure, presentations or performances of their femininity utilizing their bodies and appearances. Consider how religious tenets decree how a woman should dress, how she should speak, and in what ways she can and cannot use her body. Regardless of the differences in expectations, the process of invoking powerlessness through the female body still occurs.

Culture offers a contextualized approach to how, or the methods through, female bodies are rendered powerless. This powerlessness occurs in two major conduits: repression and exploitation. Repression and exploitation, though different, act in a complementary manner; these two methods of control intertwine in establishing the cultural influence that reduces the power of women’s bodies and the performance(s) of their femininity. The United States is a heteropatriarchal society, a culture that assumes that heterosexuality is "natural," that male dominance is "natural," and that female subordination is "natural." Catharine A. MacKinnon’s article “Rape: On Coercion and Consent,” argues that societal and cultural assumptions about the terms and distinctions between object and subject within any relationship or interaction– specifically rape in this context – enforces consent and communications under conditions that are unequal. Essentially, MacKinnon asserts that any decision-making process where societal and cultural institutions reinforce one choice or favor one type of decision-maker – in this case, heterosexual males – than an individual, a woman’s ability to choose autonomy, to consent or communicate autonomously does not legitimately exist. The choice is perceived – it is an abstraction or an idea – that it is not tangible or actual for the woman in this context. MacKinnon’s research exhibits the type of performative powerlessness of women’s bodies that a culture and society like that of the United States reinforces through normalized behaviors, standard expectations, and punitive measures taken when a woman or individual fails to meet said standards and norms. The key in depicting how culture influences women’s powerlessness over their own bodies arises from establishing that a norm exists, but also that when that norm is violated, a punitive or corporal measure exists as a means to deter future deviance from what is expected. Simply, a lack of conformity results in punishment. Consider how tenuous the demand on the female body is: each space, each setting or environment demands that the female body manipulate itself into an acceptable form; a form predetermined by society and culture. For example, in the workplace, the female body needs to both perform femininity and masculinity – to be both docile and assertive. If a woman performs one gendered trait or aspect of that trait too thoroughly, too convincingly, then she faces social ridicule and decreased desirability as an employee. This process of standardized expectation, failure to meet aforementioned expectation, and then the punishment for not meeting that expectation appears in almost every space that women’s bodies do. This process reaffirms the powerlessness of women in expressing, presenting, or changing their bodies autonomously or of their own directive power. Culture solidifies the lack of agency women have in regards to their own bodies; culture and society, despite having other positive qualities, act as oppressors – changing subject to object, so long as the woman’s body is wanted or desired – can be easily consumed by others.