POP FEMINIST PERBLOG

saltmarshhag:

partysoft:

thusspakekate:

partysoft:

thusspakekate:

You know what is awesome? Feminine feminists. Why? Because they reject the patriarchal narrative of what it means to be an empowered woman. The patriarchy has made a space for “the feminist” within its structure and deemed her to be a hairy-legged, man-hating caricature. Now, I might not be the most feminine chick in the beauty salon (as my luxurious armpit hair will demonstrate) but the fact that I can shut down a sexist without getting any lipstick on my teeth makes me awesome. 

By rejecting femininity wholesale, you’re actually agreeing with the sexist assumption that masculinity is better, that maleness is the more worthy gender. You can recognize the constructed nature of gender at the same time you perform it.

but I don’t want to perform femininity, and it shouldn’t be expected of me, either by the patriarchy or feminists who think I’m saying “feminine is bad” when I say “feminine doesn’t work for me”

now how about instead of denigrating masculine women in order to lift up feminine women, you focus on the system that is oppressing all of us?

Do they not teach reading comprehension in schools anymore?

Now, instead of making this about you and what you want to do with your body/identity, why don’t you read the post again and tell me where I denigrated masculine women or even so much as implied that everyone should be forced to perform femininity. Was it around the part where I said “I am not the most feminine chick” and talked about my luxurious armpit hair? Or do you think its denigrating to point out the totally true fact that the patriarchy has made a space for the caricature of the feminist? Not for feminists, but for an exaggerated and cliched idea of one. 

The wholesale rejection of femininty (which is what I said) is not the same as you saying “femininity doesn’t work for me.” Can you see that distinction? So if it doesn’t apply to you, don’t make it about you. I was talking about the system that oppresses us all, you’re the one who came in and made it personal.

maybe bc I am hairy-legged and man-hating?

or maybe it’s bc “You know what is awesome? Feminine feminists. Why? Because they reject the patriarchal narrative of what it means to be an empowered woman“ implies that masculine feminists are being duped, buying into “the patriarchal narrative of what it means to be an empowered woman.” it’s a bizarre, nonsensical reversal of the “feminine women are all being tricked!” shit, with an added bonus of finding a way to portray femininity as a deviation rather than the enforced norm. femininity most certainly is not anti-feminist and people’s hatred for it is most definitely misogynist, and yet it is also demanded of us with plenty of social costs backing up that demand. all that bit sounds like is a new way of saying that femininity is the true womanhood, only this time the reasoning is that they haven’t been led astray by any patriarchal empowerment narrative rather than something about inner nature blah blah.

and furthermore, no I do not think “patriarchy has made a space for the caricature of the feminist.” anti-feminists have indeed painted a caricature of all feminists (one that looks remarkably similar to me, actually) that they employ to discredit feminism strictly because it is considered distasteful, undesirable, ~crazy, and so on. and because it is so very awful to be associated with this caricature (just look at all the time “feminists” spend disavowing lesbians, hairy women, man-haters, etc.). because there is no space for her, except a rhetorical one; women who embody this caricature’s traits will be well aware of how hostile even the most mild-mannered people can become.

there is an “empowered woman” that we are encouraged to strive to become. but she is always feminine and is empowered through her sexual desirability and availability to men. (and even she is shit upon by society, called a slut or so on.)

and what does “the fact that I can shut down a sexist without getting any lipstick on my teeth makes me awesome.” even mean?

reblogging for partysoft’s awesome commentary bc fuck

“Or do you think its denigrating to point out the totally true fact that the patriarchy has made a space for the caricature of the feminist?”

yeah, i think it’s “denigrating” to talk about that “space” if you don’t acknowledge that this “space” is still one of disgust and violence.

here’s to being a real-life strawfeminist.

I’ve said it before but I can’t say it enough: show me a feminist who is saying we can’t be feminine. Show me a feminist who is saying we can’t be feminine. Seriously, show me a feminist who is saying we can’t be feminine.

Bring me a feminist who is telling us we can’t be feminine, and I’ll probably show you that it’s really a) a regular old misogynist b) a regular old misogynist in second-wave clothing c) a person who doesn’t actually exist and was invented by patriarchy to discredit feminists by telling middle-class white women that lesbians are trying to steal their right to buy Steve Madden pumps d) a “masculine” woman that you think is trying to steal your right to buy Steve Madden pumps just because you’ve internalized a long history of Lavender Panic among liberal feminists and straight women and patriarchy, a discourse which compels straight women to believe that the mere existence of lesbians is a threat to their right to breed with their femmey Steve Madden vaginas or whatever.

I would also like to add (as a pretty femmey lady myself, which I feel I have to disclose in order to be taken seriously): as much as feminine is not antifeminst, antifeminine is neither antifeminist nor antiwoman. While it’s fucked up to try to force women to perform within any sort of narrow, proscriptive set of gendeed codes (including one which excludes the things marked as “feminine”), femininity =/= womanhood. Oppression of femininity is often a misogynistic act, but calling a woman’s rejection of femininity misogynistic is to claim that there is something essential about femininity. There isn’t. Asserting that there is something patriarchal about Sexy Heels And Mascara is not the same as hating women who wear Sexy Heels and Mascara, and arguing otherwise is to argue that there is something essential to womanhood about Sexy Heels and Mascara. And that’s what I fucking hate about internet femme discourse.

I don’t know anything about the sexuality or background of the posters above, so the following isn’t necessarily related to them. But I want to say this: there is nothing inherently radical about straight cis women claiming femme.  As a cis woman who is in a relationship with a cis dude, I often write about ways to radicalize/problematize femme displays, but I am not going to say that my wearing lipstick is, by its own nature, “empowering” or radical. Straight, cis, white American women claiming femme culture as resistance can be a violent erasing act. It erases the history of femme as a queer resistance in ages where gender nonconformity was seen not only as deviant but in some ways subhuman, where lesbians were considered not to be women at all. It erases a history wherein women who performed masculinity were the victims of systemic violence, more so even than they face today. It erases a whole history of culture that was invented by marginalized groups as a resistance to oppression.

All performances of gender are valid and important and legitimate. But liberal choice feminism often teaches us that all options (especially consumptive options, and skirts are a consumptive option) within heteropatriarchal capitalism are equal, that your “choice” to wear heels carries the exact same meaning as a trans woman’s choice to wear heels, a gay man’s choice to wear heels, a butch lesbian’s choice to wear heels, or a black woman’s choice to wear heels. Those don’t mean the same thing. They are not moderated the same, they don’t face the same repercussions, they don’t evoke the same histories, they don’t cost the same.

And no one is trying to take away your motherfucking parasols.

(via desliz)