Whee, new topic! A lesbian separatist (who describes herself as a very large person with a mustache who gets called "sir" a good deal)
says insightful things about femininity...
Femininity is men’s idea of what women should look like, not a description of how women actually are—that’s why it’s so much freakin’ work. Femininity has nothing to do with femaleness, which is why drag queens and transsexuals are able to adopt it.
She also observes that "the original purpose of femininity in the 50s was to get women to buy things." And finally, the perspicacious conclusion:
Here’s the thing. I’m a lesbian. If you’re straight, and passingly feminine, I do not have power over you. There’s no way I can tell you what to do, let alone make you do it. So it would be good for you to sit down and think about why you think I can. Why do you think it’s acceptable to discredit the feminism of women like me because we point out the ways you benefit from your ability and willingness to conform to men’s ideas of what women should look like? It doesn’t mean we think you’re responsible for the system, or that getting harassed by some yahoo because you look cute in your short skirt is what we think you’re after or what you deserve. But it’s a fact that women who’ve decided not to worry about pleasing men can see things about patriarchy the rest of you can’t afford to acknowledge.
Certainly one cannot help but agree that there is privilege involved in conforming to norms of feminity.

There is also, however, privilege involved in conforming to norms of masculinity (and, as has often been observed, being a tomboy is usually more socially acceptable than being a sissy). And masculinity has, of course, changed greatly over the years (Louis XIV wore tights and, if he'd had a car, wouldn't have fixed it himself all greasy-James-Dean-style).
And if you reject norms of femininity and masculinity but enjoy the companionship of other humans, you'll probably find yourself in some kind of academic queer/feminist circle with privilege awarded to those who conform to much, much
stricter standards of conformity (here one could digress about [some] lesbians-hating-on-bisexuals, or men being physically barred from campus women's resource centers, or the disturbing trend of liberal academic institutions to perniciously censor conservative speakers or silence any speech that might be offensive to anyone, or feminist charges of "betrayal" to women who marry and have children).
There is, to continue on this track, a certain amount of privilege in conforming to anything, which is
why people conform. Basically by definition.
It has always seemed obvious to me that people
tend to value and pursue the sort of pursuits at which they are already naturally good. People who think that success in sports defines all of life tend to be (shocker!) naturally good at sports. And rarely does the naturally-dumb-but-quite-good-looking kid value erudition above all else. Thus, women who are naturally feminine-looking, according to their own society's standards, tend to milk it for all it's fuckin' worth. Just as anyone who is freakishly good at math or cake decorating or croquet might milk that for all it's fuckin' worth. No mystery. I'm not sure that gender roles are a class apart from these things.

What to take away from this discussion?
The world is a hard and competitive place full of arbitrary rules, and the answer is pick some of areas of expertise and be as good as possible at them, while possibly trying to de-emphasize the ones that you are less good at, and accepting the extremely obvious fact that six billion unique individuals in a hard, competitive world full of arbitrary rules are not, of course, going to be involved in a
fair contest, but it's nevertheless a contest, and if you're uncomfortable with that, you may actually be
uncomfortable with Darwinism, and the alternative to
that is to try to make the school board in Kansas reassure young Christian children that they absolutely were not descended from monkeys.
On a freaky (and extremely offensive to lesbian separatists) note,
this guy has developed an extremely detailed website (chock full of protestations in the comments from feminists, people of color, fashionistas,
et al) in which he dissects the (supposed) components of female beauty, complete with long charts and graphs...

Never has the link between "
beauty pageant" and "
dog show" seemed more clear (check her gums!) At least he's calling it that
Gisele is kinda busted.
And finally,
this web essay points out in an interesting way that advertising is completely sexist, which, of course, it is.

Somehow, though,
I'm still not too worked up. While advertising is sexist towards women, "coal mining" and "the draft" are, I hear, kinda rough for men. I'll take anorexia over
black lung, thank you very much.
Labels: feminism