Julie Bindle and World Femininity Day

Logical Fallacy

I just thought people here might enjoy reading Julie's thoughts on WFD. I think she gets the claws out a bit in this, and i am sure parts will get a frosty reception on the day.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jun/24/feminism-world-femininity-day

Thank you for asking me to speak to all of you attending World Femininity Day (WFD). I admit to being surprised to be asked. Since I am a lesbian and a feminist who firmly believes that femininity is nothing but a social construct, and that it exists in order that women can be seen as the "fairer" sex and be judged as less capable and rational than men, it may seem odd that I am here at all.

Zoe Charles, the founder of this radical movement, is a Femininity and Burlesque coach. As we now know, the definition of feminism has recently broadened somewhat and can now include celebrating the misogynist male invention of "slut"; the practice of women changing their second name to that of their husband; to baking cupcakes. How things change! When I cut my feminist teeth it was clearly understood that the women's liberation movement (WLM) existed in order to overthrow male supremacy and bring about equality and freedom for women.

But I am willing to be open-minded about WFD. Let us look at its main purpose and aims: to acknowledge and celebrate femininity by women, for women, for humanity. We believe it is vitally important as women to be encouraged to feel powerful through our femininity as opposed to matching or competing with masculine ways of being to achieve power in our lives whether that be socially or in relationships, family or career.

Having been a severe critic of SlutWalk, and being labelled a spoilsport in disliking weddings, makeup and high heels, I have decided to embrace WFD. Before you start to heckle, let me tell you that I have some experience with things girly. When I was 14, I decided to enter my school beauty competition in order to spite my enemy, the perfect Wendy. She won it every year, and was ultra-feminine, sweet, and hard-working. I asked the teachers if the participants were only judged on their looks, and was assured it was also "personality". I had plenty of that, so entered and, to the surprise of many, won. I wore a tiara at the school fair the following weekend. Strangely enough the competition was never held again, which means I am the reigning Miss Branksome to this day.

Aged 17 I met feminists and went gender-neutral, which is how, as you can see, I present myself to this day. But, thanks to WFD, I am now wondering if I have missed out on something special all these years. In 2008 I experimented with wearing high heels but due to my lack of perseverance, I failed miserably. The following year, refusing to have the door of femininity closed to me, I tried with makeup. Again, a total failure, due to the conditioning – nay, brainwashing – at the hands of man-hating feminists this past 30-plus years.

I am, at this juncture, forced to admit that my sort of feminism has failed. After 30-odd years of campaigning to end all forms of violence against women and children, the statistics remain grim. It is still the case that two women die every week at the hand of a former or current male partner; rape is endemic and barely successfully prosecuted, and women abused in the sex industry are seen as disposable. Therefore, bearing in mind the WFD commitment to eradicating such abuse (we are saying no to the exploitation of women and children; this year's event is about raising awareness of WFD. The 2012 event will be raising money for charities committed to ending exploitation of women and children across the world), I will roll over and accept that rather than telling men off for abusing women, we would be far better off if we deferred to them and made the effort to look pretty, demure and soft. Perhaps then they will be nicer to us.

So, to end, thank you for asking me to address you today on this auspicious occasion. I will be going from here to a large department store where I will have a complete makeover – nails, hair, makeup and dress. I will be taking deportment lessons, and my elocution teacher will show me how to speak a little more hesitantly and softly in order that men understand I am not trying to compete with them. Forget feminism – femininity is definitely the way forward.

Dudess

Pretty fanatical IMO. I mean, maybe accept women simply enjoy looking nice (and feel somewhat empowered by it, in the sense that it boosts their confidence) rather than it being held up as an example of deference to patriarchy...

Logical Fallacy

Dudess wrote: »

Pretty fanatical IMO. I mean, maybe accept women simply enjoy looking nice (and feel somewhat empowered by it, in the sense that it boosts their confidence) rather than it being held up as an example of deference to patriarchy...

Yeah, Julie can get a bit cut-throat at times but i must confess to liking her...mainly because i have seen her change her mind a few times and i will always find that quite brave about people who make living from publicly expressing their opinion.

Actually, does anyone have any links for this "gender neutral" business? I'm looking on line but most of the stuff i am finding is telling me about grammar.

LenaClaire

According to this and from what I have seen dressing "Gender Neutral" seems to imply dressing like a man.

http://www.ehow.com/how_2241461_dress-gender-neutral.html

I am happy that she is willing to stick to her guns but how is it that yet again being "not male" is the bad thing?

I think I am equal to men to but I don't want to be a man or look like a man.

I am not a girly girl, I rarely wear make up, do my nails only occasionally and half the time just wear my hair in a braid or ponytail but I like colors, and I like clothes that fit well. Is this a crime against women? Am I betraying my gender by "bending to societies expectations" because I like pink and other colors that are not "masculine"?

premierlass

jujibee wrote: »

According to this and from what I have seen dressing "Gender Neutral" seems to imply dressing like a man.

http://www.ehow.com/how_2241461_dress-gender-neutral.html

I am happy that she is willing to stick to her guns but how is it that yet again being "not male" is the bad thing?

I think I am equal to men to but I don't want to be a man or look like a man.

I agree; if the emphasis was on comfort and style rather than eliminating femininity I'd have more sympathy. And really, making the connection between women dressing a certain way and societal violence is a little simplistic. I get that it's deliberate hyperbole, but logically her point doesn't stand.

I suppose I default towards gender neutral in dress for comfort reasons and because straight leg pants suit me. Now, they do tell you that the more restrictive a society was, the more formal and elaborate the clothing, and I think certain women's fashions like 5 inch heels are problematic (they're going to cause you problems later, you know, it's not as if we didn't know that our mothers were crippled from stiletto wearing)

Yeah, Julie can get a bit cut-throat at times but i must confess to liking her...mainly because i have seen her change her mind a few times and i will always find that quite brave about people who make living from publicly expressing their opinion.

And maybe it was her sort of feminism that gave women the confidence to explore gender neutral fashion when it wasn't dictated by current trends.

I'm not going to apologise for my ability to make fantastic brownies, though.

krudler

Dudess wrote: »

Pretty fanatical IMO. I mean, maybe accept women simply enjoy looking nice (and feel somewhat empowered by it, in the sense that it boosts their confidence) rather than it being held up as an example of deference to patriarchy...

I dont get whats wrong with wanting to be feminine, men and women being different and men and women being equal are two completely different things.

reallyrose

I'm not sure I see what issue she has with being invited to speak at World Femininity Day, surely it is a good thing to invite opposite points of view?

I also don't think wearing a skirt and thinking that women should have equal rights are mutually exclusive. I can be have both pretty clothes *and* a brain, right?

LittleBook

Gah! My two pet hates in certain "feminists":

1. Claiming they want freedom for women ... and then criticising the women who don't conform to their ideals.

2. Complaining that society hasn't been completely re-made from top to bottom in a few short decades. These things take generations, not years.

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

I think she gets the claws out a bit in this, and i am sure parts will get a frosty reception on the day.

I'm fairly sure WFD wouldn't want her anywhere near them, the whole article is a joke and not a very good one with the jarring break from character mid-way through. Just a complete piss-take of WFD and any woman who dares to support it.

And I find it supremely ironic that the reason (some people feel) there's a need to promote a World Femininity Day is to counter the attitude of women who despise other women expressing femininity in manner they resent.

This is the "mission" of the WFD, expanded from the article's out-of-context sneering:

To acknowledge and celebrate femininity by women, for women, for humanity. We believe it is vitally important as women to be encouraged to feel powerful through our femininity as opposed to matching or competing with masculine ways of being to achieve power in our lives whether that be socially, in relationships, family or career.

We believe that the more women feel connected to and inspired by their femininity in all cultures across the world the harder it will be to exploit women. We are standing for a world where it is safe to be feminine.

We are saying YES to women worldwide feeling fabulous, being fully self expressed and loving their lives.

We are saying NO to the exploitation of women and children; this year’s event is about raising awareness of WFD. The 2012 event will be raising money for charities committed to ending exploitation of women and children across the world.

Personally I can't see the problem with that, which I guess means I'm more of a WFD feminist than a Bindel feminist.

krudler

LittleBook wrote: »

Gah! My two pet hates in certain "feminists":

1. Claiming they want freedom for women ... and then criticising the women who don't conform to their ideals.

2. Complaining that society hasn't been completely re-made from top to bottom in a few short decades. These things take generations, not years.

Thats my view on a lot of feminists, they claim to be all about womens rights and empowering women by being women, yet complain and whinge when those women act like....women. Its absolutely baffling logic. Are women who wear a skirt and dress like a woman now the enemy?

LittleBook

krudler wrote: »

I dont get whats wrong with wanting to be feminine, men and women being different and men and women being equal are two completely different things.

My friend maintains (half-jokingly) that women and men aren't the same race at all but are actually two different species living together symbiotically ... similar to what WFD are espousing:

We believe it is vitally important as women to be encouraged to feel powerful through our femininity as opposed to matching or competing with masculine ways of being to achieve power in our lives whether that be socially, in relationships, family or career.

Vive la différence!

krudler

LittleBook wrote: »

My friend maintains (half-jokingly) that women and men aren't the same race at all but are actually two different species living together symbiotically ... similar to what WFD are espousing:

Well its kinda the case, equal but different would be my view. I dont think any woman on here would like to be considered "just like a guy" in that sense. It often seems that women's biggest enemy is feminists who hate other women for being women.

ztoical

krudler wrote: »

I dont get whats wrong with wanting to be feminine, men and women being different and men and women being equal are two completely different things.

But that begs the question what does it mean to be feminine or masculine for that matter? People go on about doing so called 'girly' things and wearing girly clothes like pink etc etc The only reason we think something is associated with one gender over another is because we say so. There is no other logic for it. Nature does not say pink is for girls, we do and we didn't always and most likely we'll change our minds again at some point.

I don't own a single sitch of make-up, I've no nails as I've bitten them all to the nub, I can't stand up in high heels let alone walk in them, I've long hair but it's not styled in any sense of the word, I live in t-shirts and jeans and flip flops yet when I walk down the street I feel feminine. I can't tell what makes me feel that way or if I changed anything about how I dress and look if I would feel more or less feminine. I just know that that is how I feel about myself and I don't need to wear some out ward gender signal like a skirt, heels or pink to feel this. Now I've nothing againist people who want to wear skirts, heels or pink but I do dislike this idea that that equals feminine and the labeling of women who don't fit into that as being butch or male. Wear something or do something because it is really something that you enjoy doing and not because it's viewed as correct for your gender. Yes there are differences between genders but the things we general like to pick out to show these differences can just be silly when you really think about it.

LittleBook

ztoical wrote: »

But that begs the question what does it mean to be feminine or masculine for that matter?

It's different for everyone everywhere, neither Bindel nor the WFD can define it. It's dynamic, geographical, historical, societal, psychological, philosophical, etc., etc., etc. ... which is why I don't criticise femininity which is not like my own perceived idea of what it is to be feminine.

ztoical wrote: »

I don't own a single sitch of make-up, I've no nails as I've bitten them all to the nub, I can't stand up in high heels let alone walk in them, I've long hair but it's not styled in any sense of the word, I live in t-shirts and jeans and flip flops yet when I walk down the street I feel feminine.

I'm more or less the same and there ain't nobody gonna tell me I ain't feminine.

Ambersky

Its really funny this article was posted today.
I would be someone who could be described as always dressing gender neutral and havent worn a dress since my debs dance, never ever wear make up of any kind and dont posess a pair of shoes with any kind of heels.
I would imagine my background to be simular to Julies from what she describes in her article.
Maybe what it is, in todays language, is that I dont fit into the prescribed gender roles that are deemed appropriate for my sex.
Quite frankly I dont know what femininity is or at least my idea of it is very wide.

Yet I agreed recently to take part in a charity fashion show, in support of the cause, but also because of a bit of curiosity.
I enjoyed most of the preperation, the fittings and the experience of being out with the women, doing what for them are "girly" things, as a kind of adventure. That all happened in a small group.
The show was on last night and Im still feeling a bit vulnerable and overwhelmed from the experience.
In the crowded changing rooms I felt very much out of my depth, definitely a fish out of water.
In full make up and hair styled I felt like I was in drag in one dress in particular.
Today Im feeling reassured to have read the OPs post as well as the posts of a few other posters here.

I dont expect most posters to understand my feelings.
Maybe think of it as a bit like Ellen DeGeneres she did the Oscars without having to wear a dress.
I think what Im talking about and identifying with is just a part of a range of ways of being feminine.
A product of social conditioning, gender expectations, genetics, politics and personal experience, which is where most of us come from.

premierlass

Ambersky wrote: »

Its really funny this article was posted today.
I would be someone who could be described as always dressing gender neutral and havent worn a dress since my debs dance, never ever wear make up of any kind and dont posess a pair of shoes with any kind of heels.
I would imagine my background to be simular to Julies from what she describes in her article.
Maybe what it is, in todays language, is that I dont fit into the prescribed gender roles that are deemed appropriate for my sex.
Quite frankly I dont know what femininity is or at least my idea of it is very wide.

Yet I agreed recently to take part in a charity fashion show, in support of the cause, but also because of a bit of curiosity.
I enjoyed most of the preperation, the fittings and the experience of being out with the women, doing what for them are "girly" things, as a kind of adventure.
But still on the night when we did the full make up and hair I felt like I was in drag in one dress in particular.
Today Im feeling a bit embarassed and glad and reassured to have read the OPs post.

I dont expect most or maybe any other posters to understand my feelings.
Maybe think of it as a bit like Ellen DeGeneres she did the Oscars without having to wear a dress.
I think what Im talking about and identifying with is just a part of a range of ways of being feminine.
A product of social conditioning, gender expectations, genetics, politics and personal experience, which is where most of us come from.

I suppose that's my problem with Julie Bindel's view - that it accepts that femininity is defined by makeup and 'girly' clothes, and to reject that style is to reject "femininity", which in turn is to embrace feminism.

I agree with you that femininity is a wide spectrum. When I was ten, my aunts dressed me and my sister up with makeup, heels etc. Like you, I enjoyed the preparation, but felt slightly queasy and wrong about the result and was in normal clothes again in a few minutes in spite of my aunts' protests. To be honest, I'd never do it again. On a day-to-day basis, I have my hair short, no makeup, trousers, have never had nails done. I do like it when I look good. I do enjoy dressing up slightly, but it would be for an occasion. I've never felt less than feminine.

Vive la différence!

Giselle

Julie seems to think that femininity is an adopted trait.

My femininity is intrinsic to me, and her demeaning and devaluing it as having lesser worth than masculinity or presenting as gender neutral, (whatever that actually means, I suspect in practice that it means conforming to another constructed ideal) is an act of hostility towards another female.

Who needs male oppression when we have feminists like Julie to dictate how we should be instead? I doubt she sees the irony.

She makes me want to wear pink as an act of non conformity.:)

gargleblaster

I will roll over and accept that rather than telling men off for abusing women, we would be far better off if we deferred to them and made the effort to look pretty, demure and soft. Perhaps then they will be nicer to us.

So, to end, thank you for asking me to address you today on this auspicious occasion. I will be going from here to a large department store where I will have a complete makeover – nails, hair, makeup and dress. I will be taking deportment lessons, and my elocution teacher will show me how to speak a little more hesitantly and softly in order that men understand I am not trying to compete with them. Forget feminism – femininity is definitely the way forward.

:pac: Is she serious? That is flipping unreal!

:pac::pac::pac:

Ok so under the assumption that she is serious, I feel sorry for her. That hardline brand of feminist theory is flat-out destructive and if she was really serious then she has been simmering in it for a long, long time.

Not really sure what to say about world femininity day. I don't really get the point of it.

But as for gender neutral stuff, it's not just women who partake in the practice and it's not about feminism at all. Some people just don't want to be associated either with feminine or macho things, and will go to some effort to mask their gender. I think it's a neat idea as it causes people some discomfort which usually results in people really thinking about and questioning their beliefs.

I think it would be helpful to stop associating styles with gender. Some women like a more butch style, and some men a more feminine one. It's nothing to do with politics, it's personal taste ffs.

WesternNight

ztoical wrote: »

But that begs the question what does it mean to be feminine or masculine for that matter? People go on about doing so called 'girly' things and wearing girly clothes like pink etc etc The only reason we think something is associated with one gender over another is because we say so. There is no other logic for it. Nature does not say pink is for girls, we do and we didn't always and most likely we'll change our minds again at some point.

+1

As far as I'm concerned there are as many different kinds of femininity as there are women. Pink + skirts/dresses + high heels may be one kind of femininity. I consider myself feminine even though I never wear any of those things.

krudler

Giselle wrote: »

Julie seems to think that femininity is an adopted trait.

My femininity is intrinsic to me, and her demeaning and devaluing it as having lesser worth than masculinity or presenting as gender neutral, (whatever that actually means, I suspect in practice that it means conforming to another constructed ideal) is an act of hostility towards another female.

Who needs male oppression when we have feminists like Julie to dictate how we should be instead? I doubt she sees the irony.

She makes me want to wear pink as an act of non conformity.:)

but then through that act of non-conformity you'll be conforming to some patriarchal view of what a woman should be, damned if you do and damned if you dont it seems.

I'd love to see a bunch of feminists arrive to this wearing what they assume are some stereotypical female clothes, women non-conforming to looking like women by dressing as conformist women. Monty Python couldn't make it up.

LittleBook

gargleblaster wrote: »

Not really sure what to say about world femininity day. I don't really get the point of it.

I didn't either ... but I'm starting to, now I've read that article.

My cynicism tells me it could just be a self-promotion gimmick for the founder's femininity coaching and burlesque dance class business. The whole thing seems a bit wishy-washy and

We believe the ownership and celebration of femininity by women, for women for humanity will eventually eliminate exploitation of Women and Children across the world.

strikes me as a tad naive and almost childish.

But I'm all too aware of the breed of feminist who preaches the "do what I say, not what you want" doctrine.

Over the years it's become unacceptable (to them) for women to be stay-at-home wives and mothers, enjoy being sexually submissive, choose to get married, take their husband's name, wear make-up, like the colour pink ... bake cupcakes!

A feminist can't complain that some women are confined by expectations of femininity ... and then bítch (oh I went there) about another woman's style of femininity and thereby impose their own expectations!

gargleblaster

LittleBook wrote: »

A feminist can't complain that some women are confined by expectations of femininity ... and then bítch (oh I went there) about another woman's style of femininity and thereby impose their own expectations!

Hear, hear!

IMO those aren't feminists, they are women with deep-seated issues. Surely any feminist would support the right of women to indulge in whatever style they wish, be it super-feminine or not.

Also +1 to whoever said that femininity means different things to different people. Makes it hard to have discussions when you can't even depend on the meanings of the terms used to be clearly understood.

It does smack of being nothing but a marketing stunt.

And I'm bothered by the fact that it's only "for women", because I think drag queens should have every right to be there - unless they don't define dressing up as glamorous women as feminine, but I obviously would - and here we are again with the trouble with definitions!

Ambersky

I really am curious about all this stuff and definitely don’t think I have it all figured out.
Julies article is interesting to me because of the things it brings up.
Isnt it interesting that recent science seems to be saying that the differences between boy and girl children seem to be brought about by a combination of social conditioning and genetics.
Maybe this continues into adulthood where the expressions of the kinds of femininity and masculinity we are talking about are linked to genetics and social politics.

Julie also describes herself as a Lesbian as well as a feminist and I think an understanding of the history of Lesbians within feminism would be useful in understanding where she is coming from.

Aged 17 I met feminists and went gender-neutral, which is how, as you can see, I present myself to this day.

One thing that does come to mind is the synchronicity of the emergence of lesbians in the 70s and 80s, who had never seen another lesbian to conform with and second wave feminism.
Not all lesbians were feminists, no more than all feminists were lesbians, but there was a lot of cross pollination as it were.
I remember the first time I walked into a lesbian bar and I felt "wow they all look like me" because at that time I stood out among my friends as a woman who wanted to go out at night in flat shoes, no make up and wearing jeans.
To put a bit more context on this, a couple of years earlier we use to have school debates on subjects such as should women be allowed wear trousers to work, be allowed work after marriage, be allowed go to church without a hat, etc. These were considered the serious issues of the day.
Not wearing make up was something that set you apart, was seen as rebelous, it was difficult to buy flat shoes in womens sizes or to buy blouses ( women didnt wear shirts) that werent too frilly.
It looked different to be dressed like this, Im not butch, if Im pushed Id say more a butchy femme, but I can remember experiencing women screaming at me in ladies toilets on two different occasions.
Okay the thin black leather tie might have been a bit confusing

I and women like me, dressed as we did for personal taste, before we had even seen one another, for whatever reason.
The way we dressed was personal and it was political.
Im not sure how much has changed, maybe a lot but not everything, a woman friend of mine was recently told to get out of a ladies toilet so the tolerence for a range of ways of being feminine is not fully accepted.

In more recent years Trans issues have been bringing up new questions about what it means to be male and female and masculine or feminine and a different understanding is being developed out of that.
Im still developing my understanding of it.

Dudess

LittleBook wrote: »

But I'm all too aware of the breed of feminist who preaches the "do what I say, not what you want" doctrine.

Over the years it's become unacceptable (to them) for women to be stay-at-home wives and mothers, enjoy being sexually submissive, choose to get married, take their husband's name, wear make-up, like the colour pink ... bake cupcakes!

And unfortunately, some subscribe to the notion that that is representative of ALL feminists... and, worse again, all headstrong women, feminist or not. :-/

iguana

Ambersky wrote: »

I enjoyed most of the preperation, the fittings and the experience of being out with the women, doing what for them are "girly" things, as a kind of adventure. That all happened in a small group.
The show was on last night and Im still feeling a bit vulnerable and overwhelmed from the experience.
In the crowded changing rooms I felt very much out of my depth, definitely a fish out of water.
In full make up and hair styled I felt like I was in drag in one dress in particular.

premierlass wrote: »

When I was ten, my aunts dressed me and my sister up with makeup, heels etc. Like you, I enjoyed the preparation, but felt slightly queasy and wrong about the result and was in normal clothes again in a few minutes in spite of my aunts' protests.

I'm the exact opposite end of this spectrum. I almost never wear make up or style my hair, not because I don't feel comfortable in how I look when I'm all made up, because I quite enjoy that aspect. But because I can't stand the process. I hate the whole act of having to cleanse and moisturise, then apply make-up and fix my hair. It's boring and annoying and you have to be very careful or you'll mess it up. It's often sort of itchy and makes my nose ever so slightly runny, then you have to maintain it while you wear it as it rubs off. And worst of all when you get in at night you have to wash it off, otherwise it will get all over your pillow and sheets and you'll have to do extra laundry. But the last thing I want to do when I get in at night is carefully wash my face, it's bad enough that I have to brush my teeth.

Maybe if there was some sort of instant machine I could step into every morning and night that would groom me I'd be tempted to always be dressed up. Especially if it was a fireman's poll like the ones Batman and Robin used in the 60's series. I could slide down it in my pjs and reach the floor all coiffed and groomed. Though I'd rather have a cool utility belt.

LenaClaire

iguana wrote: »

Maybe if there was some sort of instant machine I could step into every morning and night that would groom me I'd be tempted to always be dressed up. Especially if it was a fireman's poll like the ones Batman and Robin used in the 60's series. I could slide down it in my pjs and reach the floor all coiffed and groomed. Though I'd rather have a cool utility belt.

I would totally love a machine like the one in the fifth element that does your make up perfectly for you in 1 second

metrovelvet

There is no such thing as gender neutral. Wearing pants is not gender neutral, it is reverting to the default masculing position. When I wear pants, I dont look more manish. I just look like a woman wearing pants, and I still shop in the ladies' section anyhow. Oh god this argument gets boring. Why do feminists think they are so liberated when they wear a suit and tie? They are not being gender neutral, they are mimicking and appropriating the masculine model. Fine, you wanna do that, go ahdead, don't tell me Im practising internalised oppression when I put on a skirt and wear some perfume.

This kind of thing really gets my goat. People all over the world have been decorating themselves for centuries, celebrating their beauty, their status, whatever it is. Yes I get it's weird when women spend more per ounce on moisturiser than the cost of solid gold and the beauty obsession blah blah blah, but what is so bad in moderation.

Not only that, but she completely misses the point only to verify that feminity is about lipstick when its about more than that, which for me is illustrated rather well in the Greek pantheon later adopted by neo Jungian psychologists, or archetypal psychologists, not this pseudo political puritanism dressed up as liberation.

Ambersky

Well as I said I dont really understand feminity and masculinity really but here is a little illustration of a range of ways of being that I really like. With thanks to crayolastereo over on the LGBT forum.
A little celebration of diversity.
The director of this video wrote

Pretty much everyone involved in the video (both in front of and behind the camera) is trans/butch/queer/femme, which for me, in the greater LGBT world, is my family. The song is a meditation on butch identity, and so I wanted to show how beautiful we are as a community, no matter what gender we are or what we choose to be.

I guess I should say NSFW sigh

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ue_ia7Dikq0

Kanoe

interesting read. it's eye opening to see how other women view themselves with regard to femininity. Words such as "intrinsic" and "essential" make me question why it doesn't feel that way for me and that's not to say that I don't participate, I do wear make up like light foundation and to be honest even if I were wearing a ball gown, I would still find it difficult to associate with the word.
I'd probably never have considered myself a feminist either because I never really connected the fight for equal rights for women had anything to do with me. I must be really confused.

Bottle_of_Smoke

jujibee wrote: »

According to this and from what I have seen dressing "Gender Neutral" seems to imply dressing like a man.

http://www.ehow.com/how_2241461_dress-gender-neutral.html

:eek: WTF like? Tell me Poe's law applies?

1. Eliminate all bright colors from your wardrobe. Color screams femininity, so leave it alone to gain gender neutrality. Keep and buy clothes that are khaki, white and black. Muted earth tones are good as well.

Jesus guess I'm more feminine than I thought!

2. Wear only pants. The pants should be a straight-leg cut. If you can buy from the men's department, even better. Men's pants naturally have extra room that's hard to find in any women's fashions.

Eh? best get of them feminine bootcut jeans . . .

3. Buy plain t-shirts that aren't form fitting to de-emphasize your chest. Keep all necklines very close to the neck. If you're wearing a button-up, put a white t-shirt underneath to conceal your chest. Make people wonder if you have breasts or not.

Ok surely that's a joke?

As for the article, can kind of understand her frustration, and I had similar views on slutwalk. She's quite funny too.

That said, way too sneery abotu other people's choices, maybe only because she was invited.

I think she perhaps misses the point that humans evolved competing with each other, and particularly those of the same gender. So whilst I can see where she's coming from about how being expected to be feminine isn't cool, its a bit silly to expect others not to be feminine if they so choose.

Maybe I'm reading it all wrong, perhaps she doesn't care about others and jsut got annoyed at being invited. It does seem like she's patronising to women who like to be feminine though.

gargleblaster

metrovelvet wrote: »

There is no such thing as gender neutral. Wearing pants is not gender neutral, it is reverting to the default masculing position. When I wear pants, I dont look more manish. I just look like a woman wearing pants, and I still shop in the ladies' section anyhow.

Disagree. Androgyny isn't just about women wearing pants - men participate in this as well. Androgynous is a better term than gender neutral. Gender neutral applies more to language and things like that.

Regarding your comment about feminists thinking they're so liberated by wearing pants and a tie, I'm not sure where that's coming from. It has been socially acceptable for women to wear pants and a tie for a fairly long time now.

Bruce7

As we now know, the definition of feminism has recently broadened somewhat and can now include celebrating the misogynist male invention of "slut"; the practice of women changing their second name to that of their husband; to baking cupcakes.

This is an issue I find pretty confusing. It came up at my wedding, where some of my female relatives were urging my wife not to take my surname. I don't have a position on the issue, so stayed out of it. I always said to my wife that I didn't care whether she took my name or not. From a purely logistical point of view, I'm sure she has plenty of better things to do than queue up at all the offices and fill out all the forms involved in getting her name changed everywhere they have a record of it.

But I felt like saying to them that the choice was between two men's surnames (her father's or mine) so how is going with either one an act of feminine empowerment?

Count Duckula

WesternNight wrote: »

+1

As far as I'm concerned there are as many different kinds of femininity as there are women. Pink + skirts/dresses + high heels may be one kind of femininity. I consider myself feminine even though I never wear any of those things.

But surely femininity is a purely social construct? To say that there are many different types of femininity suggests that society accepts many. It doesn't, does it? I'm open to being corrected, but it seems to me there is a very rigid definition of what makes someone feminine.

You can quite easily argue that not fitting into what society deems as "feminine" doesn't make you any less of a woman, but it does make you less feminine when femininity is entirely a societal construct - one you openly admit to avoiding.

WesternNight

Count Duckula wrote: »

But surely femininity is a purely social construct? To say that there are many different types of femininity suggests that society accepts many. It doesn't, does it? I'm open to being corrected, but it seems to me there is a very rigid definition of what makes someone feminine.

You can quite easily argue that not fitting into what society deems as "feminine" doesn't make you any less of a woman, but it does make you less feminine when femininity is entirely a societal construct - one you openly admit to avoiding.

I never said it was not a social construct. I said that as far as I am concerned there are many different femininities. Sure, society (by which I mean media, really) decides what the 'ideal' female image is or should be.

And I didn't 'admit to avoiding' anything. I said I don't wear pink or heels or dresses/skirts. I don't actively avoid any of those things on any principle. There's nothing to 'admit' to. When I shop for clothes I buy things that I'm comfortable wearing and that suit me. Most shades of pink don't suit me, so I don't wear them. Heels make my feet hurt, so I don't wear them. Skirts and dresses don't suit me, so I don't wear them. Simple as that.

LeeHoffmann

the choice was between two men's surnames (her father's or mine) so how is going with either one an act of feminine empowerment?

I hear what you're saying but I think that most women don't see the choice as 'my husband's name or my Dad's name?'. They see it as their name - yes they got the name from their Dad (usually) but that's kind of irrelevant - it's the only name they've/she's ever had! Changing your name to somebody else's is very hard to get used to. Imagine your wife asked you to take her surname - would you see it as choosing between your father's name and her father's name, or would you see it as changing your name to hers?

Dudess

"Don't wear make-up because you're caving into what men want" kinda thinking has echoes of "Women who look pretty are temptresses" kinda thinking here in Ireland not so very long ago, despite each coming from very different places.

Kanoe

maybe its because people are inclined to substitute feminine with attractive, and therefore, what you should be perceived to be as a woman. Silly word but it's just a word at the end of the day.

metrovelvet

Dudess wrote: »

"Don't wear make-up because you're caving into what men want" kinda thinking has echoes of "Women who look pretty are temptresses" kinda thinking here in Ireland not so very long ago, despite each coming from very different places.

There is a lot of feminism that smacks of nunnery.

And then there is the slut walk... so what the bleep is it... sound and fury signifying nothing.

gargleblaster

metrovelvet wrote: »

so what the bleep is it... sound and fury signifying nothing.

Or it could be that it's a large movement made up of people with diverse views.