|
dipperwell
|
"Is feminism"
The problem with this phrase is that feminism is a field. Feminists often have downright hostile and divisive arguments with eachother about the definition of feminism, its uses, and its practices. Radical liberal feminists will never agree with radical cultural feminists on motherhood or sexuality, although they agree that the strategies of early liberal feminism are impractical. Many early white feminists, such as Mary Shelley Wollstonecraft (of "Vindication of the Rights of Woman" fame) were also horribly racist (she argued that the reason women deserve better treatment is that they are superior to their slaves) while many modern feminists, particularly Audre Lorde, bell hooks, and the Combahee River Collective, are adamantly intersectional and inclusive. My point is that not I or anyone can speak for feminism anymore than you can ask a computer-manual writer what the point of English literature is (if expecting an accurate and well-rounded response).
"Femininity"
You mentioned that these women might be re-embracing their femininity. One of the arguments many feminists and psychologists would hold with (me included) would say that women cannot "re-embrace" femininity, because femininity is not inherent; in fact what we consider "feminine" is actually constituted by males and their economy, and then perpetuated by both genders. For example, some would argue that the divas of "Sex In The City" are liberated; embracing their love of sexuality. And certainly, being unashamed of sex is liberating and vital. On the other hand, these women's lives revolve around insecurities about men, or indeed men in general, as well as shopping. What does this really encourage? What does Sarah Jessica Parker's new perfume encourage? It encourages women to look pretty, alluring, sexy, dangerous, to attract men. This is considered empowering. But how can it be empowering when it revolves around men, when it involves spending a lot of money to hold that image?
Before you think about re-embracing feminity, ask yourself what you consider feminine, and if some of these traits are a little absurd - or automatically give the opposite gender more power. Or if these have been reinforced through social learning - for example, what Christmas presents are given to girls, as opposed to boys? What are the qualities of a "princess" and what do they say about what it means to be a woman? Why is "happily ever after" a marriage to a prince in a luxurious castle? Why is that the epitome of joy?
In other words, how can you re-embrace something that was never yours to begin with?
The closest most feminists get to re-embracing is by honouring qualities of nurturance, motherhood, and sexuality. And obviously, all three traits are good things in both genders (substitute motherhood for fatherhood, although the two really ought to be identical psychologically, if differing biologically) but get mixed up when they are treated differently based on genitals. For examples, psychology studies have demonstrated that very young children are equally nurturing to a baby - although this changes when parents encourage/discourage nurturance (sometimes subtlely - Maria is casually sent to watch over the baby, Bryan receives no such instruction, but both are emotionally rewarded with love from their parents, teaching both what is necessary to be "good").
And the some goes for "embodying masculine traits" - these traits are often persistence, determination, willpower, strength, impulsiveness, sexual freedom, autonomy, outspokenness, and so forth. Many feminists do not think of themselves as "playing a male character" or "embodying traits" when they opt for these; they are taking back what is considered undesirable in women. They are saying, "I am not allowed to be this, but you are. You are not allowed to be this, but I am. The inequality is that you are not allowed to be weak, superficial, willing to spend huge amounts of money on beauty/weight-loss/body-modification products, and if you are nurturing as an adult, women think it's terrific. But I'm not allowed to be strong, resourceful, single, out for my own sexual pleasure, and if I am outspoken and aggressive, men think it's disgusting."
Both genders are equally trapped, but one is trapped with a far better deal. Alas, the perils of patriarchy!
(Femininity could be defined as "what is desirable in a woman = what is undesirable in a man" and masculinity could be defined as "what is desirable in a man = what is undesirable in a woman".)
Basically, the problem of patriarchy is one of buying into a dualism: male/female, masculine/feminine, as a means of determining...well, everything. To say feminism is "loving femininity" or "embodying masculinity" is buying into that dualism, it is choosing one side. Why not have both - or, more accurately, neither? In other words, do away with the border altogether. Nevermind "feminine" traits or "masculine" traits - let us change society so that there are just traits, regardless of gender, and the traits people have are determined through their own means, rather than chromosomes they had no control over.
Anyway, I haven't been a true feminist that long, so this may be perfect dosh.
Also, I apologize if I completely misunderstood your question or took it out of context.
the (rightfully) angry feminist
|
060103
|
