Femininity- for Sparkly

Somebody want to explain to me what femininity is and how I might define myself as a woman?
Because there is literally no train that can be defined as “feminine” without excluding someone, and excluding people is bad.
So apparently there’s no difference between men and women anymore?

I don’t remember how much of this I actually said to you before (maybe none?) so congratulations and apologies here is a bunch of rambling.

The problem is:

If you define what it means to be a woman (or a man, or androgynous, or some other gender) in a firm, specific way, that hurts people. Because people feel obligated to be (whatever gender) “the right way” even if it’s not a good fit for them, or else they feel hurt and excluded because they aren’t capable of doing it “the right way”.

But if you don’t have any solid definition of what each gender is, then how can anyone have a gender, or know what gender they are?

I’m not a fan of the idea that the concept of gender should be gotten rid of entirely. Maybe in some hypothetical sci-fi future we’ll get there. At the moment, though, lots of people (almost everyone?) feel like their gender is a really important part of who they are. We can’t just ignore that. We can’t make everyone instantly forget the idea of gender, and that’s what it would take for it to stop being an issue.

I think the solution to the above problem is to let go of the idea that a gender has to have a totally solid, consistent definition.

Being a woman doesn’t have to mean exactly the same thing to everyone– and, I mean, it already doesn’t.

There’s sort of a loose constellation of things that are generally accepted as part of being a woman, but very few women fit all of them, of course, and many women consider their identity as a woman to contain things that aren’t part of the most common definition. Sometimes, different women even see directly opposite things as part of their identity as a woman. Like, some people see motherhood as being soft and caring enough to understand a child’s needs and treat them gently. Some people see it as being emotionally and physically tough enough to put their child/ren’s needs above their own. And then of course some women don’t see being a mother as part of their identity at all.

Being a woman already means very different things to different individual women. All of us already pick and choose among many stereotypes, and ideals, and traditions, and role models, to create a picture of what womanhood means to us. That’s how identity works most of the time. It’s based in culture, but it is personal. We take in messages about what it means to be women, or anything else– note that verb, we take them in. We make them part of us. We explore them and decide what they mean to us. We adapt them to fit us. It’s not a certification checklist that we go down and rigorously fulfill every item.

 

I know I go a little overboard on comparisons and similes sometimes, but I think this is useful as an example that other identities already work this way, too:

A lot of people feel that the place they were born, the place they grew up, the place they live, is an important part of their identity. They feel attached to a place and its specific culture.

But two different people’s perceptions of what it means to be from a certain place may be extremely different. That’s true even for a small town, and when it comes to identity as a citizen of a nation– that’s very important to a lot of people, but how in the world can we expect people from opposite ends of a continent, which are very different in everything from ethnic makeup to climate, to feel the same way about what it means to be American? Clearly we can’t, they don’t, there’s a huge amount of disagreement about what being American should mean and who should be included. Yet we don’t question that “I’m an American” can be a part of someone’s identity. We feel like we can still define it easily, because the government has a specific definition of citizenship, and this covers up the fact that “being an American” isn’t necessarily the same as citizenship and it very much lacks a specific definition.

Gender can be the same way– it should be the same way. The same word can have meaning to lots of people without having exactly the same meaning. No one has to be judged or excluded.

—–

Not so much for Sparkly as for the hypothetical radical feminist in the back of the room:

“But OMG what does this mean for feminism, how can we advocate for women if we can’t define women?”

You may have noticed that we already have trouble advocating for women, because women already view their identities differently, have different perspectives and needs, and prioritize different things.

(By which I mean, you probably should have noticed, or you haven’t been paying attention– for instance, to the huge problems that black women often have with mainstream feminism.)

Feminism isn’t a monolith, it doesn’t need to be one, and it definitely doesn’t need tons of gatekeeping and concern about who’s really a woman. We can help women without expecting to help all women at once, or insisting that all women agree on what kind of help they need most. There is no way to make women into a monolith without harming women who fall outside of what you expect the monolith to be.

Can we lose the idea

 that people who don’t have uteruses “don’t have a stake” in birth control access, abortion access, family planning, etc.?

Obviously people who can get pregnant have more of a stake, and each individual pregnant person should get the final say in what happens with their body. 

But “birth control/abortion is a women’s issue” or even “birth control/abortion is about people with uteruses” rests on the assumption that the people getting us uterus-having people pregnant don’t care about us or their potential children at all.  Apparently they’re all one-night stands or “deadbeat dads” who disappear when they find out they might have to take care of a baby.  None of them might actually want to have children and help care for them.  None of them care about their partner’s health, physical and mental, and want to help them avoid a pregnancy they don’t want.  None of them apparently even care about paying child support, which is nothing close to giving birth but isn’t exactly a trivial obligation, either. 

Being a parent is a serious responsibility, and it should be obvious that being able to plan it carefully or avoid it entirely is an important concern for anyone who might become a parent, whether they’d be the one getting pregnant or not. 

If you are having or would like to have PIV sex, and if you have an opinion about whether, when, and how you’d like to be a parent, then the availability of reproductive health care affects you. 

This makes me sad.

Sparkly was channel surfing and stopped for a while on Toddlers and Tiaras.  So, picture this:

Eight-year-old girl: My dream is to be on the United States gymnastics team for the Olympics when I grow up. 

Her mother: Her arms have gotten too muscular and now they don’t look right in her pageant dress.  And I can’t afford to buy her a different dress, so she’s going to stop taking gymnastics for a while.

That just seems so sad to me.  You’ve got this girl who can do flips and chin-ups and all these cool tricks– things that many people can’t do at any age– and who loves it, and you’re going to tell her that she’s too strong and she has to stop.

I don’t want to say that pageants don’t take work or that there’s something wrong with wanting to look good.  It just makes me sad to see this girl told she shouldn’t do something she enjoys because it’s not pretty. 

Internet problem of the day:

This is sort of a corollary to Poe’s Law (which says that it’s impossible to write a parody so ridiculous that no one will ever mistake it for a serious statement.)

Sometimes you’ll see people who disagree with you talking about something that seems like a straw-argument version of what you believe.  It’s recognizably related to something you believe is true, but it’s really exaggerated and oversimplified.  You think to yourself, “But nobody who believes _______ would actually say that.”

This isn’t true.

Somewhere on the internet, there are people genuinely arguing in favor of that weird, messed-up, oversimplified version of ______.

 

This happens to me a lot on Tumblr.  I’m gradually training myself out of “But no one believes that!” into “Wow, I’m lucky I’ve never met anyone who believes that.  Can I introduce you to some  _________ers who are more reasonable?”

It makes me sad

when people argue “you’re not obligated to be beautiful” against “everyone is beautiful”. 

I think they’re both extremely valuable– at least, they’ve both helped me. 

It’s reassuring and empowering to believe that you can be beautiful, despite your weight or your hair or your skin color etc.

It’s also freeing to be able to stop worrying about whether you’re beautiful or not.

Sometimes I want to be beautiful, and sometimes I want to be able to go outside without worrying about how I look, and I think that’s true for most people.

A thing that’s awkward:

Lots of things– video games, stories– are written with the assumption that the person reading/watching/playing them is a man.

This shows (among other ways) in the inclusion of female love interests.

As a bi/pan/whatever woman, who is currently in a relationship with another woman, having a female character as a love interest is fine and normal for me.

But the fact that I’m comfortable seeing myself as the main character in these things doesn’t make the straight-men-as-default thing less fucked-up.  I sort of feel bad for being willing to go along with it.

Today in “things that Minty is reading”

or rather, things Minty read a while ago but can’t stop thinking about:  Shadow of the Templar and sequels by M. Chandler.

Mostly, it is an awesome, exciting series about a team of FBI agents who pursue (and eventually accept help from) a famous art thief.  The dialogue is wonderful.  There’s a lot of sharp, witty banter, and also some just comfortable silly banter among the team members.  I laughed a lot.  There are also a lot of very imaginative cunning plots, on both sides.  On the whole, I definitely recommend it.  (Yes, despite the fact that I’m about to criticize the hell out of it and accuse it of various -isms.  It depends on what you personally are willing to put up with.  I really did get a lot of enjoyment out of it despite what’s below the cut.)

There are three other things I want to tell you about it, though– one is a FEELINGS, and two are somewhat more thoughtful criticism.  I’m going to talk about the plot a bit, so if you don’t want anything spoiled, stop here.

Continue reading “Today in “things that Minty is reading””

Saw another post against sex-positive feminism on Tumblr today.

I’m saying this here because I don’t really want to debate about the post, I just want to say this:

I never know what to do with most of the arguments against sex-positivity, because they don’t apply to anyone I know who calls themself sex-positive.  Like, for instance, how can I credit the idea that sex positivity has no room for survivors, when the majority of the sex-positive bloggers I read are survivors of rape and/or abusive relationships? I can see how the concepts of sex positivity could be interpreted to hurt people who don’t want to have sex, but as far as I’m concerned that’s a misuse of them, it isn’t what sex positivity actually means, and it isn’t how people I know use it.

How about I just tell you all what I think “sex positive” means?

As far as I’m concerned, sex positivity is a denial of the idea that there is a right or wrong way to have sex, except for “consensually”.  If everyone involved truly and freely consented beforehand, and didn’t have their trust violated during, then the sex they had was basically okay.  Having sex is not inherently shameful, and no particular type of sex is inherently wrong or “dirty”.

This isn’t exactly part of my definition, but it’s something I believe in strongly and it sort of goes together: Each individual is the ultimate authority on what they want, how they feel, and what is good for them.  Not that they are necessarily always right, but nobody else can be sure of knowing more than the individual does.  This is important to me for three reasons:
From a more abstract, theoretical point of view, I think this idea is necessary to have any actual conversation about people’s wants/needs.  If you don’t take someone’s word about their feelings– if one person says “I feel this way about that subject” and the other says “Well, I don’t believe you, I think you must actually feel that other way,” where can the conversation go from there?  No one can prove what’s going on inside their mind (or someone else’s).  Raising the question just creates an impossible situation.

Second, more practically, I think it is profoundly disrespectful to claim to know more about someone else than they do about themself.  (Except maybe in certain circumstances if you are a trained therapist.)  It denies their agency, their ability to make decisions for themself.

Third, I highly doubt that arguing with someone about their wants or feelings, no matter how good the reason seems, is going to do the other person any good in the long run.  It’s pretty unlikely that you can change someone’s mind about what they feel if their mind is made up.  And if you do, I can’t help but think that causing someone to doubt themself that deeply is not doing them a favor, even if it does stop them from doing one unwise thing.  I’ve been in that place of doubting whether my feelings are real and what they mean, and it is shitty.  And I believe that if someone is wrong about what’s best for them, they can only ultimately get out of it by getting more in touch with who they are and what they want and figuring it out for themselves, not just by doing what other people tell them.  I think people need to be able to trust their own judgement, and to get there you have to sometimes use your judgement, not only other people’s.

So the sum of this is, if you are certain that what you’re doing with respect to sex is right for you (and if other people are involved, they’re certain too), I’m not going to tell you otherwise.   Whether you are having sex or not, and regardless of what kind of sex you’re having.

One of the men in [fan organization] is kind of a ‘splainer.

Not in the classic way.  He didn’t say anything that’s definitely incorrect.  But I told him I majored in chemistry, and he felt the need to make the conversation all about his opinions and ideas about chemistry.  He was all self-deprecating, “This isn’t my field and I’m sure you know much more about it than I do,” but he still talked at me for a good fifteen minutes about how awesome chemistry is, and problems that in his opinion chemistry ought to solve.  I didn’t talk much, because he didn’t really give me anything specific to respond to, and I didn’t want to end up saying “That would be cool, but I don’t think there’s any way to do it” in too rude a way.  And then I told him that I studied Spanish and almost minored in it, so he told me how the restaurant Chichi’s actually means Tits.

It’s kind of subtle, but do you see what I mean?  He kept taking me knowing things– knowing more than he did about a subject, in fact– as a cue to tell me about what he knew, rather than ask me something.

 

P.S.  [Fan organization] is generally pretty awesome, and I’m proud to be a part of it, but I’m not going to tell you what it is because my real name is online associated with some of their stuff.