Feminists are unattractive in both looks and in spirit.
I'm more than 10,000 words behind on my NaNoWriMo. Naturally, this means you get a thorough critique of an article a friend linked me to.
Here is the drivel in question. (Alas, Oprah, I once respected you, even if I didn't like you very much)
What a priceless piece of journalistic genius, amirite?! I'm so thrilled to have been enriched by reading this article!! :D
Alright, now let's get our hands dirty...this is gonna be fun, kiddos!!
I'll start out by giving Karen one point for bringing this up: There's still a disconnect between a woman being "beautiful, leggy, sexy" and being powerful-even in a low-level career like mugger. You're right, Karen. There is a notion that beauty and power don't go hand in hand. Another person put it in a way I can relate to better--at an open source convention, you're not gonna look at the pretty girl with the model-esque body and think she's a developer. It is a sad disconnect, and one which should be rectified. But the way to rectify it isn't to demand we all look pretty! It's to IGNORE looks--pretty or homely, high maintenance or roll-out-of-bed-and-go--and judge based on merit. I mean, why should there be any associations as to what a beautiful, leggy, sexy woman could do? Why should we assume she's a hooker, a mugger, a coder, a cashier, a CEO, a secret service agent?
Despite a vaguely promising start, Karen begins to flounder pretty fast. In the very next paragraph, Karen asserts that Somewhere along the line, to be a feminist started to mean a woman who's basically unattractive both in looks and spirit. You know, I've sure as hell never heard that. I've heard some hate spewed at feminists, but I've never heard it a widely accepted idea that feminists are unattractive, in any way, especially in spirit...I could maybe see the idea that feminists aren't as pretty because they spend more time climbing the corporate ladder than they do primping for their husbands. We should correct that notion and allow for freedom to primp or climb, whatever pleases a woman. Okay Karen, you're on shaky ground, but I'm not taking away your point just yet...it's teetering though. You seem ready to give in to and even embrace some media-imposed stereotype about feminism that's really only true in a few extremists (hey, didn't we decide that all Muslims are terrorists just because of a few extremists? See how right we were? This is a BRILLIANT way for us to think!).
With this in mind, I'd like to put forth that starting today, the word "feminism" be updated to become the new word "feminine-ism." Oh Karen. That point just fell off the ledge when you made up some cutesy fake word rather than fight to bring the proper definition back to feminism. *patpat* It's okay, your heart was in the right place. I don't hate you.
My goal is to inspire women to embrace being their fullest potential selves-feminine, sexy, warm, loving-everything the word "feminine" stands for, alongside strong qualities like powerful and successful. Say, Karen? Do you know why feminism has such a bad reputation? It's because a few extremists (and consequently the media) made feminism about getting as much power as possible. Feminism was warped from gender equality to power for women. A woman could not be a stay-at-home-mom feminist because that wasn't a powerful role. There was once an ideal about a woman being free to choose, not to be forced into one role or another. And the feminist extremists you dislike so much, they made a tiny box of feminism and decided that anyone outside of it couldn't be feminist. Well, do you realize, Karen, that you're doing the same exact thing? You're encouraging women to embrace everything the word "feminine" stands for, yet you're so narrowly defining feminine. You're a step above trying to make women into damsels in distress, so I'll hold off on my hatred for a little longer, but you're on thin ice. And I'm taking away another point for your hypocritically narrow definition of feminine. Which means you're in the red.
It's a personal mission of mine-evident in a range of my books-to help empower women to live their most fulfilling, self-loving and happiest lives. Well, Karen, now you're outright lying to me. How do books like this help me live my most fulfilling, self-loving, happiest life? Because...it helps me find a man? Oh Karen. Karen, Karen, Karen. Again with the narrow definitions. Do you understand that feminism is about choice? Not about a single path? Do you understand that a woman CAN lead a completely fulfilling, self-loving, happy live WITHOUT a man (or any other romantic partner)? If your answer is yes, then maybe you're not a lost cause. If your answer is no...well. I'll just take five of those points. But, let's give you a bit of benefit of the doubt, we'll pretend you said yes. One point back please. Your new balance is negative two points.
I see too many women these days rushing around trying to do it all, but meanwhile they're not being it all! They're not being their fullest, best feminine selves. Instead, they're being tougher than they'd like to be as well as more exhausted, strident and irritable, thereby feeling unattractive inside and out. All while suffering from guilt over the stuff they did not manage to squeeze into their over-booked schedules. I'd like to point something out to you, Karen. My dad also fits this description. Or he did, until he retired. He's doing better at keeping it all under control now, but you better believe he was rushing around, exhausted, stressed, frustrated, and I would be shocked if his self esteem DIDN'T suffer from all that strain. Oh, but, you're only talking about women, because obviously this is only a female problem and men have it under control. Karen, newsflash: this is a sign of gender equality. Women are holding responsibility and getting stressed about deadlines, same as men have been doing for ages. Now, I'm not saying it's good. We should all learn to chill out and not have heart attacks before we're forty. But, it's a HUMAN problem, and has nothing to do with having a vagina. Mmkay, Karen? I won't take away a point here, because you're not wrong, your statement is just a bit incomplete. But you're getting on my bad side. I don't like being misled with incomplete information.
Whenever I do take the time to tap into "feminine-ism"-this energy of simply being by indulging in a meditative and self-nurturing manicure, a facial or a hot bubble bath-that's when I feel my most powerful. Karen, that is absolutely splendid that you have found a way to unwind and feel good. Plenty of people (including men, just by the by) relax with manicures, pedicures, facials, hair cuts, bubble baths, massages, and so on. But Karen? I feel UNCOMFORTABLE when I'm dolled up like that. It gets in the way of my functioning and then I get stressed out when my functioning fucks up a manicure or when my new hair cut won't keep out of my eyes when I'm trying to work. Does this make me less of a feminist than you? Does this make me any less feminine than you? I'm gonna be nice and still not take away another point, even though I really should, if only cuz this and the last should equal a full point.
As "feminine-ists," we definitely don't need to make the choice between feminine or powerful and successful. We should and must try to embrace both choices simultaneously. Let me make an editorial suggestion in case you ever try to republish this drivel. Reword this to read: "As feminists, we should and must try to embrace all choices women can make, whether it is to embrace her tough-as-nails side and work the jackhammer at the construction site, or to feel good in a new dress and expensive make up, or anything else on the spectrum of choices." I will finally take away another point, taking you to negative three. This here wasn't worth a point alone, but this with the previous two paragraphs are worth at least one point. Narrow definitions and hypocrisy are not the way to my heart, Karen.
With the word "feminism," it might have been embarrassing for a man to say he was a supporter because it might sound like he was admitting to supporting of a group of controlling, bitchy women. But with new pro-sexiness, pro-sweetness, pro-balance words like "feminine-ist" and "feminine-ism," what's not for a man to love? Karen, you're trading off one stereotype for another. Basically, you're going from a bull-dyke stereotype of feminism to a cheerleader stereotype of feminism. I honestly can't see many men being comfortable aligning themselves with the cheerleader stereotype "feminine-ism" brings to mind. And really, if we're talking about men who are so sensitive to how the world sees them...do you REALLY think they're going to be eager to call themselves a feminine anything, even if you awkwardly tack on an extra syllable on the end? I'm just sayin. By the way, Karen, I have never met a man who refused to call himself a feminist. In fact, I'm the only person I know who tries to avoid the feminist label (but thanks to you, I'm going to embrace it now, just to further prove you and your ridiculous notions wrong, and to prove wrong anyone else who thinks with the same narrow thought pattern you have going here). I'm taking away another point for your generalizations about males and for your bizarre and unfounded notion that men would be less opposed to identifying as the made up word "feminine-ist" over the real, proper, sensible word "feminist." Negative four, Karen. Negative four.
So, the feminism stereotypes weren't enough for you, now you're going off on American and Indian stereotypes? Karen, has anyone ever discussed the meanings of the words "respect" and "tact" with you? Go look them up, please. And then employ them every chance you get. And furthermore, I'd like to discuss with you an issue I have with this statement of yours: It would embrace more feminine qualities like stillness, meditativeness and spirituality. You know...I don't see those as feminine qualities at all. In fact, Karen, would you like to know what these words calls to mind? A monk. I'm thinking buddhist. Maybe Ghandi. Frankly, it doesn't bring a woman to mind at all. Now, I'm not saying women can't, don't, or shouldn't have these traits. And I'm not saying they're masculine. I'm just saying I don't think these traits are inherently feminine. But, maybe this is just a minor difference in perception. I won't take away a point for it.
As the Taoists say, "When you pick up one end of the stick, the other end comes up with it." You get half a point for the great point you made here. But you lose it for the fact that this point has NOTHING to do with anything you've been saying. Karen, you haven't been encouraging anything about the masculine side, you've merely harped about the feminine side, and about how important it is to be feminine, and how all feminists should be feminine. You don't understand feminism.
So at the end, Karen, you have a balance of negative four points. And I was nice.
Here is the drivel in question. (Alas, Oprah, I once respected you, even if I didn't like you very much)
What a priceless piece of journalistic genius, amirite?! I'm so thrilled to have been enriched by reading this article!! :D
Alright, now let's get our hands dirty...this is gonna be fun, kiddos!!
I'll start out by giving Karen one point for bringing this up: There's still a disconnect between a woman being "beautiful, leggy, sexy" and being powerful-even in a low-level career like mugger. You're right, Karen. There is a notion that beauty and power don't go hand in hand. Another person put it in a way I can relate to better--at an open source convention, you're not gonna look at the pretty girl with the model-esque body and think she's a developer. It is a sad disconnect, and one which should be rectified. But the way to rectify it isn't to demand we all look pretty! It's to IGNORE looks--pretty or homely, high maintenance or roll-out-of-bed-and-go--and judge based on merit. I mean, why should there be any associations as to what a beautiful, leggy, sexy woman could do? Why should we assume she's a hooker, a mugger, a coder, a cashier, a CEO, a secret service agent?
Despite a vaguely promising start, Karen begins to flounder pretty fast. In the very next paragraph, Karen asserts that Somewhere along the line, to be a feminist started to mean a woman who's basically unattractive both in looks and spirit. You know, I've sure as hell never heard that. I've heard some hate spewed at feminists, but I've never heard it a widely accepted idea that feminists are unattractive, in any way, especially in spirit...I could maybe see the idea that feminists aren't as pretty because they spend more time climbing the corporate ladder than they do primping for their husbands. We should correct that notion and allow for freedom to primp or climb, whatever pleases a woman. Okay Karen, you're on shaky ground, but I'm not taking away your point just yet...it's teetering though. You seem ready to give in to and even embrace some media-imposed stereotype about feminism that's really only true in a few extremists (hey, didn't we decide that all Muslims are terrorists just because of a few extremists? See how right we were? This is a BRILLIANT way for us to think!).
With this in mind, I'd like to put forth that starting today, the word "feminism" be updated to become the new word "feminine-ism." Oh Karen. That point just fell off the ledge when you made up some cutesy fake word rather than fight to bring the proper definition back to feminism. *patpat* It's okay, your heart was in the right place. I don't hate you.
My goal is to inspire women to embrace being their fullest potential selves-feminine, sexy, warm, loving-everything the word "feminine" stands for, alongside strong qualities like powerful and successful. Say, Karen? Do you know why feminism has such a bad reputation? It's because a few extremists (and consequently the media) made feminism about getting as much power as possible. Feminism was warped from gender equality to power for women. A woman could not be a stay-at-home-mom feminist because that wasn't a powerful role. There was once an ideal about a woman being free to choose, not to be forced into one role or another. And the feminist extremists you dislike so much, they made a tiny box of feminism and decided that anyone outside of it couldn't be feminist. Well, do you realize, Karen, that you're doing the same exact thing? You're encouraging women to embrace everything the word "feminine" stands for, yet you're so narrowly defining feminine. You're a step above trying to make women into damsels in distress, so I'll hold off on my hatred for a little longer, but you're on thin ice. And I'm taking away another point for your hypocritically narrow definition of feminine. Which means you're in the red.
It's a personal mission of mine-evident in a range of my books-to help empower women to live their most fulfilling, self-loving and happiest lives. Well, Karen, now you're outright lying to me. How do books like this help me live my most fulfilling, self-loving, happiest life? Because...it helps me find a man? Oh Karen. Karen, Karen, Karen. Again with the narrow definitions. Do you understand that feminism is about choice? Not about a single path? Do you understand that a woman CAN lead a completely fulfilling, self-loving, happy live WITHOUT a man (or any other romantic partner)? If your answer is yes, then maybe you're not a lost cause. If your answer is no...well. I'll just take five of those points. But, let's give you a bit of benefit of the doubt, we'll pretend you said yes. One point back please. Your new balance is negative two points.
I see too many women these days rushing around trying to do it all, but meanwhile they're not being it all! They're not being their fullest, best feminine selves. Instead, they're being tougher than they'd like to be as well as more exhausted, strident and irritable, thereby feeling unattractive inside and out. All while suffering from guilt over the stuff they did not manage to squeeze into their over-booked schedules. I'd like to point something out to you, Karen. My dad also fits this description. Or he did, until he retired. He's doing better at keeping it all under control now, but you better believe he was rushing around, exhausted, stressed, frustrated, and I would be shocked if his self esteem DIDN'T suffer from all that strain. Oh, but, you're only talking about women, because obviously this is only a female problem and men have it under control. Karen, newsflash: this is a sign of gender equality. Women are holding responsibility and getting stressed about deadlines, same as men have been doing for ages. Now, I'm not saying it's good. We should all learn to chill out and not have heart attacks before we're forty. But, it's a HUMAN problem, and has nothing to do with having a vagina. Mmkay, Karen? I won't take away a point here, because you're not wrong, your statement is just a bit incomplete. But you're getting on my bad side. I don't like being misled with incomplete information.
Whenever I do take the time to tap into "feminine-ism"-this energy of simply being by indulging in a meditative and self-nurturing manicure, a facial or a hot bubble bath-that's when I feel my most powerful. Karen, that is absolutely splendid that you have found a way to unwind and feel good. Plenty of people (including men, just by the by) relax with manicures, pedicures, facials, hair cuts, bubble baths, massages, and so on. But Karen? I feel UNCOMFORTABLE when I'm dolled up like that. It gets in the way of my functioning and then I get stressed out when my functioning fucks up a manicure or when my new hair cut won't keep out of my eyes when I'm trying to work. Does this make me less of a feminist than you? Does this make me any less feminine than you? I'm gonna be nice and still not take away another point, even though I really should, if only cuz this and the last should equal a full point.
As "feminine-ists," we definitely don't need to make the choice between feminine or powerful and successful. We should and must try to embrace both choices simultaneously. Let me make an editorial suggestion in case you ever try to republish this drivel. Reword this to read: "As feminists, we should and must try to embrace all choices women can make, whether it is to embrace her tough-as-nails side and work the jackhammer at the construction site, or to feel good in a new dress and expensive make up, or anything else on the spectrum of choices." I will finally take away another point, taking you to negative three. This here wasn't worth a point alone, but this with the previous two paragraphs are worth at least one point. Narrow definitions and hypocrisy are not the way to my heart, Karen.
With the word "feminism," it might have been embarrassing for a man to say he was a supporter because it might sound like he was admitting to supporting of a group of controlling, bitchy women. But with new pro-sexiness, pro-sweetness, pro-balance words like "feminine-ist" and "feminine-ism," what's not for a man to love? Karen, you're trading off one stereotype for another. Basically, you're going from a bull-dyke stereotype of feminism to a cheerleader stereotype of feminism. I honestly can't see many men being comfortable aligning themselves with the cheerleader stereotype "feminine-ism" brings to mind. And really, if we're talking about men who are so sensitive to how the world sees them...do you REALLY think they're going to be eager to call themselves a feminine anything, even if you awkwardly tack on an extra syllable on the end? I'm just sayin. By the way, Karen, I have never met a man who refused to call himself a feminist. In fact, I'm the only person I know who tries to avoid the feminist label (but thanks to you, I'm going to embrace it now, just to further prove you and your ridiculous notions wrong, and to prove wrong anyone else who thinks with the same narrow thought pattern you have going here). I'm taking away another point for your generalizations about males and for your bizarre and unfounded notion that men would be less opposed to identifying as the made up word "feminine-ist" over the real, proper, sensible word "feminist." Negative four, Karen. Negative four.
So, the feminism stereotypes weren't enough for you, now you're going off on American and Indian stereotypes? Karen, has anyone ever discussed the meanings of the words "respect" and "tact" with you? Go look them up, please. And then employ them every chance you get. And furthermore, I'd like to discuss with you an issue I have with this statement of yours: It would embrace more feminine qualities like stillness, meditativeness and spirituality. You know...I don't see those as feminine qualities at all. In fact, Karen, would you like to know what these words calls to mind? A monk. I'm thinking buddhist. Maybe Ghandi. Frankly, it doesn't bring a woman to mind at all. Now, I'm not saying women can't, don't, or shouldn't have these traits. And I'm not saying they're masculine. I'm just saying I don't think these traits are inherently feminine. But, maybe this is just a minor difference in perception. I won't take away a point for it.
As the Taoists say, "When you pick up one end of the stick, the other end comes up with it." You get half a point for the great point you made here. But you lose it for the fact that this point has NOTHING to do with anything you've been saying. Karen, you haven't been encouraging anything about the masculine side, you've merely harped about the feminine side, and about how important it is to be feminine, and how all feminists should be feminine. You don't understand feminism.
So at the end, Karen, you have a balance of negative four points. And I was nice.