Category Archives: femmephobia

Rarity is Best Pony

Because this is My Blog and I am allowed to squee about ponies if I want to.

I have to admit, when Rarity was first introduced I was like “oh fuck. It’s The One Who’s Into Fashion.” It is a truth universally acknowledged that every shitty girls’ TV show must have a Girl who is Into Fashion and all of whose character traits revolve around shoe shopping and the need for added closet space. I am pretty much 100% the biggest proponent of femininity you’ll find, and even I am profoundly annoyed by The One Who’s Into Fashion.

I think the thing that separates Rarity from ordinary girls’ TV characters that are Into Fashion is that most of the fashionistas in girls’ TV are primarily consumers of fashion: they like shopping and coordinating outfits. Rarity, on the other hand, is a creator.

A lot of Rarity’s plotlines are about the problems of being an artist. What do you do when a friend becomes more successful than you do? How do you deal with criticism of your work? What about when you’re on deadline but you spend so much time making something absolutely perfect that you don’t have time to finish all the work you’re supposed to do? Or when people keep bothering you when you try to work? Artist problems!

Furthermore, just because Rarity is feminine does not mean that she isn’t made of pure badassery. Which is another of my problems with the Characters that are Into Fashion– they often are kinda dumb and don’t have much going for them beyond awesome outfits. Feminine does not mean dumb or weak, people. If you write all your feminine characters as dumb and weak you are bad and you should feel bad.

I think A Dog and Pony Show shows it off best: Rarity gets kidnapped and the Mane Six decide to stage a rescue! Fortunately, Rarity has maxxed out her Charisma score, so she just Ransom of Red Chiefs the hell out of her kidnappers until they’re cowed into submission. What I particularly like is that it’s not that Rarity is suddenly able to fight: it’s that she’s manipulative and clever and good at people, the same personality traits she’s had throughout the show, and she can fucking destroy you with them. And that is a trope I adore.

About these ads

In Defense of Disney

A lot of people tend to criticize the Disney princesses as being anti-feminist which, as a mature grown-up adult who is a fan of Disney movies but recognizes that other people may have different opinions and legitimate criticisms, I tend to respond to something like this:

NO NO NO NO DISNEY IS AWESOME STOP SAYING THAT IT’S OKAY DISNEY PRINCESSES I WILL SNUGGLE YOU ALL AND PROTECT YOU FROM THE MEAN PEOPLE :( :( :(

But once I get over my irrational princess love, even I have to admit a lot of feminist criticism of Disney princesses is legitimate. Early Disney princesses didn’t have very much agency. Worryingly, Frozen looks like it’s going to continue Tangled’s focus on the hero in lieu of the princess. Pocahontas is amazingly racist.* Beauty and the Beast depicts an abusive relationship. We’re probably not going to get a lesbian princess, a disabled princess, or a princess who isn’t conventionally attractive. And don’t get me started on the merch. “Sparkling Princess Mulan,” Disney? Really? Really?

So Disney princesses are bad! Instead we should let girls watch all the other coming-of-age stories that feature female protagonists with a wide variety of personalities, about a third of whom are women of color, and which thanks to their variety of female villains and side characters almost always pass the Bechdel test.**

Oh wait.

There aren’t any.

Seriously, look at the diversity here. Merida and Mulan and Rapunzel as your grrrl-power ass-kicking princesses! (And also different kinds of ass-kicking: Rapunzel has more Power of Love, while Mulan has more Power of Passing Grades In Physics.) Belle, the shy intelligent girl who reads all the time! Tiana, who works her ass off to get her restaurant! Pocahontas, who’s a hippie (Jesus, Pocahontas is racist)! Jasmine, who weaponizes her femininity to defeat Jafar!

(And that’s not even getting into subversive readings of the text. Mulan as trans man or Rapunzel as abuse survivor, anyone?)

One of the most common criticisms of “princess culture” is that it teaches girls that their only goals should be being pretty and marrying a handsome prince. Except, uh… have the people who made that criticism seen any of the films post-Disney-Renaissance? Ariel, Rapunzel, and Jasmine all want to explore the world and escape from their overprotective parents. Pocahontas wants an end to colonialism. Belle wants to protect her father. Mulan wants to keep the Huns from invading China. Tiana wants to own a restaurant (and then when she becomes a princess she is like “fuck this princess thing, I’m going to have my restaurant!” and makes Prince Naveen work as a waiter because Tiana is awesome). Personally, I am entirely okay with encouraging girls to love their parents, seek independence, and stop people from invading countries. That sounds like a plan.

Okay, yes, Snow White, Cinderella, and Aurora are pretty boring. To be fair, their princes are also really boring. There were a lot of really boring people in those movies. (What? Me? Biased?) Let’s look at this scientific chart of Interesting Characters In Sleeping Beauty, By Gender:

pie chart
[Maleficent and the fairies, people. I'm sorry I gave Maleficent so little of the pie chart, because Maleficent is a BAMF, but the Fairies should get more because there are three of them and they have to share.]

I feel like a lot of people’s hatred of Disney princesses comes less from their being startlingly more anti-feminist than everyone else, and more because they’re girly and pink and focused on romance and ewwwww femininity cooties get them off get them off. (I don’t think it’s an accident that the princesses that usually get the Feminist Pass are also the least feminine ones, either.) There’s this disturbing tendency among a lot of people who fancy themselves feminists to hate feminine things. It’s okay, guys. Hating things conventionally associated with women isn’t misogynistic at all. You are Best Feminists, I’m sure.

*Although they did hire Native American consultants for the film and used mostly Native American voice actors. Which is cool.
**Dammit, Aladdin and The Little Mermaid, shape up. 

Other People’s Makeup Use: None Of Your Business

The New York Times asked a bunch of people to comment on whether makeup empowers women or hurts their self-esteem. Unaccountably, they didn’t ask me for my opinion, but I shall give it to them anyway.

Some might find this odd from a makeup-hating hairy-legged radical feminist, but the pro side is not wrong. Some women get a self-esteem boost from feeling like they’re presenting their best selves to the world. Some women think of makeup as armor they put on before battle. Some women consider makeup to be three minutes of self-care, time they take for themselves. The key word there, however, is some women.

I don’t understand why so many people have trouble with the idea that different people can have different opinions about things. “BDSM makes some people happy” and “BDSM makes some people feel violated” are not contradictory statements. Neither are “sex work makes some people feel raped,” “sex work is a job some people love and would rather work than anything else in the world,” and “sex work is another mildly unpleasant thing some people do to put food on the table.” And neither are “makeup makes some people feel empowered” and “makeup hurts some people’s self-esteem.” In a perfect world, people could be left to wear or not wear makeup, have or not have kinky sex, do or not do sex work, as pleases them.

As the anti side points out, however, we don’t live in that world.

Job discrimination against women who refuse to wear makeup is real, as are romantic partners who feel entitled to a partner who always wears makeup. Women who wear makeup tend to be considered more likeable, competent, and attractive, which is rather unfair, given that the application of crushed rocks to the face has exactly zero effects on any of those things. Not wearing makeup can, in some circles, make people wonder what’s wrong or worry that you’re not taking care of yourself. All of that adds up to a lot of fucking coercion.

For that matter, look at the way this debate was framed! The discussion was between “women must wear makeup” and “women should be free to wear makeup or not wear makeup.” Apparently “women should not wear makeup” is entirely unthinkable, since the New York Times could not find even one person to argue it. I’m not saying that women shouldn’t wear makeup (of course not), just pointing out that the asymmetry is telling.

Partially, of course, the pressure for women to wear makeup is a side effect of makeup companies trying to keep their business. The set of people who believe makeup is fun is much smaller than the set of people who can be convinced that if they don’t wear makeup they are ugly and horrible and a failure as a woman. But makeup companies’ best interest is also to convince men that they’re ugly and horrible and failures as men if they don’t wear makeup, and they have so far failed to do so. What gives?

It’s fucking patriarchy again. Women are supposed to be Beautiful because they must be Pleasing to Men, and specifically Pleasing to Men’s Boners, because if you aren’t Pleasing to Men’s Boners then you will never get to marry Mr. Bingley. On the other hand, men do not have to be Pleasing to Women’s Boners, that’s what money is for.

On the other hand, a lot of anti-makeup sentiment– particularly anything that starts talking about how “frivolous” and “shallow” makeup is– is also misogynistic and femmephobic. Makeup is a form of visual art. If making your face beautiful is shallow, so is making a canvas beautiful or a block of marble or a hunk of plastic. If you understand why someone would feel satisfied and happy when they make a gorgeous print, you understand why someone would feel satisfied and happy when their makeup looks perfect. I do not think it is accidental that the form of visual art almost entirely practiced by women is the one that gets accused of frivolity and where the talent exhibited by many of the artists is ignored or denigrated.

A final note: if makeup is so damn empowering men should have a chance to put it on too.

Suzanne Venker Continues To Be The Worst Person Alive

Suzanne Venker, best known for theorizing about the imaginary war on men in an article I criticized here, has decided to answer a few burning questions for us. For instance, when she said for women to “embrace their femininity,” what did she mean?

Well, let’s just say the post begins by quoting Tracy McMillan, also a leading Worst Person Alive candidate, and gets worse from there.

Oddly, I agree with some things Venker says. Our culture is incredibly femmephobic: as a culture, we hate, fear, and despise feminine things, including gentleness, compassion, sensitivity, deference, adornment, giggling, and the color pink. Unfortunately, some aspects of the feminist movement have fallen prey to this cultural femmephobia and portrayed “women’s liberation” as the liberation to be as masculine as the dudes. (See also: pretty much anyone who criticizes staying home with children as anti-feminist.) But turning from hating women to hating things associated with women is not a feminist victory.

Femininity is powerful. Hard femmes who will kick your ass without breaking a nail. Self-sufficient people who can grow their own garden and can their own food and bake their own bread and would do just fine if dropped in your hypermasculine zombie apocalypse fantasies, thank you. Soft power and manipulation and killing with kindness. Solidarity and self-love found in nail salons and teenage sleepovers. The self-sacrifice and devotion required to be the primary caregiver of some pretty damn cool kids. Lipstick and foundation as armor to shield you from the daily microaggressions of a misogynistic society intend on grinding you down. That matters.

The problem I encounter is when Venker suggests that women have to be feminine and men cannot. A woman can honor and respect the feminine, and still choose not to be feminine herself. Similarly, if a man wants to embrace femininity, he should be perfectly welcome to do so. Of course, if a woman wants to embrace femininity or a man not to, that is also wonderful. Every gender presentation should be open to people of every gender.

Ms. Venker, however, has science for us!

Fortunately, there’s been an explosion of brain research in the past several years to help explain male and female anatomy. The best books are Dr. Louann Brizendine’s “The Male Brain” and “The Female Brain.”

I presume this is some odd use of the word “best” I was previously unfamiliar with, given that Dr. Brizendine’s book is notoriously full of inaccuracies and errors.

Neuroscience is incredibly new. There’s a lot of really basic things we don’t understand yet, like “why do we dream?” and “how is language implemented neurally?” and “what neurochemical things are happening when Ozy can’t get out of bed because life hurts so much?” If we can’t explain things like that, why would you assume that we can state categorically that and how men and women are different?

Of course, I would be very surprised if it turned out there were no inborn differences between men as a group and women as a group. I even have some guesses about what the differences might be. Nevertheless, you cannot ignore that culture and upbringing plays an enormous role in how people behave, not to mention that thanks to confirmation bias we tend to notice people who fit the stereotypes and not notice people who don’t. People can continue to believe a stereotype that isn’t true just because they believe it. (Yeah. Brains are kind of awesome.)

The second half is another one of those “I agree, but no” situations. For instance, Venker says that if marriage and lasting love is your goal you must become comfortable with sacrifice and capitulation! I entirely agree with this. I mean, I wouldn’t say “capitulation” exactly, but as far as I can tell in every long-term committed relationship there are a certain number of “I love cabbage but she hates the smell, so I won’t eat it” and “his dream is to live on a boat, so despite my apathy about the water off I go” issues. If you’re going to wait for someone who is exactly compatible with you in every way… well, you’re going to be waiting for a long time.

Unfortunately, Venker’s idea of what you’ll have to sacrifice has absolutely nothing to do with actual compatibility issues.

Just because you make your own money doesn’t mean your guy can’t pay the bill. Just because you value independence doesn’t mean you can’t take your husband’s last name. Just because you can do the same job a man can do doesn’t mean you need to let him know it.

Um what.

The first two are just… bizarre. I honestly have a hard time imagining someone being like “I didn’t want to get married to her, but then she let me pay the bill and mentioned wanting to take my last name, and now I am in LOVE.” But what they lack in relevance they make up for in anti-feminist cliche goodness. Seriously, what next, is she going to pull out the “who opens the door?” thing? (By the way, the optimal rules are “the person who invites pays” and “the person with the coolest last name keeps it.” Can someone give me a column at Fox now?)

As for the third… call me a feminazi, but I think being dishonest is a really bad setup for a relationship. If he doesn’t love you unless you pretend not to know how to reduce a fraction, kick ass at video games, and kill scary bugs, he doesn’t love you. He loves the imaginary you that you made up to keep from hurting his manly pride. If that’s something you want in your relationship… well, your kink is not my kink. But it sounds like a sad and empty way to love for me.