Sometimes you don't have to read the article

[cyrano]

to know that it's going to piss you off.

I hope that Karen Salmansohn doesn't come off as too bitchy or strident or controlling or un-feminine as she explains the foundations of feminine-ism.
(I made it all the way to page two before I threw the laptop across the room in disgust.)

Comments

[merlinofchaos]

I read this article and I'm stumped. I kind of see why you're upset, a little. I think.

Except, wow, it seems like y'all are reading a whole lot into this. I find the article a little...hmm, empty, I suppose, but some of her basic points are interesting. I've seen some of what she speaks of in the struggles with women in opensource.

In case you haven't noticed, there are a lot of negative connotations to feminism that have cropped up with the movement and it's somewhere between weird and wrong to pretend they don't exist. There is a stigma out there. Go to an open source conference of some sort. If there's a pretty girl there, I'll bet you that most people will assume that she isn't a developer.

I think this is sad. Why can't a woman be pretty -- and by this I mean want to be attractive and spend time on this -- and not be a developer. Or strong and assertive. Or incredibly successful *on her merits*. The assumption is that attractive women are successful because they're attractive, not because they are strong, smart, witty, funny or all of those things.

On the other hand, some of the insults people here are slinging at her? It seems completely disproportionate. Cunt? You question the phrase 'ugly in spirit' and call her a cunt? I think you have, in fact, just exemplified what 'ugly in spirit' means.

[my-aerie.livejournal.com]

I know there are a lot of negative connotations associated with the word feminism--it's why I don't call myself a feminist.



I don't have a problem with the idea of a feminine feminist. No problem at all. Fuck, I shave my pits, and I like to paint my nails and look pretty sometimes. My problem is that she's complaining about power feminists who think feminine and feminist are opposites, and then she goes on her little rampage to say that feminine feminists (I refuse to use her bullshit word) are the only true feminists. It's hypocritical, incredibly so.

True feminism is about free choice, and a full spectrum. True feminism encourages a woman to be a housewife/stay-at-home-mom if she wants to be. True feminism encourages a woman to go out and be a CEO if she wants to. True feminism does not restrict a woman's path, to housewife or to CEO or to pretty girl.

This woman is not aiming for true feminism. She's aiming to put mass focus back on appearance. If a woman wants to look pretty, I have NO problem with that, but I'll be damned if I let anyone think less of me under some pretense of feminism just because I spend about the same amount of time on hygiene and grooming as a typical male.

[merlinofchaos]

The problem is, and I think this is where her target audience is, is that the difference between true feminism and perceived feminism is a gigantic chasm.

My problem is that she's complaining about power feminists who think feminine and feminist are opposites

I actually think she's complaining about middle America that seens to think all feminists are power feminists.

Also, maybe you didn't get this far, but she sums up her point at the end:

My point? All of us—both men and women—need to consciously try to get in better touch with our feminine energies. When we deny the existence and the benefits of either our male or female sides, we exhaust our spirits since each side is the shadow of the other. As the Taoists say, "When you pick up one end of the stick, the other end comes up with it."

Yes, the article is a shill for her book and kind of vapid in the way it's presented, but I don't see what inspires anger or outrage. I don't see where she's saying her new brand of feminine-ism is the only thing, it's just that she's 1) selling her books, 2) talking to a fairly lowest-common-denominator audience, and 3) positing the idea that balance is healthy.

[my-aerie.livejournal.com]

BTW, glossing over your accusation that I'm ugly in spirit, I'd like to point out that I called one woman a vulgar name (something I do a ton and it doesn't mean much, but you wouldn't know that if you didn't know me); she put down a whole group of people. So, go ahead and question me for calling one individual out directly for her actions. I'm a lot more concerned with the woman who makes unfair stereotypes and generalizations about an entire group of people based on wildly unfair ideas from media and perhaps from a few extremist individuals.




My point? All of us—both men and women—need to consciously try to get in better touch with our feminine energies. When we deny the existence and the benefits of either our male or female sides, we exhaust our spirits since each side is the shadow of the other. As the Taoists say, "When you pick up one end of the stick, the other end comes up with it."

Yeah. Ya know what? Writing out three pages of ignorant drivel and then claiming you had a point? It doesn't change the three pages of ignorant drivel. They're still pointless. She's making zero claims about getting in touch with masculine side. It's all about feminine side, and all about how the masculine side is bitchy and controlling. She's NOT making any points about balance. Her point is about being what SHE defines a woman to be.


Would be damn nice if we could just get the fuck out of gender roles entirely. I mean, we're sort of getting there--at least I can wear pants to work and school and stuff. But we're still stuck in this ridiculous binary, and she's just enforcing it by pushing feminists to be feminine (again, if a feminist wants to be feminine, GREAT, GO FOR IT, but don't push some arbitrary bullshit rule on someone else when the notion of gender equality, aka feminism, has NOTHING TO DO with make up or skirts or manicures or bubble baths).

Really, this whole notion of gender binary, it's absolutely brilliant. Let's try to be separate but equal. Cuz, yanno, that's always worked SO well.

[merlinofchaos]

BTW, glossing over your accusation that I'm ugly in spirit,

I stand by what I said. Calling someone a cunt is ugly. Actually less in spirit and more corporeal. Maybe it doesn't mean much to you, but most people I know very believe that it is the strongest single word insult that can be leveled at a woman.

The rest, I leave. I do have a better understanding of why you're angry, I suppose, so my purpose -- trying to figure out what the hubbub is about -- has been met. I disagree, but that changes nothing.

[my-aerie.livejournal.com]

Point wasn't to defend my action, which I know is generally not considered okay and I prolly shouldn't have put it in a friend's LJ where people who don't know me would read it--point was to question you for getting on my ass about that and yet defending this woman who makes blanket claims about a whole group.

But, you're totally right, we should absolutely persecute the person who calls George Wallace a douchebag, not George Wallace himself. (yes, I know the comparison is extreme; the analogy stands)