Resisting femininity experiment - who's in?

[sethstarkaddersmackerel]

I was thought-provoked by the 'I'm a feminist but....' thread, particularly Dittany's posts, in which she talked about women who choose not to 'perform femininity'.

I posted on the other thread that I hugely object to all that bikini-line business but do still shave my legs. Am not sure why I do this, so I think I'm going to stop and see how it feels. It felt like a major issue when I was 20 or so but I actually suspect not shaving them now would make me feel more, rather than less, confident.

So I wondered if anyone else was thinking about giving up any beauty practices or other elements of compulsory femininity and would like to do it together and see how it feels.

this is not a competition - if you decide after a day you hate it and can't live without it, fine, but it would be really interesting to hear about, and I think it could advance our understanding of how this all works.

anyone else in?

btw, I am in a vile mood today so if anyone wants to come along to the thread and tell us we are just falling into the trap of thinking all feminists have to have hairy legs, or that actually they wax everything and are a still better feminist than meeeee, I will tell them to fuck off because if you don't 'get' this I can't be bothered explaining, either you get it or you don't

Crafty I aint

Sad thing is I don't want to dress like that for political reasons, I think it looks good

I spent my university years in flared cords

No I absolutely don't believe that men are more stimulated by visual stuff than women.

I think that is a)wishful thinking on the part of physically unattractive men and b) an excuse for why the existence of porn for men is so much more ubiquitous than the existence of porn for women and c) an excuse to oppress women about what they wear and d) an excuse for rape (she stimulated a man by her mini skirt/ jeans/ burkha etc.)

I've just returned from a holiday in Vietnam where I had clothes tailor-made for me (including an A-line ankle-length skirt!). SQ, I'm sure she'd do you some lovely flares! :o I loved the idea of tailor-made clothes - there's so little choice in the shops sometimes, you just have to buy what someone else thinks you should and what happens to be fashionable this season.

HerBeX, I don't follow you.

What does a) mean?

b) Why is an excuse needed - what other reason could it be: men are naturally oppressive? (because of patriarchies and history and the like?) Oh, ok, from c) it looks like you do think that!

d) It's a crap excuse, though. Nothing supercedes personal responsibility.

Ooooh couture dungarees I like it

why would the only alternative to b be 'men are naturally oppressive'? I don't think I know any feminists who would argue that; one possible argument would be that the patriarchy has been constructed such that men's sexual needs are considered more important than women. Another would be that men are socialised to objectify women.

and I don't think HB implies in c that she thinks men are naturally oppressive; the patriarchy oppresses women/men are socialised to oppress women, perhaps, but that is very different from suggesting that it's natural.

in fact if it was natural there wouldn't be an awful lot of point in feminism because you wouldn't be able to change the way men behaved anyway so why bother? I think the belief that the world does not have to be this way is a key part of feminist belief.

But women are going out and having affairs as much as men these days, aren't they? So they're quite happy to get their sexual needs met in that way; why not porn if that was what they wanted?

Ok, I get you (I think) on c - men are oppressive but not naturally so. But why would the mode of oppression be visual if they aren't visually stimulated? I mean if I wanted to objectify men, I'd ... er... difficult thought trajectory... I don't think I'd be interested in sex or their bodies, really!

I wonder if I need to skip over to the Why not a feminist thread and write that I just think there are differences. Not that there should be inequality because of those differences - HB's list of excuses are just that: excuses.

(a) because men like to think that women don't care about the way men look. Especially men who don't like women much IME.

HerBeX I was thinking what you have said up-thread earlier re how can not shaving be rebellious when it's just maintaining the status quo. I was also wondering how we're managing to be both lazy and rebellious at the same time? Good trick that.

It reminds me of Harry Enfield's Middle Class Protests sketch:

'What do we want?'

'WE DON'T KNOW!'

'When do we want it?'

'WHENEVER!'

Yes by a) I mean wot Unrulysam said.

I'm glad you took up the argument Seth, not sure I'd have been able to be as coherent as you!

i had that 'women who behave never make history' as a coaster for my coffee cup at work.

an enlightened chap wandered past once, glanced at it, and said 'women who don't behave are history.' grinned, and walked off.

i'm never quick enough with a retort, really.

just popped by to see how the cause was going, but see you've had some bother.

after six months not shaving my legs, i shaved mine an hour before i read the op, so i haven't been taking part as such (don't go much for grroming as a rule) but interested how it's going.

change your name to swallowedasamson, saf.

Ok, there's not much logic in a, is there? If women aren't turned on by appearance, that's not a good reason to put in no effort - unless your world revolves around sex, which for men appears to be the case, strange creatures that they are.

Men's obsession with porn is more likely to be influenced by their trousers than by "the patriarchy", surely?

Anyway, sorry - support thread not discussion thread - just trying to find out why you're doing what you're doing, but probably not the place.

Some men's obsession with porn, I should say. The ones who have learned no self-control, which unfortunately is far too many...

No I absolutely don't believe that men are more stimulated by visual stuff than women

Hear hear, HerB. I've often queried why, if men are deemed to be more visual, they are also "unable to see dirt", "oblivious to clothes", "cannot be expected to care about soft furnishings" and the like. It's a good trick, really.

Is that visual question one for Cordelia Fine?

Blackduck - what do you mean, you are no oil painting?

You need to take a leaf out of my book. Look in the mirror and think "wow! that's me! Aren't I fantastic!" You grow hundreds of tiny little eyelashes, you have lines and contours shaping your cheeks, your nose, your eyes are in their own sockets. It's amazing! And there's only YOU who looks exactly like that! Even if you are an identical twin, the twin will have developed other looks, other lines over the years.

Smile at yourself. Try putting your face at a slight angle and smiling sneakily! You will realise how fantastic you can be, you just need to see it.

Then go out on the streets and look at the men you see. Count the number of "oil paintings".

If females aren't excited visually then why are boybands so pretty?

Why does a large section of the feminist section go all gooey at the mention of adam ant? (Why do feminists seem to fancy adam ant would be a fun thread!)

Why do I enjoy watching the rugby nearly as much as my DH, when I have no idea of the rules or interest in the game itself?

Women not visually stimulated? Meh.

Also, if we weren't visually stimulated, then surely we wouldn't notice our faces so much in the mirror and not bother to put on make up, and we'd scarcely be aware of the difference.

Bottom line is

Men are whole rounded creatures with lots of different facets so women go for "whole packages".

While women are single dimensional creatures with looks being by far their most important attributer so that is what men go for.

Throw in old ideas about men having to provide, and being a slave to their sexual desires, and women being passive sexually and wanting a stable person to father their children and you come up with ideas about how looks matter to men but not women.

Despite the fact that all over the country every day, older wealthy women are copping off with young handsome chaps, women are having babies with rubbish but good looking men who are never going to provide anything, and hordes of girls scream over the latest "hot" boy on the block - and the received wisdom starts to unravel.

And let's not forget all of the happy relationships where the woman doesn't conform to narrow ideas of beauty. All of those thousands of men aren't being led by narrow ideas of what women should look like - they are getting together with people that they get on with and fancy. Good.