Brownfemipower gets the hat tip and the curtsey for linking to this fascinating post at Sugarbutch Chronicles: Bringing Butch Back. It’s a succinct corrective to many of the received assumptions of Second-Wave feminism’s response to gender roles and chivalry:
Chivalry is deeply feminist to me. When in femmes, I expect femininity to be deliberate, done with the whole knowledge of the compulsory heteronormative restrictions which dictate that women must be and do certain things, particular that we must wear high heels, delicate cloth, restrictive clothing. Femininity is not made for comfort or movement, it is made to accentuate the sexualization of a woman’s body - and that’s why things like holding her doors open (so she doesn’t dirty her white gloves or expensive manicure), pulling her chair out (so she doesn’t have to awkwardly move a bulky piece of furniture, and risk getting it caught on her skirt or stockings and ripping something) or holding her coat (so she doesn’t have to reach around and risk ripping the tight seams in her shoulders or upper back) are necessary to me, as an acknowledgement of how restrictive femininity can be, and of how difficult it is to walk around the world in these clothes, as a celebration of the beauty of femininity on the body, and with deep respect for the courage to costume and perform femme to begin with.
Bold mine.
Most of the discussions about “chivalry” and “courtesy” in the feminist blogosphere are rooted in heterosexist assumptions. Virtually every feminist, early in his or her public “career” as a warrior for gender equality, gets involved in the “opening doors” and “paying for dinner” discussion. It’s remarkable how many young women, convinced that a fondness for playing traditional gender roles is at odds with egalitarian ideology, cite a fondness for “common courtesy” and “being treated like a lady” (or a “girl”, or a “woman”) as a primary reason for rejecting the feminist label. While few feminists claim that a straight woman’s conscious enjoyment of traditional gender roles automatically vitiates her feminism, most feel that it goes too far to claim the enthusiastic participation in “chivalry” as a genuinely “feminist choice.”
All gender roles are, of course, performances. Whether we’re straight or gay or queer, most of us “play act”. For many of us, that playing has become so deeply ingrained that we are unaware of a distinction between our “true” and our “performing” selves. But even someone who has never taken a gender studies course can figure out that certain ways of “performing” enhance and affirm our sense of ourselves as distinctly feminine and masculine. The woman who says “Wearing lipstick and heels makes me feel more feminine” is acknowledging that her sense of herself as a woman is connected to public performance, just as the guy who says, “I like it when a woman waits for me to hold the door open for her; it makes me feel like a gentleman” is admitting that his sense of gender identity is closely connected to what he does rather than to his biology.
Femme-butch culture has been around a long time in the lesbian community, and has been the subject of numerous studies. (I recommend starting with Joan Nestle’s A Persistent Desire: A Femme-Butch Reader, though it came out way back in ‘92, which was about the last time I was really up on queer theory.) As Sugarbutch implies in her post, one of the defining characteristics of femme-butch relationships is a heightened attentiveness to gender roles. In a heteronormative culture, straight folks can convince themselves that the roles they play are rooted in biological identity; one of the key attributes of privilege is to be able to act unconscious of the reality that one is acting. Queer folks, and perhaps particularly women in the butch-femme world, live both in opposition to and in congruence with the dominant cultural norms. An act of chivalry performed by a butch for a femme both subverts traditional gender roles (because it’s happening between two women) and reinforces them.
Sugarbutch’s claim that chivalry is “deeply feminist” is a provocative one, but the more I think about it, the more it seems to make good sense. Sugarbutch makes the case that this deliberate performing of chivalry on her part is rooted in a recognition of just how burdensome the performing of femininity (or femme-ness) is. Doing chivalry is, it seems, rooted in a recognition not of feminine weakness but of the colossal effort of performing as a feminine woman (regardless of the sexual identity of whoever is performing femme.) To not be chivalrous is to claim that the burden of performing gender falls equally on both men and women, on both butch and femme. And that’s preposterous: think of the amount of time anyone performing “butch” has to spend getting ready compared to the amount of time that someone performing “femme” does. Heck, just ask a bunch of high school kids about how much time they need in the morning, and the chances are excellent that those women who are most enthusiastic about performing femininity are those who are getting up earliest to “put themselves together.” (And let’s not talk about the cost of make-up and hair product.)
Perhaps, as Sugarbutch implies, to be chivalrous is truly to see, not just to look at.
There have always been voices in the feminist community who are mistrustful of gender roles. There have always been many who are drawn to androgyny as an ideal. Given how restrictive and confining traditional gender roles have been for women, it’s easy to see why so many who are committed to women’s empowerment and liberation would be reluctant to see anything “feminist” about consciously choosing to perform chivalry! But “straight” folks have a lot to learn from our GLBTQ brothers and sisters. Heterosexual feminists, men and women alike, do well to think carefully about the ways in which they perform gender. And as part of that reflecting, we can learn a great deal from the butch-femme world. We can learn that regardless of our “plumbing”, we always have choices about how we act and the roles we play. And we can learn, perhaps, that performing chivalry — which so often seems like a gross capitulation to sexist norms — may in fact have radically redemptive, and radically feminist, possibilities.
I’m a pragmatist, both in the ordinary sense (I value being able to get things done) and the strict philosophical sense (I agree deeply with John Dewey). So it’s a pretty short inference, in my eyes, from `femininity is restrictive’ (and hence makes it difficult to get things done) to `femininity is bad’ or, at the very least, `femininity (as a value) is deeply incompatible with a lot of things that are (probably) much more valuable’. Because of that badness/deep incompatibility, I don’t think femininity even could be a celebration of the beauty of a body. Suggesting that femininity could be such a thing is, I think, on a par with suggesting that a bad cold (in the case of, say, wearing makeup every day) or cancer (in the case of, say, FGM) could be a celebration of the beauty of a body.
Now, there are some assumptions, both explicit and implicit, within that last paragraph. I think it’s entirely fair to call pragmatism in the ordinary sense a traditionally masculine virtue. But this doesn’t mean pragmatism in the strict philosophical sense is masculinist (indeed, some of the most important feminists of the early twentieth century were pragmatists in this sense) or heterosexist. And nor does it mean that pragmatism in the ordinary sense is not truly a universal virtue. Hence, it does not mean that there aren’t good feminist and non-heterosexist reasons for being opposed to femininity (and, hence, chivalry).
My feminist ethics does recognise that gender is performative. But it infers from this that, at least ideally, one is free to pick and choose from among traditionally masculine and feminine behaviours based on what genuinely contributes to a good life. I’m not required to suppress my emotions or value being able to get things done just because I happen to have a penis. I choose to reject the former and embrace the latter because I have reason to believe that the former is incompatible with a good life, while the latter is necessary for a good life. And, similarly, someone who happens to have a vagina is not required to wear uncomfortable, impractical shoes or care for others just because she has a vagina. Reflecting on the good life leads her (or so I would claim) to the latter and away from the former.
The higher standard here is flexible and fallible — I don’t think the good life is exactly the same for everyone, nor that my understanding of what that life amounts to is perfect. And that qualifier `at least ideally’ is important, as I recognise that compromises are often necessary (we all have to cater to the expectations of a deeply sexist and heterosexist society for the sake of getting by). But it’s still a universal standard against which one’s choices are to be judged.
So you, and the queer theorists you’re following, are right to point out that performances of femininity and chivalry by LBGTQ folks indicate the performative nature of these sets of habits. But this is insufficient for what I would consider an ethical defence or justification of them. Such a defence would have to (or be able to) make reference to the importance of femininity and chivalry in a good life. Perhaps some queer theorist or theorists have done this; I’ll admit I haven’t read much besides a little Foucault and Butler. In any case, you haven’t done so here, and so it seems premature to announce the radically redemptive power of such sets of habits.
Well, I certainly didn’t claim — and wouldn’t want to — that chivalry is always redemptive. When performed with conscious awareness that it is a perfomance, and when that perfomance is rooted in a specific way of valuing and seeing the other person, then the redemptive possibility is there.
One reason (just one of them) that I proudly point to gays and lesbians is that they so beautifully destroy chivalry and gender roles. For example, chivalry demands that the man open the restaurant/theater door for the woman. Well, I guess that means two women can’t go on a date together, because there’s nobody to open the door. Oh, wait! Somehow, they manage! They figure it out; they take turns being courteous to each other. Those of us who are not in the gay and lesbian community should be taking notes here…
…and I should add that “point to” was not meant literally, but rather was a poor substitute for what should have been phrased as “consider as exemplars.”
You know, whenever I hear “chivalry” (or about its death) I still can’t help but think that we’re better off without the arcane honor code of a medieval warrior caste…
Oh, wait, you mean the ret-conned romanticized 19th century ideal of “chivalry”, where the it was the honor and duty of the strong, privileged and capable to protect and champion the weak, the poor, the downtrodden, (whether they were elderly, women, children, or the otherwise underprivileged?) and to show just as much courtesy and decency to a milkmaid as they would to a rich young woman of the upper classes? Well, if we could bring such a system into existence and have it updated to reflect that modern gender experiences and power don’t break down along traditional lines… sure!
Oh, wait, no. This is another discussion about who is going to open a car door.
I didn’t mean for my other comment to sound dismissive of the above post–or to trivialize this ongoing discussion; my “this” was rhetorical. I do, however, think that we could have an ideal of “chivalry” that goes beyond superficiality in its *performance*–not just in its *implications*.
yes! I actually wouldn’t agree that the performance of chivalry is deeply feminist because my definition of feminism is more narrow then that but this perfectly articulates certain feelings and impressions I’ve had for ages.
I enjoy performing femininity (when I have the time and the mood) and if I’m performing it for a specific person, for example a boyfriend, I expect him to show his appreciation by making my life as easy as possible and compensating for the discomfort I’m voluntarily undertaking. I don’t think of my performance as either a feminist or an antifeminist act as long as I don’t feel required to enact it. I think his enacting of ‘chivalry’ is an acknowledgment of the constriction of femininity and simply the reaction of a decent person.
Noumena, to me aesthetics and sensuality is part of living a good life. My interpretation of high heels as sexy and attractive is mostly cultural but that doesn’t make it less real to me.
I’m a big believer that acting to please your partner is a positive thing, and having grown up in our culture many men and women who are attracted to women are attracted to femininity. Having femininity be required at work or so much the default in social settings that to refrain from it would ostracize you is a huge no arguments negative and should be fought against and changed. However, a voluntarily taking up of femininity for the purpose of enjoyment by your partner and yourself doesn’t strike me as particularly antifeminist (not intending to get into the age old debate whether it is or not since that’s actually not my point) but does seem to require your partner to play his part.
Sorry, that ran kind of long and I’m not sure if I made any sense.
My point is that I don’t think it’s necessarily directly connected to feminism but your post reinforces my long held conviction that men that don’t perform chivalry when their partners are performing femininity are being assholes and that this has to do with the demands and constraints of femininity and not gender. I guess it is feminist in the sense that it acknowledges patriarchy if you’re acting purposefully instead of blindly following gender roles.
I also very much agree that there should be awareness of gender performance when people are performing it. But consideration and appreciation isn’t so much deeply feminist as it is deeply decent.
“I enjoy performing femininity (when I have the time and the mood) and if I’m performing it for a specific person, for example a boyfriend, I expect him to show his appreciation by making my life as easy as possible and compensating for the discomfort I’m voluntarily undertaking… my long held conviction that men that don’t perform chivalry when their partners are performing femininity are being assholes and that this has to do with the demands and constraints of femininity and not gender.”
For some reason, I feel certain uneasiness. If your boyfriend prefers you not to perform femininity, does it mean he is an asshole too, if he doesn’t want to perform chivalry to compensate for discomfort you’re voluntarily undertaking? What is the difference between chivalry and good manners?
Personally, I prefer to minimize the amount of discomfort in my life, not to undertake more. Hugo says we can learn a great deal from the butch-femme world, but in this case the butch-femme world seems to “learn a great deal” from the sexist attitudes in our society and trying to enforce them even with 2 women. Do I understand something wrong? As a straight person, who has never seen that community, I am completely clueless. Why would people not to wear what they want – once a skirt, once a pair of jeans? Do they always enjoy playing one part all their lives? Is this game that interesting?
Note: I hope it doesn’t sound I’m criticizing women for their personal choices, thus enjoying in women-blaming.
Hugo -
When performed with conscious awareness that it is a perfomance, and when that perfomance is rooted in a specific way of valuing and seeing the other person, then the redemptive possibility is there.
If the `redemptive possibility’ just consists in highlighting the performativity of gender, then I’ll agree. But this doesn’t sound like a redemptive possibility. To be more than a bit hyperbolic, that performing femininity in certain contexts can highlight the way it’s a performance is one small good aspect of an otherwise bad thing. It’s no more redeeming of femininity than the (supposed) deliciousness of bacon is redeeming of bacon.
Victoria -
I’ll spare you my rant against high heels and stick to the big point. :-)
Noumena, to me aesthetics and sensuality is part of living a good life. My interpretation of high heels as sexy and attractive is mostly cultural but that doesn’t make it less real to me ….
a voluntary taking up of femininity for the purpose of enjoyment by your partner and yourself doesn’t strike me as particularly antifeminist (not intending to get into the age old debate whether it is or not since that’s actually not my point) but does seem to require your partner to play his part.
When I was writing my comment yesterday, I considered saying something about sexual play. I do think there’s something about the bedroom that makes it a safe space for things that are no good elsewhere. (Though this isn’t an uncritical space, of course — the bedroom is a place where `more goes’, but it’s not a place where `anything goes’.) So, if this is what you were suggesting here, then I’ll agree.
But notice you’ve gotten away from the performativity aspect. By definition, the space I’m willing to set aside for femininity is not a public space. In particular, performing femininity in such a space can’t destabilise gender norms. Everyone involved already knows that’s it’s just a game. There are no bystanders whose shocked reactions lead them to interrogate their assumptions about gender.
Or maybe you did mean something more public, after all. Perhaps you’re talking about, not sex per se, but rather the value of expressing yourself through the way you dress and the value of being considered attractive by others. We do generally think these things are valuable.
This is a promising line of thought. But I want to hear more. Aesthetics and sensuality are much broader, more general concepts than our particular concepts of femininity and chivalrous masculinity. Why are femininity and chivalry good modes of aesthetic and sensual expression? What about the way these conflict with other values that we seem to hold dear — such as pragmatism in the ordinary sense? Simply appealing vaguely to aesthetics and sensuality isn’t enough to convince this radical feminist sceptic. (And I do acknowledge that the criticisms of femininity I made above are just as vague and simple. Hopefully we can all agree that the issue is too big to settle in one blog conversation!)
There have always been voices in the feminist community who are mistrustful of gender roles.
Aren’t all feminist voices mistrustful of gender roles? Isn’t that rather the point?
About the redemptive possibilities of chivalry: it’s an interesting idea, and I don’t begrudge anyone the right to structure her relationships as she pleases. But isn’t the far more redemptive thing to construct ways of being feminine that aren’t painful and restrictive? To refuse to accept femininities and masculinities that partially incapacitate us? To seek instead ways of expressing the gendered sense of self that embrace our full humanity?
“Oh, wait, no. This is another discussion about who is going to open a car door.”
If you don’t like the definition of “chivalry” that I am using here, Ms. Anon, kindly take it up with the people who created it. If you mean to say that everyone should treat everyone else with fairness, while keeping an eye out for those who might need an extra helping hand (elderly, handicapped, etc.), then I agree, but I refer to that as “common courtesy” and “basic human decency,” not modern-day chivalry that dictates that I am inferior to a woman and therefore must allow her to go first at all times because of her superiority.
And, really, the cause of this is her SHOES? I have to be subservient because she chose to wear impractical, uncomfortable shoes. Great. Just switch to sneakers, women, and then we can treat each other as equals.
It is an interesting idea, and I’m not about to tell a butch what chivalry means to her. But don’t kid yourself that butch-femme chivalry is all about respect for the femme’s gift of restriction.
Folks, let me be clear that I’m not taking the stance that since Sugarbutch makes a case — within a butch-femme context — that chivalry has its redemptive qualities, then heterosexuals are free to engage in “chivalric rituals” without asking the traditionally tough questions ’bout why we do this stuff. It’s not as if the fact that “self-proclaimed feminist lesbians think chivalry is good” automatically gives straights — who practice courtesy in a very different context — some kind of holy imprimatur to not think critically. It’s just that Sugarbutch has a way of describing a specific way of performing gender roles that I find intriguing and challenging for all of us.
not modern-day chivalry that dictates that I am inferior to a woman and therefore must allow her to go first at all times because of her superiority
Interesting, I’ve never thought of it that way before. I’ve always felt like the whole “chivalry” thing meant quite the opposite - as a woman, I’m not capable of opening my own doors or doing things for myself, I have to have a big, strong man do it FOR me. I can get my own doors and walk behind men without getting lost just fine, thanks, and when a man does it for me or insists I walk in front of him, it makes me feel inferior, not superior to him.
And, only half jokingly here, I’ve always thought men wanted us to walk in front of them so they could stare at our butts.
B - agree. A lot of the time, men insisting on holding doors open etc. makes me feel inferior and patronised too.
Guess what? It’s because men own space - so they graciously *allow* you to occupy it (should you look “feminine” enough and smile graciously).
Good manners: genuine consideration for the other person based on *their needs and wants* - so yes, if someone is wearing uncomfortable heels, don’t expect them to walk; if they are sick, injured, elderly, disabled, help them out. If they want.
Chivalry: the assumption that *all* women always need such consideration, the assumption being that women are physically weaker.
Not so. I am a healthy young woman and more capable of standing on a bus or train than some middle-aged, stressed businessman with a bad back and ulcers! So no, I don’t want their seat.
Ela,
I think that’s a good question. Personally speaking, if my boyfriend (or girlfriend) doesn’t enjoy my performance of femininity then I’m much less likely to perform it and almost certain not to perform those parts that are actively uncomfortable. But, I’ve almost never dated someone who didn’t appreciate our culturally specific ways of dressing up. However if because of the situation or my own strong desire I choose to do something uncomfortable for the purpose of dressing up I do think that if my date is not an asshole he won’t make my life harder. I don’t think he needs to show as much appreciation or consideration as he does if it’s for his benefit but some is still necessary (if I’m wearing something uncomfortable, cold etc.).
Also, since the performance of femininity is still not completely voluntary in our culture (that is there are still spaces where it is almost a requirement) and since there is a certain amount of cultural brainwashing on this subject I guess I do think consideration is a requirement even if you personally have escaped the cultural preferences.
The not too rare situation where the men both expect a woman to perform femininity and to ‘keep up’ with them is a huge example of privilege.
Noumena,
I wasn’t referring to sex so much as the broader (and as you noted, vaguer) categories of sensuality and aesthetics. I don’t think femininity and chivalry are particularly good modes of aesthetic and sensual expression. I do think that our culture interprets formal (and cold) dresses on women as beautiful and so does my brain. I like beauty in almost everything, I bought the mac I’m typing on for various reasons but not a negligible one was that I think it’s pretty . I like touching sensual fabrics and I enjoy movies that include beautiful people and beautiful scenery. Aesthetics/sensuality (from museums to music) are a large part of my enjoyment of the world and my life.
The desire to be thought of and noticed as attractive is also present (if not in everyone then in a significant number of people) and is a factor in a calculation of femininity versus pragmatism, though I hadn’t mentioned this before.
My point was more that given our culture defines certain things as beautiful, the curve of a woman’s foot for example and that some people, whatever their thoughts on gender roles and the fairness of this cultural value, crave beauty a sort of agreement to accommodate the sacrifices that come with performing femininity is reasonable even as we fight to change our cultural assumptions and make femininity entirely voluntary or nonexistent. It makes more sense to have the person who benefits in one way or another from the performance ‘the date’ to have more of this responsibility then random strangers. An awareness of the reasons for the performance on both sides would keep it from being about either gender’s superiority.
Somewhat of a side point is that vulnerability and delicacy is erotic. (Not everyone finds it so, but a significant percentage of the human population does.) While I strongly believe that the vulnerability of men, restraint for example, can be just as erotic as that of women and it is a problem of our culture that we don’t acknowledge this that doesn’t take away from the gut level appeal of a woman that looks delicate etc. It’s not only sexual and direct as power play in the bedroom but also sensual in the subtextual flirting that a couple might do when one of them displays their attractiveness and vulnerability and the other ‘takes care’ of them. (Disclaimer: a lot of other modes of interaction that have nothing to do with this are also erotic of course, and your milage will vary.)
Sorry for spamming the comments section. And double sorry if this posts twice.
That’s not “modern-day” chivalry, that’s old-school chivalry. The lady who is the object of one’s desire is to be placed on a pedestal because She’s Better Than You. Of course, chivalry only applies to ladies.
“Interesting, I’ve never thought of it that way before. I’ve always felt like the whole ‘chivalry’ thing meant quite the opposite - as a woman, I’m not capable of opening my own doors or doing things for myself, I have to have a big, strong man do it FOR me.”
It’s that, too. That chivalry is offensive to women and that it is offensive to men are not two mutually exclusive ideas. My problem is that women with different points of view will merely argue whether or not it’s offensive to women and completely ignore how it is offensive to men. But plenty of decent men have been castigated for not letting “the woman go first” when in line or when ordering food at a restaurant, when all the decent men wanted to do was take turns. And the people doing this castigating are sometimes men, sometimes women, and sometimes both.
“I am a healthy young woman and more capable of standing on a bus or train than some middle-aged, stressed businessman with a bad back and ulcers! So no, I don’t want their seat.”
And most of those businessmen with bad backs and ulcers will APPRECIATE you letting them have the seat, even if some loudmouthed neanderthal who’s in the bus or train shouts otherwise. I hold the door at the bank for whoever happens to be walking behind me, and I appreciate when a man or woman or boy or girl does the same for me.
“That’s not ‘modern-day’ chivalry, that’s old-school chivalry. The lady who is the object of one’s desire is to be placed on a pedestal because She’s Better Than You. Of course, chivalry only applies to ladies.”
Well, one could say that “old-school” chivalry has to do with knights in armor — literal ones. By “modern-day” I refer to the past one hundred years — perhaps not modern compared to oxygen bars, but certainly modern compared to King Arthur.
I identify as femme, and I was just musing on this idea of chivalry and femme “performance” this weekend while getting ready for a date with my girlfriend.
I found myself in a situation wherein a friend asked me to justify my excitement about getting dressed up for my date. He asked how I, as a feminist, am able to reconcile dressing “for” a lover and enjoy her chivalry.
The truth is that when I was much younger, and at times attempted relationships with men, I did not enjoy these things. It is only through the very unique butch-femme dynamic that I am able to honor my gender identity in these ways. Because it is part “performance,” I am free to engage in a sometimes erotic, sometimes comforting dialoge with my butch girlfriend in the ways we respond to one another. I think that a deepening awareness that gender is a very powerful construction allows us the freedom to queer these roles; I transform the restrictive “feminine” into powerful “femme” when I do so for my own desires.
In at least my butch-femme relationship, my lover and I put forth carefully examined gender presentations that we feel best empower us individually. In relation to one another, our butch-femme relationship creates a natural fluidity of power. We both love to be center stage, both love to feel desired by the other, and chivalry is one form of the power and respect that is passed between us. For instance, for the date, I wore something way girlier than I normally do. I mean, I am always in a skirt; I’m a bit of a hippie. But that night I looked very, very femme. It made me feel incredibly sexy, watching her watching me. It made me feel honored when she couldn’t take her eyes off me, opened my car door, and helped me across the mud she accidently parked in. I like it that she lights my cigarettes and brings me beer, like it that I can feel her eyes on me from across the room, like it that she notices and appreciates my femme qualities.
In our relationship, chivalry is reverence.
I should add that I love to play with gender roles in other ways. I love to open doors for dudes, light THEIR cigarettes, etc. Honestly I like to watch ‘em squirm and double-take. I think that chivalry in those terms is very subversive. And it’s a totally different thing that that which transpires between my girlfriend and I.
Sure. And there has always been a split between how women are treated if they’re “ladies” or if they’re not. One doesn’t hold a door open for a whore.
I always looked at gender from the yin/yang perspective. I don’t think that masculine/feminine are biologically specific. Meaning - yin is not specific to women anymore than yang is specific to men. I hold doors open for men and I hold them open for women. I generally hold the door open for anyone who happens to be entering/leaving at the moment I have my hand on the door. I practice chivalry but not towards any specific gender. I don’t take offence to a man holding a door open for me cuz I’d hold open the door for him… I think the women who get offended by door opening males should hold more doors open for men. I think that is a proactive way of making a point, but just in gesture.
I can say this much - less femme women seem to get the most crap. I seem to be very isolated cuz I don’t agree with wearing cosmetics, I don’t agree with breaking my back to look taller, I ignore advertisments (unless I’m making fun of them)… I’ve been accused of hating women who like wearing make-up because I choose to not subject myself to it (and because I’ve spoken up about how the FDA doesn’t regulate anything put into make-up).
Femme women have always bothered me - not because of how they present themselves but because of how they think they can intrude themselves upon those of us (ladies) who think all of that stuff is lame. For example - I’ll punch the next femme that thinks she’s doing me a favor by putting toxic chemicals on my face and tighter clothes on my body. I’ve had soooo many femme women tell me everything that is wrong with how I present myself but if I even try to point out how aweful it is that women think they have to cover themselves up (meaning faces and make-up) and decorate themselves like xmas trees, I’m immediately a jerk and attacking THEM (even though I’m only attacking the stereotype). I just find it ironic that they can attack how I actually look, yet if I attack the things they use to look a certain way - I’m attacking them personally. There is something wrong with a society when people seem to think that if I attack their make-up, I most certainly must be attacking them as human beings. When i attack cosmetic industries, I see it as being no different than attacking cigarrette companies. People can hate cigarrettes but not necessarily judge the people who smoke them. Know what I mean?
I open doors for both men and women, the elderly and disabled. It really never occured to me that it was a feminist issue. I just associated it with being courteous and I enjoy people demonstrating courteous behaviors to others and being on the receiving end. I’ve been on the receiving end of a lot of (what sounds like criticism) that I’m “too feminine,”…whatever the hell that means. When I try to get people to take responsibility and explain…they blirt and spew forth judgments of what they mean. I think it means that I look feminine and that my demeanor, because I’m soft-spoken appears feminine…Weird…Yet, when the judgment comes up, “You’re too feminine,” it sounds both negative and critical and the comments come mainly from women. People feel very free (both men and women) to comment about my looks and it is all unsolicited. Sometimes I wear light makeup and sometimes I don’t and people yap, blirt and spew away with their unsolicited commentaries, so MLF is not the only one who has and is on the receiving end of inappropriate commentaries. I believe the intent of these people–most of them–is to make themselves feel better at my expense. The result is that I’ve become more intolerant of people and I give them less the benefit of doubt.
“Sure. And there has always been a split between how women are treated if they’re ‘ladies’ or if they’re not. One doesn’t hold a door open for a whore.”
…there are quite a few very problematic facets of the whole “chivalry” system, yes. I’m agreeing with you.