Libfem contempt of GNC women
Libfem contempt of GNC women
Conventionally attractive women get more attention in the patriarchy, as well as sexual abuse that comes with this sexual attention. That much is obvious. This true observation then gets combined with the true axiom that, since women cannot be responsible for male abuse, then femininity surely cannot affect male or female ideas and behaviour in any way and is a completely neutral aspect of the whole arrangement. Women shouldn't have to change anything about what they're doing, and should instead demand men change their attitude.
The traditional patriarchal retort is that anything women do has to be defined through the eyes of men. Men present a damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't deal to women where being feminine and attractive gets you seemingly positive attention, but also sexual abuse, because that's what the whole point of femininity is. The other option is being completely ignored, unwanted and stomped on for not being feminine, because there is no point in paying attention to a woman who isn't a sex object with so many actually-human men around with more important feelings and opinions. But just because women lose no matter what they do doesn't mean that anything women do is neutral.
Femininity is harmful to women because it's fundamentally rooted in patriarchal views about how women should dress and look in order to be deemed sexually appealing to men. Women can be deemed as worthy of loudly existing in a society only if they are a sex object that men want to look at and fantasise about subjugating. It's not changing anyone's mind to prove that you can be a sex object first, and also do other things or have hobbies or a diploma second. You cannot demand respect within male supremacism that sees you as a sex object while promising to pander to said demand to be a sex object. It's like saying that eating shit is actually super empowering because it's been vilified and associated with women all this time, when really women should simply not eat shit, ya know, as part of their general "reaching human equality" deal. It impacts women negatively to revolve their life around a fundamentally misogynistic, objectifying existence, not just in terms of wider societal ideas, but also in their own individual life that is limited by the constant psychological pressure of viewing oneself according to patriarchal values. "You are a woman with a man inside watching a woman."
Traditional values exert no thought to the negative impact of the patriarchy on women themselves. Women's impractical clothes are mocked because they justify why women should stay at home. Sexual harassment is bad because those women are some man's property that's being damaged. Women who are too sexually attractive deserve sexual abuse because they're not saving themselves for a man. Too much attention is given to sexually attractive women when it should be "bros over hoes". When men criticise women's choices, it's always with the purpose of maintaining their male supremacism. It's to limit and beat down on women, rather than to expand their possibilities.
That's why, for all the men complaining about feminine women unfairly getting attention, none of them advocate gender nonconformity for women. They want to maintain the misogynistic system where women are inferior sex objects that shouldn't be paid any mind to, unless they're sexy, in which case you can furiously masturbate over them while complaining over the only way you allow women to be of note in any way within your system. This is completely different from the radical feminist idea that demands that women reject misogynistic presentation because it's misogynistic, rather than because men have deemed it arbitrarily bad because anything women do = bad.
Liberal feminism doesn't want to acknowledge that femininity is problematic, so it exerts a lot of effort into making femininity respectable, since the only alternative presented is that any negative associations with femininity justifies negative treatment of women themselves. It's a knee-jerk reaction that doesn't logically follow, but is understandable. Men, and some women as well, do try to isolate gender conforming women as acceptable targets of male abuse because they garner more male attention. Men obviously do it to be able to exploit women better, whereas many NotLikeOtherGirls do it in order to have a feeling of safety from male objectification - as long as there are these other dumb girly women there to distract the men and act like lighting rods for creepy male attention, I'll be safe.
Which brings me to my point: In a world where femininity is forced on you literally since childhood, rejecting it has to be an active, consistent choice in order to be gender nonconforming. And this makes liberal feminists very uncomfortable. Why would a woman not want to be feminine? Why would she consistently reject all these things, unless she thought they were bad and, by extension, that anyone who engages in it is bad and deserving of misogynistic punishment? You can get away with some token gender nonconforming traits that might've been coincidental, but to be entirely so? To reject any femininity? That is suspicious. It obviously means you don't like it. Why don't you like it? *
When gender nonconformity gets a neutral, apolitical reason for it, you can almost hear a sigh of relief. "Oh thank god, she's just rejecting it because she thinks she has a boysoul". "Oh, I guess she's a lesbian, they work different". I think a lot of normies write GNC women off as unusual exceptions (either boy-brained or Spinster-brained), but with liberal feminists I notice that they decidedly do not like any women being GNC unless they have a firm apolitical justification for it.
- I will note that most of these women have very normie boyfriends who they don't expect to be feminine. Despite all the talk of how gender roles suck and anyone can be whatever they want, femininity is something consistently demanded only of women. Feminine men are glorified and centered, but men overall are not demanded to be feminine.
I refuse to debate two obvious facts: 1. the patriarchy exists 2. and that's a bad thing
YesYourNigel
May 2 2025, 8:20 AM #1I've been thinking about some paradoxical attitudes that I've seen and experienced from liberal feminist women - very pro-trans and will even vax poetical about how gender roles suck and gender nonconformity is cool and hip, yet will consistently show bafflement or straight up side-eye any rejection of femininity in women that they see.
Conventionally attractive women get more attention in the patriarchy, as well as sexual abuse that comes with this sexual attention. That much is obvious. This true observation then gets combined with the true axiom that, since women cannot be responsible for male abuse, then femininity surely cannot affect male or female ideas and behaviour in any way and is a completely neutral aspect of the whole arrangement. Women shouldn't have to change anything about what they're doing, and should instead demand men change their attitude.
The traditional patriarchal retort is that anything women do has to be defined through the eyes of men. Men present a damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't deal to women where being feminine and attractive gets you seemingly positive attention, but also sexual abuse, because that's what the whole point of femininity is. The other option is being completely ignored, unwanted and stomped on for not being feminine, because there is no point in paying attention to a woman who isn't a sex object with so many actually-human men around with more important feelings and opinions. But just because women lose no matter what they do doesn't mean that anything women do is neutral.
Femininity is harmful to women because it's fundamentally rooted in patriarchal views about how women should dress and look in order to be deemed sexually appealing to men. Women can be deemed as worthy of loudly existing in a society only if they are a sex object that men want to look at and fantasise about subjugating. It's not changing anyone's mind to prove that you can be a sex object first, and also do other things or have hobbies or a diploma second. You cannot demand respect within male supremacism that sees you as a sex object while promising to pander to said demand to be a sex object. It's like saying that eating shit is actually super empowering because it's been vilified and associated with women all this time, when really women should simply not eat shit, ya know, as part of their general "reaching human equality" deal. It impacts women negatively to revolve their life around a fundamentally misogynistic, objectifying existence, not just in terms of wider societal ideas, but also in their own individual life that is limited by the constant psychological pressure of viewing oneself according to patriarchal values. "You are a woman with a man inside watching a woman."
Traditional values exert no thought to the negative impact of the patriarchy on women themselves. Women's impractical clothes are mocked because they justify why women should stay at home. Sexual harassment is bad because those women are some man's property that's being damaged. Women who are too sexually attractive deserve sexual abuse because they're not saving themselves for a man. Too much attention is given to sexually attractive women when it should be "bros over hoes". When men criticise women's choices, it's always with the purpose of maintaining their male supremacism. It's to limit and beat down on women, rather than to expand their possibilities.
That's why, for all the men complaining about feminine women unfairly getting attention, none of them advocate gender nonconformity for women. They want to maintain the misogynistic system where women are inferior sex objects that shouldn't be paid any mind to, unless they're sexy, in which case you can furiously masturbate over them while complaining over the only way you allow women to be of note in any way within your system. This is completely different from the radical feminist idea that demands that women reject misogynistic presentation because it's misogynistic, rather than because men have deemed it arbitrarily bad because anything women do = bad.
Liberal feminism doesn't want to acknowledge that femininity is problematic, so it exerts a lot of effort into making femininity respectable, since the only alternative presented is that any negative associations with femininity justifies negative treatment of women themselves. It's a knee-jerk reaction that doesn't logically follow, but is understandable. Men, and some women as well, do try to isolate gender conforming women as acceptable targets of male abuse because they garner more male attention. Men obviously do it to be able to exploit women better, whereas many NotLikeOtherGirls do it in order to have a feeling of safety from male objectification - as long as there are these other dumb girly women there to distract the men and act like lighting rods for creepy male attention, I'll be safe.
Which brings me to my point: In a world where femininity is forced on you literally since childhood, rejecting it has to be an active, consistent choice in order to be gender nonconforming. And this makes liberal feminists very uncomfortable. Why would a woman not want to be feminine? Why would she consistently reject all these things, unless she thought they were bad and, by extension, that anyone who engages in it is bad and deserving of misogynistic punishment? You can get away with some token gender nonconforming traits that might've been coincidental, but to be entirely so? To reject any femininity? That is suspicious. It obviously means you don't like it. Why don't you like it? *
When gender nonconformity gets a neutral, apolitical reason for it, you can almost hear a sigh of relief. "Oh thank god, she's just rejecting it because she thinks she has a boysoul". "Oh, I guess she's a lesbian, they work different". I think a lot of normies write GNC women off as unusual exceptions (either boy-brained or Spinster-brained), but with liberal feminists I notice that they decidedly do not like any women being GNC unless they have a firm apolitical justification for it.
- I will note that most of these women have very normie boyfriends who they don't expect to be feminine. Despite all the talk of how gender roles suck and anyone can be whatever they want, femininity is something consistently demanded only of women. Feminine men are glorified and centered, but men overall are not demanded to be feminine.
I refuse to debate two obvious facts: 1. the patriarchy exists 2. and that's a bad thing
