<![CDATA[clovenhooves - Gender Nonconformity ]]> https://clovenhooves.org/ Wed, 06 May 2026 13:29:32 +0000 MyBB <![CDATA[Woman says security guard at Liberty Hotel in Boston confronted her in bathroom, asked to prove gender]]> https://clovenhooves.org/showthread.php?tid=1151 Thu, 08 May 2025 17:43:33 +0000 Elsacat]]> https://clovenhooves.org/showthread.php?tid=1151 https://www.cbsnews.com/boston/news/women-boston-liberty-hotel-bathroom-gender/

How is this making things safer for women? A man went into the restroom and terrorized a GNC woman. It wasn't a TIM who did this. It was a security guard who apparently thinks it's his job to transvestigate.]]> https://www.cbsnews.com/boston/news/women-boston-liberty-hotel-bathroom-gender/

How is this making things safer for women? A man went into the restroom and terrorized a GNC woman. It wasn't a TIM who did this. It was a security guard who apparently thinks it's his job to transvestigate.]]> <![CDATA[Libfem contempt of GNC women]]> https://clovenhooves.org/showthread.php?tid=1117 Fri, 02 May 2025 15:20:42 +0000 YesYourNigel]]> https://clovenhooves.org/showthread.php?tid=1117
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.
]]>
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.
]]> <![CDATA[Looking for a short video]]> https://clovenhooves.org/showthread.php?tid=1072 Fri, 25 Apr 2025 13:41:31 +0000 Izanami]]> https://clovenhooves.org/showthread.php?tid=1072 <![CDATA[How to see gender-nonconformity in men when it comes across as a fetish?]]> https://clovenhooves.org/showthread.php?tid=816 Mon, 17 Mar 2025 14:01:18 +0000 Wandering_Feminist56]]> https://clovenhooves.org/showthread.php?tid=816
There're times where GNC in males seems fitting and non-creepy, like alternative styles or whatever, but I get the distinct feeling that a bunch of them definitely are inappropriate and they give me the ick. 

I feel like there's a difference between male GNC in theory and male GNC in practical reality: gross creepy men ruining everything. I don't like paticipating in someone's fetish. How do you see this?]]>
There're times where GNC in males seems fitting and non-creepy, like alternative styles or whatever, but I get the distinct feeling that a bunch of them definitely are inappropriate and they give me the ick. 

I feel like there's a difference between male GNC in theory and male GNC in practical reality: gross creepy men ruining everything. I don't like paticipating in someone's fetish. How do you see this?]]> <![CDATA[The (de)sexualisation of femininity]]> https://clovenhooves.org/showthread.php?tid=480 Tue, 24 Dec 2024 17:46:25 +0000 YesYourNigel]]> https://clovenhooves.org/showthread.php?tid=480
Women will often insist that things like high heels or makeup or pushup bras or short skirts are completely 100% nonsexual and are just done for their own sake, to "look nice" or, most egregiously, for comfort. Men might pay lip service to this, though I find this is moreso for sexualised fictional characters. But for men, the notion that women are doing this for their own sake is laughable. On one hand, men think the world revolves around them and only them, so anything a woman does, from talking to them to breathing in public, is about pandering to men. Hell, even not associating with men is an attack on men because it's not pandering enough to them (hence why, for men, misandry is women avoiding men, divorcing men, staying single etc. whereas for women, the ability to get away from your oppressor is paramount. Why would men want to trap their supposed oppressors with them? 🤔). Men simply can't comprehend that women exist beyond just their status as imperfect embodiment of male sexual ideals, so to a degree, anything women do is sexual. On the other hand, men recognise the inherrent sexualisation of femininity, because they haven't been gaslit and brainwashed all their lives to believe that it's somehow normal and acceptable to be in constant discomfort, self-hatred, state of undress and on thin ice in regards to your appearance. When you grow up all your life wearing comfy, baggy clothes and not even sparing a thought to how pretty and sexy and endearing you look to others, the notion that going so out of your way to emphasise these qualities while supposedly not caring at all about what others think...well, it's ludicrous.

Femininity is completely rooted in male ideas about women, namely the sexualisation and submission of women. Sexualisation should be obvious, but submission can be a bit more subtle - it's in obsessing over how "nice" and "pretty" you need to be for others all the time just to be allowed to exist. It's the constant self-criticism of appearance that no man deals with. It's the constant apologising over everything, and the constant concern with how you're perceived, both appearance-wise and behaviour-wise - are you too ugly? Selfish? Mean? Forward? Hysterical? Dumb? Do you look imperfect? Are you proving the stereotypes? Are you doing enough to disprove the stereotypes? Can you actually work with these men or are they just trying to get in your pants? Is having simple boundaries or not smiling enough or correcting the man going to make the him go testerical? Is just basic kindness without sucking up to the person going to get you called "mean" and "rude"? etc. etc. All this is extremely limiting stuff that men don't even think about. If they do, their standards are through the floor - rude, angry men complaining that they need to walk on eggshells because snowflakes have thin skin and can't handle slurs, or ugly af men whining about how hot women won't bang them.

Femininity starts early. Dolls, playing with mum's makeup, trying on high heels, being praised for "looking pretty"...Then in teens, in the midsts of coming to terms with your body developing and becoming openly sexualised, being told your chest is shameful and that you're ugly in your very nature unless you cover yourself up, being expected to wear lacy bras and undies that barely cover your ass, uncomfortable tight pants, tight shirts with cleavage, having to have paint on your face, on your eyes, on your mouth, just to "look pretty"... Women grow up with these things from the earliest years when sex and attractiveness aren't even on their minds. They don't even think about how men view this - it's just what girls and women wear because they're female, that's it. Different types of people just wear different things. It can't possibly all be done for the sake of men, right? After all this has been with women since they were babies, dressed in pink and flowers and needing to have long hair even if it kept getting in the way, and constantly having to be careful of getting their princess dress dirty. This can't be sexual or misogynistic, right? 🙃

Men, on the other hand, hold no such delusions. Now, certainly, men do not stop their objectification of women at femininity - they will sexualise everything women do, because merely being female makes you the designated target for men's depravity. Femininity is just a way of dressing up a women's target status so it looks more appealing and pandering, hence feminine women being more openly targeted with sexualisation. It's not a coincidence that femininity, this "culture" that according to liberal feminism exists completely independently from men's preferences and misogynistic ideas, revolves so much around sexualisation. It's not normal to have half your ass hanging out, or to have all your normal clothes accentuate your body outline and sexualised parts (even breasts, which shouldn't be sexual in any way, are purposefully accentuated in a sexual way), to have nails that hinder your normal daily functioning, to wear underwear that deliberately looks like lingerie, to walk on awkward spikes that destroy your toes, to have paint on your face just to be able to exist in public or talk to clients at work, to shave every inch of your body, to have every interaction be propped up by how "nice" or "pretty" you look, which you then lie that you totally do for yourself. THIS IS NOT NORMAL!

It's always assumed that different rules will apply to women, whereas men get to do things like wear normal comfortable shoes and normal clothes whose priority isn't to accentuate their bodily curves. Why are women from a different planet where basic human ergonomics don't apply? Where emphasising sexual body parts is suddenly normal and acceptable in public, where makeup is acceptable in a professional setting, and long hair almost obligatory? Interestingly, no-one ever asks why, if this is all so comfy, no men take it on, or better yet, why they're not expected to. Sure, some feminine men might get praise in a "YAS QUEEN" sort of way, but despite all these supposed neutral benefits, regular masculine men, even progressive and feminist ones, are still not expected to engage in any of it. Hmm 🤔

Related to a previous point, the fact that little girls, ugly women, old women etc. are expected to perform femininity despite being seen as or even mocked for their lack of sex appeal to men, is because women cannot exist without femininity. Femininity is obligatory because women cannot exist outside of being compared to this fictional male ideal of a perfect woman. Real female human beings merely exist at different levels of imperfection compared to that. A non-feminine woman is certainly is not going to be treated with the respect of a man, because she isn't a human, she's a woman, inherently defined by how much she matches the feminine ideal. If she matches it enough, she's sexualised (and then either fawned over, or hated for being a sl*t, or both simultaneously). If she's too unfortunate to be too far from the ideal, she's ignored. There is no praise, attention, or admiration given to her, either by men or women. She could be the greatest person in the world, but she'd always be a failed woman first and foremost.

Men recognise the inherent sexuality, impracticality and submission involved in a form of presentation that obsesses over old, misogynistic ideas about women, one that starts with "women need to look nice and pretty and submissive and perfect at all times, and in a way that appeals to men" and progressively expands into cultural and trendy ideas on exactly how this needs to be done. But the basic idea is always there. Women get scammed into thinking that flipping between the Madonna-wh*re role depending on the man's proclivities is somehow being liberating, instead of refusing to play the "be pretty and sexy"-game in the first place.

A big reason why women think this is all so non-sexual and so non-degrading, is that it's inherently something done for the sake of men, even if it's packaged as "women's culture" or "fashion trends". Even when women criticise and compete with each other in regards to appearance, it is still ultimately rooted in aesthetics that appeal to the male gaze or to male ideas on women. It doesn't matter whether those ideas manifest to the extreme that some men find "too much" (the oft-mocked women with too much makeup or plastic surgeries, as opposed to women who are naturally supposed to look like supermodels), or that are too detailed and specific for men to care about (nitpicks like thigh gaps, or nail art, or finicky fashion rules) because women obsess over this as a result of insecurities and direct inordinate amounts of their intellectual and creative abilities into an expected, obligatory hobby for most women. The point is that women always need to, first and foremost, work within the confines of the male-pandering feminine aesthetic, where they're just finding different ways of looking pretty. And women then get told by horny liberal men and deluded women, that some men's conservative reactions to that makes it subversive. Not every single thing a woman does is a direct response to active male requests, but all of it is based in the male-pandering ideas.

When a woman goes out with half her body on display in ways that men find attractive and resonant with their ideas about women, this isn't done for "her sake". In fact, this idea of "I do it for myself" consistently clashes with the idea that this same presentation is "sexually empowering". Femininity has Schrödinger sexuality where it's both sexual and entirely non-sexual depending on which side of the Madonna-wh*re complex the woman is supposed to fit.

When you think about it, it's completely twisted what women get away with wearing, not just in public and around children (wtf is up with women's bathing suits??), but also that we literally expect them to present this way in professional settings. But because we know that women's sexualised, submissive appearance panders to men, we simply accept and expect women to look that way. Men get to look however they want and still be respected, whereas women always need to be feminine.

This brings me to one of the reasons why male GNC gives people the ick (pure conservative knee-jerk reaction aside): 1. people suddenly realise how ridiculous and inappropriate all this sexualised femininity is when donned by a man, who exists beyond looking like someone's pretty accessory 2. femininity inherently appeals to the male gaze. So the only reason why a man might don it is if he was gay and trying to appeal to other men, or if he was a crossdressing fetishist getting his rocks off. Otherwise, ofc that men erm, people will want to see half-naked and/or attractive women everywhere. Everyone expects women to look attractive. We're not quite sure what all the straight women are supposed to get out of being exposed to all these sexualised women, and from them themselves having to always look sexy and pretty, but who gives a shit about what women want anyways? 🤷‍♂️ I'm sure being the prettiest of them all is its own reward, which is why none of the men are bending over backwards for it.

The notion that a man might try to pander to women is not even considered, which is especially odd given that so many women fawn over long hair on men, feminine men like Kpop stars, and crush on gay men, all of which does nothing to motivate any man to pander to that, but instead results in men mocking any female interests, whining about how women are not attracted to REAL men, or whining about how unfair and misandrist it is that average men who do nothing are not treated as supermodels, or don't have women rushing to ask them out or offer casual sex. Women develop mental illnesses from the weight of beauty standards placed on them, and meanwhile not only do men not care to take even 1% of that on (despite benefiting from historical lack of oppression for it, and actually having a choice to partake in it), but they complain incessantly about picky entitled women and how unfair the barely existent standards of male appearance are towards them.

Furthermore, men who put work into their appearance are always gay, but women who do are assumed straight. This makes the power dynamics blatantly obvious. We know whose sake this is for, even if people lie through their teeth about it.]]>
Women will often insist that things like high heels or makeup or pushup bras or short skirts are completely 100% nonsexual and are just done for their own sake, to "look nice" or, most egregiously, for comfort. Men might pay lip service to this, though I find this is moreso for sexualised fictional characters. But for men, the notion that women are doing this for their own sake is laughable. On one hand, men think the world revolves around them and only them, so anything a woman does, from talking to them to breathing in public, is about pandering to men. Hell, even not associating with men is an attack on men because it's not pandering enough to them (hence why, for men, misandry is women avoiding men, divorcing men, staying single etc. whereas for women, the ability to get away from your oppressor is paramount. Why would men want to trap their supposed oppressors with them? 🤔). Men simply can't comprehend that women exist beyond just their status as imperfect embodiment of male sexual ideals, so to a degree, anything women do is sexual. On the other hand, men recognise the inherrent sexualisation of femininity, because they haven't been gaslit and brainwashed all their lives to believe that it's somehow normal and acceptable to be in constant discomfort, self-hatred, state of undress and on thin ice in regards to your appearance. When you grow up all your life wearing comfy, baggy clothes and not even sparing a thought to how pretty and sexy and endearing you look to others, the notion that going so out of your way to emphasise these qualities while supposedly not caring at all about what others think...well, it's ludicrous.

Femininity is completely rooted in male ideas about women, namely the sexualisation and submission of women. Sexualisation should be obvious, but submission can be a bit more subtle - it's in obsessing over how "nice" and "pretty" you need to be for others all the time just to be allowed to exist. It's the constant self-criticism of appearance that no man deals with. It's the constant apologising over everything, and the constant concern with how you're perceived, both appearance-wise and behaviour-wise - are you too ugly? Selfish? Mean? Forward? Hysterical? Dumb? Do you look imperfect? Are you proving the stereotypes? Are you doing enough to disprove the stereotypes? Can you actually work with these men or are they just trying to get in your pants? Is having simple boundaries or not smiling enough or correcting the man going to make the him go testerical? Is just basic kindness without sucking up to the person going to get you called "mean" and "rude"? etc. etc. All this is extremely limiting stuff that men don't even think about. If they do, their standards are through the floor - rude, angry men complaining that they need to walk on eggshells because snowflakes have thin skin and can't handle slurs, or ugly af men whining about how hot women won't bang them.

Femininity starts early. Dolls, playing with mum's makeup, trying on high heels, being praised for "looking pretty"...Then in teens, in the midsts of coming to terms with your body developing and becoming openly sexualised, being told your chest is shameful and that you're ugly in your very nature unless you cover yourself up, being expected to wear lacy bras and undies that barely cover your ass, uncomfortable tight pants, tight shirts with cleavage, having to have paint on your face, on your eyes, on your mouth, just to "look pretty"... Women grow up with these things from the earliest years when sex and attractiveness aren't even on their minds. They don't even think about how men view this - it's just what girls and women wear because they're female, that's it. Different types of people just wear different things. It can't possibly all be done for the sake of men, right? After all this has been with women since they were babies, dressed in pink and flowers and needing to have long hair even if it kept getting in the way, and constantly having to be careful of getting their princess dress dirty. This can't be sexual or misogynistic, right? 🙃

Men, on the other hand, hold no such delusions. Now, certainly, men do not stop their objectification of women at femininity - they will sexualise everything women do, because merely being female makes you the designated target for men's depravity. Femininity is just a way of dressing up a women's target status so it looks more appealing and pandering, hence feminine women being more openly targeted with sexualisation. It's not a coincidence that femininity, this "culture" that according to liberal feminism exists completely independently from men's preferences and misogynistic ideas, revolves so much around sexualisation. It's not normal to have half your ass hanging out, or to have all your normal clothes accentuate your body outline and sexualised parts (even breasts, which shouldn't be sexual in any way, are purposefully accentuated in a sexual way), to have nails that hinder your normal daily functioning, to wear underwear that deliberately looks like lingerie, to walk on awkward spikes that destroy your toes, to have paint on your face just to be able to exist in public or talk to clients at work, to shave every inch of your body, to have every interaction be propped up by how "nice" or "pretty" you look, which you then lie that you totally do for yourself. THIS IS NOT NORMAL!

It's always assumed that different rules will apply to women, whereas men get to do things like wear normal comfortable shoes and normal clothes whose priority isn't to accentuate their bodily curves. Why are women from a different planet where basic human ergonomics don't apply? Where emphasising sexual body parts is suddenly normal and acceptable in public, where makeup is acceptable in a professional setting, and long hair almost obligatory? Interestingly, no-one ever asks why, if this is all so comfy, no men take it on, or better yet, why they're not expected to. Sure, some feminine men might get praise in a "YAS QUEEN" sort of way, but despite all these supposed neutral benefits, regular masculine men, even progressive and feminist ones, are still not expected to engage in any of it. Hmm 🤔

Related to a previous point, the fact that little girls, ugly women, old women etc. are expected to perform femininity despite being seen as or even mocked for their lack of sex appeal to men, is because women cannot exist without femininity. Femininity is obligatory because women cannot exist outside of being compared to this fictional male ideal of a perfect woman. Real female human beings merely exist at different levels of imperfection compared to that. A non-feminine woman is certainly is not going to be treated with the respect of a man, because she isn't a human, she's a woman, inherently defined by how much she matches the feminine ideal. If she matches it enough, she's sexualised (and then either fawned over, or hated for being a sl*t, or both simultaneously). If she's too unfortunate to be too far from the ideal, she's ignored. There is no praise, attention, or admiration given to her, either by men or women. She could be the greatest person in the world, but she'd always be a failed woman first and foremost.

Men recognise the inherent sexuality, impracticality and submission involved in a form of presentation that obsesses over old, misogynistic ideas about women, one that starts with "women need to look nice and pretty and submissive and perfect at all times, and in a way that appeals to men" and progressively expands into cultural and trendy ideas on exactly how this needs to be done. But the basic idea is always there. Women get scammed into thinking that flipping between the Madonna-wh*re role depending on the man's proclivities is somehow being liberating, instead of refusing to play the "be pretty and sexy"-game in the first place.

A big reason why women think this is all so non-sexual and so non-degrading, is that it's inherently something done for the sake of men, even if it's packaged as "women's culture" or "fashion trends". Even when women criticise and compete with each other in regards to appearance, it is still ultimately rooted in aesthetics that appeal to the male gaze or to male ideas on women. It doesn't matter whether those ideas manifest to the extreme that some men find "too much" (the oft-mocked women with too much makeup or plastic surgeries, as opposed to women who are naturally supposed to look like supermodels), or that are too detailed and specific for men to care about (nitpicks like thigh gaps, or nail art, or finicky fashion rules) because women obsess over this as a result of insecurities and direct inordinate amounts of their intellectual and creative abilities into an expected, obligatory hobby for most women. The point is that women always need to, first and foremost, work within the confines of the male-pandering feminine aesthetic, where they're just finding different ways of looking pretty. And women then get told by horny liberal men and deluded women, that some men's conservative reactions to that makes it subversive. Not every single thing a woman does is a direct response to active male requests, but all of it is based in the male-pandering ideas.

When a woman goes out with half her body on display in ways that men find attractive and resonant with their ideas about women, this isn't done for "her sake". In fact, this idea of "I do it for myself" consistently clashes with the idea that this same presentation is "sexually empowering". Femininity has Schrödinger sexuality where it's both sexual and entirely non-sexual depending on which side of the Madonna-wh*re complex the woman is supposed to fit.

When you think about it, it's completely twisted what women get away with wearing, not just in public and around children (wtf is up with women's bathing suits??), but also that we literally expect them to present this way in professional settings. But because we know that women's sexualised, submissive appearance panders to men, we simply accept and expect women to look that way. Men get to look however they want and still be respected, whereas women always need to be feminine.

This brings me to one of the reasons why male GNC gives people the ick (pure conservative knee-jerk reaction aside): 1. people suddenly realise how ridiculous and inappropriate all this sexualised femininity is when donned by a man, who exists beyond looking like someone's pretty accessory 2. femininity inherently appeals to the male gaze. So the only reason why a man might don it is if he was gay and trying to appeal to other men, or if he was a crossdressing fetishist getting his rocks off. Otherwise, ofc that men erm, people will want to see half-naked and/or attractive women everywhere. Everyone expects women to look attractive. We're not quite sure what all the straight women are supposed to get out of being exposed to all these sexualised women, and from them themselves having to always look sexy and pretty, but who gives a shit about what women want anyways? 🤷‍♂️ I'm sure being the prettiest of them all is its own reward, which is why none of the men are bending over backwards for it.

The notion that a man might try to pander to women is not even considered, which is especially odd given that so many women fawn over long hair on men, feminine men like Kpop stars, and crush on gay men, all of which does nothing to motivate any man to pander to that, but instead results in men mocking any female interests, whining about how women are not attracted to REAL men, or whining about how unfair and misandrist it is that average men who do nothing are not treated as supermodels, or don't have women rushing to ask them out or offer casual sex. Women develop mental illnesses from the weight of beauty standards placed on them, and meanwhile not only do men not care to take even 1% of that on (despite benefiting from historical lack of oppression for it, and actually having a choice to partake in it), but they complain incessantly about picky entitled women and how unfair the barely existent standards of male appearance are towards them.

Furthermore, men who put work into their appearance are always gay, but women who do are assumed straight. This makes the power dynamics blatantly obvious. We know whose sake this is for, even if people lie through their teeth about it.]]> <![CDATA[Mother on reddit expresses her frustration with conservative woman calling her sons "girls" due to their long hair]]> https://clovenhooves.org/showthread.php?tid=430 Sun, 08 Dec 2024 06:49:16 +0000 Clover]]> https://clovenhooves.org/showthread.php?tid=430 https://reddit.com/r/traumatizeThemBack/comments/1h8tlho/prude_kept_calling_my_kids_girls/

wild_serenity Several years ago, I was in line at the grocery store with my two small children, 4m and 2m. Both of them had gorgeous curly long hair that would have given Shirley Temple a run for her money.
The lady in front of us in the line kept commenting on how beautiful my girls were. I thanked her for the compliments, and that there’s nothing wrong with girls, but my kids were AMAB. She exclaimed loudly, “they’re just too pretty to be boys! They MUST be girls!”
I responded at the same level with, “well, they both had penises when I birthed them, so for now they’re boys. And boys can be pretty, too.”
As soon as the “P” word left my mouth, her eyes got huge and jaw dropped to the floor, and she turned away, obviously disgusted with me.

My boys are now 10 and 8 and they still identify as boys. If that ever changes, I will of course support them, but why correct a mother on her children’s genitalia?! That’s just weird.


Edit: I have been in a lot of pain and was just distracting myself scrolling and thought this would be a funny story to add. I did not refer to them as AMAB to the lady in line. They were born boys. I didn’t want anyone to think I was assigning genders before they decided themselves, and I phrased it wrong.
Also, I don’t scream PENIS at every person that calls my boys “girls”. I realize how androgynous children are, and generally smiled, thanked, said, “they’re boys but boys can be pretty, too”. They’d laugh or say “oh I didn’t realize! Cute boys!” Or something along those lines, and we’d all move on. This was a one time incident out of what feels like billions, and the only time I have said “penis” loudly and clearly enough for several people around us could hear, after I had politely thanked her twice and she still insisted, loudly, that they had to be girls.

Maybe I chose the wrong flair

Of course, the post is written to appease transgender ideology. But I'm glad she told off the regressive woman.

Other commenters share their experiences with conservative promotion of gender conformity.

NiobeTonks Holy crap. I had a similar experience when I was 8 or 9, because I had short hair. People kept calling me lad or sonny. I did get upset because even though I had short hair and mostly wore jeans except for school or church, I knew I was a girl, but I wasn’t allowed to talk back to adults. That, by the way, was in the 1970s.

Morrigan_twicked_48 People are so stupid about children . When I was four I decided that I wanted to be a boy because girls had too many people telling them what to do and being a boy was easier . I got my long hair cut like the boy in Kramer v Kramer movie and I got boys clothes . My mom and my grandfather thought -ok fair enough then . Not a big deal . Then when I was seven I decided I wanted to be a girl as I fell in love with heels and makeup . Ok then. No one made a big deal of either .

Except teachers and stupid adults who don’t get children will do things out of their own bat .

This exchange reveals the inconsistencies of transgender ideology:

JaguarZealousideal55 My baby brother spent a few months wearing pigtails and wanting to be called a girl name. We did as he asked. Turned out the name was of a woman who was very good at a sport he liked, so he wanted to be like her. He grew up to be all male. This was in the 1980s and hardly anyone had even heard of trans where I grew up. We just said "OK" because he wanted it and he could decide for himself (maybe 6 y o, I think?)

"He grew up to be all male." He would always have grown up to be all male.

"This was in the 1980s and hardly anyone had even heard of trans where I grew up. We just said "OK" because he wanted it and he could decide for himself (maybe 6 y o, I think?)" I find this (and pucemoon's follow-up comment) to be a bit "it hurts itself in confusion" in regards to trying to support (trans)gender ideology. Yes, their brother grew up in the 80s with parents who were progressive in the sense they did not mind gender non-conformity in their child. That is good. There is no reason why it matters that "trans wasn't around" back then, because trans isn't about being accepting of such gender non-conformity. If anything, it would have been the polar opposite. In the modern day, if these parents were of the "so open minded their brains fall out" kind of "progressive" that believes in the Gospel of Trans, this boy would have gotten the Jazz Jennings treatment.

Another user then replies in agreement, in a more blatant attempt to minimize the damage of transgender ideology:

pucemoon Right? Like a 4 year old can decide they're a lion or an elephant and nobody bats an eye.

Let them decide they want to explore a different gender and all of a sudden there's legislation.

This is quite the "it hurts itself in confusion" attempt to defend transgender ideology. The user seems to acknowledge adults don't care if kids pretend to be elephants or lions, because they know they're just playing pretend. Then the user tries to somehow equivocate parents not caring if their child is gender nonconforming (which is healthy and progressive) to parents encouraging children that if they want to mimic the stereotypes of the other sex they actually are the other sex via magical gender souls (actually not healthy or progressive). Legislating safeguards from children getting put on off-label drugs to stop puberty, cross-sex hormones, and unnecessary and damaging cosmetic surgeries is not the same as legislating against gender nonconformity.

Does the user not understand that by equating "exploring gender" with "kids pretending to be lions and elephants" they essentially are suggesting that there can't be "trans kids"? I mean, that's great, I guess we're on the same page then — let kids be kids.

This Reddit post and its comments are a great example of how both conservatives and neoliberals both support regressive gender norms (and a bonus of how transgender ideology is logically inconsistent).

The conservative woman in the OP believes OP's sons are girls because long hair = girls.

The pro-trans supporters in the comments appear to support gender nonconformity until their logic short-circuits in order to validate and uphold transgender ideology.]]> https://reddit.com/r/traumatizeThemBack/comments/1h8tlho/prude_kept_calling_my_kids_girls/

wild_serenity Several years ago, I was in line at the grocery store with my two small children, 4m and 2m. Both of them had gorgeous curly long hair that would have given Shirley Temple a run for her money.
The lady in front of us in the line kept commenting on how beautiful my girls were. I thanked her for the compliments, and that there’s nothing wrong with girls, but my kids were AMAB. She exclaimed loudly, “they’re just too pretty to be boys! They MUST be girls!”
I responded at the same level with, “well, they both had penises when I birthed them, so for now they’re boys. And boys can be pretty, too.”
As soon as the “P” word left my mouth, her eyes got huge and jaw dropped to the floor, and she turned away, obviously disgusted with me.

My boys are now 10 and 8 and they still identify as boys. If that ever changes, I will of course support them, but why correct a mother on her children’s genitalia?! That’s just weird.


Edit: I have been in a lot of pain and was just distracting myself scrolling and thought this would be a funny story to add. I did not refer to them as AMAB to the lady in line. They were born boys. I didn’t want anyone to think I was assigning genders before they decided themselves, and I phrased it wrong.
Also, I don’t scream PENIS at every person that calls my boys “girls”. I realize how androgynous children are, and generally smiled, thanked, said, “they’re boys but boys can be pretty, too”. They’d laugh or say “oh I didn’t realize! Cute boys!” Or something along those lines, and we’d all move on. This was a one time incident out of what feels like billions, and the only time I have said “penis” loudly and clearly enough for several people around us could hear, after I had politely thanked her twice and she still insisted, loudly, that they had to be girls.

Maybe I chose the wrong flair

Of course, the post is written to appease transgender ideology. But I'm glad she told off the regressive woman.

Other commenters share their experiences with conservative promotion of gender conformity.

NiobeTonks Holy crap. I had a similar experience when I was 8 or 9, because I had short hair. People kept calling me lad or sonny. I did get upset because even though I had short hair and mostly wore jeans except for school or church, I knew I was a girl, but I wasn’t allowed to talk back to adults. That, by the way, was in the 1970s.

Morrigan_twicked_48 People are so stupid about children . When I was four I decided that I wanted to be a boy because girls had too many people telling them what to do and being a boy was easier . I got my long hair cut like the boy in Kramer v Kramer movie and I got boys clothes . My mom and my grandfather thought -ok fair enough then . Not a big deal . Then when I was seven I decided I wanted to be a girl as I fell in love with heels and makeup . Ok then. No one made a big deal of either .

Except teachers and stupid adults who don’t get children will do things out of their own bat .

This exchange reveals the inconsistencies of transgender ideology:

JaguarZealousideal55 My baby brother spent a few months wearing pigtails and wanting to be called a girl name. We did as he asked. Turned out the name was of a woman who was very good at a sport he liked, so he wanted to be like her. He grew up to be all male. This was in the 1980s and hardly anyone had even heard of trans where I grew up. We just said "OK" because he wanted it and he could decide for himself (maybe 6 y o, I think?)

"He grew up to be all male." He would always have grown up to be all male.

"This was in the 1980s and hardly anyone had even heard of trans where I grew up. We just said "OK" because he wanted it and he could decide for himself (maybe 6 y o, I think?)" I find this (and pucemoon's follow-up comment) to be a bit "it hurts itself in confusion" in regards to trying to support (trans)gender ideology. Yes, their brother grew up in the 80s with parents who were progressive in the sense they did not mind gender non-conformity in their child. That is good. There is no reason why it matters that "trans wasn't around" back then, because trans isn't about being accepting of such gender non-conformity. If anything, it would have been the polar opposite. In the modern day, if these parents were of the "so open minded their brains fall out" kind of "progressive" that believes in the Gospel of Trans, this boy would have gotten the Jazz Jennings treatment.

Another user then replies in agreement, in a more blatant attempt to minimize the damage of transgender ideology:

pucemoon Right? Like a 4 year old can decide they're a lion or an elephant and nobody bats an eye.

Let them decide they want to explore a different gender and all of a sudden there's legislation.

This is quite the "it hurts itself in confusion" attempt to defend transgender ideology. The user seems to acknowledge adults don't care if kids pretend to be elephants or lions, because they know they're just playing pretend. Then the user tries to somehow equivocate parents not caring if their child is gender nonconforming (which is healthy and progressive) to parents encouraging children that if they want to mimic the stereotypes of the other sex they actually are the other sex via magical gender souls (actually not healthy or progressive). Legislating safeguards from children getting put on off-label drugs to stop puberty, cross-sex hormones, and unnecessary and damaging cosmetic surgeries is not the same as legislating against gender nonconformity.

Does the user not understand that by equating "exploring gender" with "kids pretending to be lions and elephants" they essentially are suggesting that there can't be "trans kids"? I mean, that's great, I guess we're on the same page then — let kids be kids.

This Reddit post and its comments are a great example of how both conservatives and neoliberals both support regressive gender norms (and a bonus of how transgender ideology is logically inconsistent).

The conservative woman in the OP believes OP's sons are girls because long hair = girls.

The pro-trans supporters in the comments appear to support gender nonconformity until their logic short-circuits in order to validate and uphold transgender ideology.]]> <![CDATA[The two kinds of gender]]> https://clovenhooves.org/showthread.php?tid=422 Tue, 03 Dec 2024 06:29:08 +0000 YesYourNigel]]> https://clovenhooves.org/showthread.php?tid=422
The two kinds I'm talking of are:
  1. Useful, empowering and self-beneficial skills, presentation and personality traits reserved for men, and submissive impractical ones being reserved for women - let's call this "objective traits"
  2. The mere relation to women signifying something as bad, and relation to men automatically making things good - let's call this "stereotypical traits" or "associated traits".
For example: the fact that high heels are uncomfortable, restrictive of movement and damaging to feet is not because women are so unfairly hated that anything associated with them is bad, but because this is the truth about high heels. These things became associated with women because they were impractical, not vice versa. This is an objectively bad trait.

STEM skills are objectively useful in a world that increasingly relies on technology, but gaming as a hobby isn't. I want to see more women in STEM, as this is an objectively positive, beneficial trait to have. I don't want to see more women sitting on their asses all day glued to the screen to win e-sport tournaments while their children starve and their friends and family never see them. The only reason why gaming is seen as somehow more worthwhile as a hobby than, say, reading books or crocheting, is because it's associated with men.

The distinction isn't always clear cut (even useless hobbies will have a tendency to exclude women and limit women's options for pure entertainment, and what should be objectively harmless traits often become limiting due to women being forcefully pigeonholed into then) and generally people will even treat objective traits through stereotypical lens - for instance, even though makeup and beauty standards are objectively bad for women, women who don too much of it are mocked due to misogyny. Men still demand that women engage in impractical, harmful and damaging trends to sexually appeal to them, it's just that when it's too extreme even for some of them, they get pissy. The pissiness comes not from any humanist or empathetic concern for the woman, but out of rage for her not pandering properly to men's dicks. And this misogyny is what liberal women want to react to, but the reaction ends up being reduced to the childish idea that anything associated with women must be positive because women are oppressed so anything associated with them is oppressed as well. And when enough normies start parroting this you get the absurd conclusion that the main victim of the patriarchy isn't women (aka actual human beings), but femininity coming under attack. You take the insanity far enough and combine it with the copious amounts of attention given to male voices and self-absorbtion, and the real victims become men, specifically trans and gay ones, but also any man who feels slighted for not profiting enough from male supremacy due to nor being high enough in the male pecking order, aka he's too "feminine".

An additional layer of complexity is that female associated traits are sometimes objectively positive for humanity, but women get punished due to doing the overwhelming amount of work placed on them. i.e. childrearing and empathy are good but because the burden of this falls so overwhelmingly on women that women turn into everyone's emotional support animals who run around and mummy lazy, self centered individuals (especially men). So an additional question is also to what degree women should best utilise rejection of gender to compensate for this lop-sidedness. Additionally, centuries-old patriarchal mechanisms that launch so many men into pure narcissism and abuse do not exist for women, so to some degree being expected to engage in superficially negative traits (being more selfish or career-focused) is not going to snowball for women into narcissism the way it does for men. Or at least not unless said selfishness is encouraged through gendered lens. Women (conservative women, TIFs, NotLikeOtherGirls) who are only confident, proactive and assertive when it comes to policing other women or children under the approving gaze of men for male benefir are not subverting gender roles despite showing traits that are not stereotypically feminine.

Which traits should be discouraged or not in women must not be determined on the basis of patriarchal knee-jerk reactions but rather on the basis of how beneficial and humanist these traits are. Women are raised and brainwashed within the confines of patriarchal society and they can't expect to do 0 work to undo it. But this work needs to always be performed for their own benefit. Not to pander to men, not to get their approval, not to prop themselves up over "other girls", but to retake the confidence, skills and dignity that they have been denied and that would objectively improve their lives.]]>
The two kinds I'm talking of are:
  1. Useful, empowering and self-beneficial skills, presentation and personality traits reserved for men, and submissive impractical ones being reserved for women - let's call this "objective traits"
  2. The mere relation to women signifying something as bad, and relation to men automatically making things good - let's call this "stereotypical traits" or "associated traits".
For example: the fact that high heels are uncomfortable, restrictive of movement and damaging to feet is not because women are so unfairly hated that anything associated with them is bad, but because this is the truth about high heels. These things became associated with women because they were impractical, not vice versa. This is an objectively bad trait.

STEM skills are objectively useful in a world that increasingly relies on technology, but gaming as a hobby isn't. I want to see more women in STEM, as this is an objectively positive, beneficial trait to have. I don't want to see more women sitting on their asses all day glued to the screen to win e-sport tournaments while their children starve and their friends and family never see them. The only reason why gaming is seen as somehow more worthwhile as a hobby than, say, reading books or crocheting, is because it's associated with men.

The distinction isn't always clear cut (even useless hobbies will have a tendency to exclude women and limit women's options for pure entertainment, and what should be objectively harmless traits often become limiting due to women being forcefully pigeonholed into then) and generally people will even treat objective traits through stereotypical lens - for instance, even though makeup and beauty standards are objectively bad for women, women who don too much of it are mocked due to misogyny. Men still demand that women engage in impractical, harmful and damaging trends to sexually appeal to them, it's just that when it's too extreme even for some of them, they get pissy. The pissiness comes not from any humanist or empathetic concern for the woman, but out of rage for her not pandering properly to men's dicks. And this misogyny is what liberal women want to react to, but the reaction ends up being reduced to the childish idea that anything associated with women must be positive because women are oppressed so anything associated with them is oppressed as well. And when enough normies start parroting this you get the absurd conclusion that the main victim of the patriarchy isn't women (aka actual human beings), but femininity coming under attack. You take the insanity far enough and combine it with the copious amounts of attention given to male voices and self-absorbtion, and the real victims become men, specifically trans and gay ones, but also any man who feels slighted for not profiting enough from male supremacy due to nor being high enough in the male pecking order, aka he's too "feminine".

An additional layer of complexity is that female associated traits are sometimes objectively positive for humanity, but women get punished due to doing the overwhelming amount of work placed on them. i.e. childrearing and empathy are good but because the burden of this falls so overwhelmingly on women that women turn into everyone's emotional support animals who run around and mummy lazy, self centered individuals (especially men). So an additional question is also to what degree women should best utilise rejection of gender to compensate for this lop-sidedness. Additionally, centuries-old patriarchal mechanisms that launch so many men into pure narcissism and abuse do not exist for women, so to some degree being expected to engage in superficially negative traits (being more selfish or career-focused) is not going to snowball for women into narcissism the way it does for men. Or at least not unless said selfishness is encouraged through gendered lens. Women (conservative women, TIFs, NotLikeOtherGirls) who are only confident, proactive and assertive when it comes to policing other women or children under the approving gaze of men for male benefir are not subverting gender roles despite showing traits that are not stereotypically feminine.

Which traits should be discouraged or not in women must not be determined on the basis of patriarchal knee-jerk reactions but rather on the basis of how beneficial and humanist these traits are. Women are raised and brainwashed within the confines of patriarchal society and they can't expect to do 0 work to undo it. But this work needs to always be performed for their own benefit. Not to pander to men, not to get their approval, not to prop themselves up over "other girls", but to retake the confidence, skills and dignity that they have been denied and that would objectively improve their lives.]]> <![CDATA["Destined" for GNC]]> https://clovenhooves.org/showthread.php?tid=311 Tue, 29 Oct 2024 13:57:31 +0000 YesYourNigel]]> https://clovenhooves.org/showthread.php?tid=311
In reality, while STEM and handyperson skills are certainly a part of male socialisation that they boys are immersed in from their earliest years, plenty of men do not dream or feel destined to make careers in them or turn it into an obsession, which is why a lot of trades and construction struggle with getting workers. They go into these professions because they are lucrative, or simply because they need money. Women are seen as needing an exceptional reason to do so - they had to have been destined for this, they had to have it in their genes, they must just somehow inherently, biologically be different from all those other women who do completely different things like arts and crafts (which couldn't possibly transition into any kind of trades skill, oh no). And ofc they have to be absolute geniuses to justify even dipping their fingers in it - they can't possibly be average or heaven forbid struggle.

In reality, femininity and its limitations are actively harmful to women, and that's all the reason women should have to forego it. Women do not need to be obsessed with roleplaying as men or be destined to be specifically a welder with a special welder brain in order to conclude that femininity is a shit deal for them and to live outside of its confines. Ofc the women drawn to these things will often have a long history of interest in these things, but that's precisely because these fields are so hostile to women in general, let alone average women. It's survivorship bias.

Society in general loves the idea of "talent" and people having certain "brains" for something, with plenty of research expended into seeking to find some special "classical music brain gene" to explain it all. The narrative for all people is defined by an exceptional minority, and people who struggle due to lacking the money, safety net and socialisation of more successful individuals are simply told to give up because they're not meant to do something. But this ofc goes beyond mere professions, and into presentation as well. Women see other GNC women and they assume "Well, they must've always been this way, they're not like us other gals", instead of realising that that could be them. All female people by virtue of being recognised as female are saddled with femininity and all women are harmed by it. Countering this harm and expanding your possibilities as much as you can is a matter of survival for ALL women, not just the ones with sufficiently blue-ish brains]]>
In reality, while STEM and handyperson skills are certainly a part of male socialisation that they boys are immersed in from their earliest years, plenty of men do not dream or feel destined to make careers in them or turn it into an obsession, which is why a lot of trades and construction struggle with getting workers. They go into these professions because they are lucrative, or simply because they need money. Women are seen as needing an exceptional reason to do so - they had to have been destined for this, they had to have it in their genes, they must just somehow inherently, biologically be different from all those other women who do completely different things like arts and crafts (which couldn't possibly transition into any kind of trades skill, oh no). And ofc they have to be absolute geniuses to justify even dipping their fingers in it - they can't possibly be average or heaven forbid struggle.

In reality, femininity and its limitations are actively harmful to women, and that's all the reason women should have to forego it. Women do not need to be obsessed with roleplaying as men or be destined to be specifically a welder with a special welder brain in order to conclude that femininity is a shit deal for them and to live outside of its confines. Ofc the women drawn to these things will often have a long history of interest in these things, but that's precisely because these fields are so hostile to women in general, let alone average women. It's survivorship bias.

Society in general loves the idea of "talent" and people having certain "brains" for something, with plenty of research expended into seeking to find some special "classical music brain gene" to explain it all. The narrative for all people is defined by an exceptional minority, and people who struggle due to lacking the money, safety net and socialisation of more successful individuals are simply told to give up because they're not meant to do something. But this ofc goes beyond mere professions, and into presentation as well. Women see other GNC women and they assume "Well, they must've always been this way, they're not like us other gals", instead of realising that that could be them. All female people by virtue of being recognised as female are saddled with femininity and all women are harmed by it. Countering this harm and expanding your possibilities as much as you can is a matter of survival for ALL women, not just the ones with sufficiently blue-ish brains]]> <![CDATA[GNC as a fashion statement]]> https://clovenhooves.org/showthread.php?tid=224 Thu, 25 Jul 2024 20:10:54 +0000 YesYourNigel]]> https://clovenhooves.org/showthread.php?tid=224
Liberals begrudgingly accept that some women are weirdos who didn't get the memo that they're supposed to be feminine, probably because they're a bit messed up in the head, but they are certainly not as high up on the liberal oppression pole as conventionally attractive feminine women, or men with violent misogynistic fetishes. Or, we can make this GNC lifestyle even less political - being femme or butch is not even about having certain inborn preferences - it's all about harmless fashion styles, something to experiment with, or simply the way you like to present, and something anyone can opt into or out of, like gender.

This attitude not only avoids pointing out the problems with femininity, but also acts like you need to have this integral specific preference for this other "fashion style" in order to justify taking it on. So for femininity to be rejected, the fashion/appearance/presentation/identity (note the progression, and how that factors into libfem/trans worldview) of GNC needs to resonate with you personally and naturally, in a world where women have been told their life this makes them unlovable, gross, unappealing. The fact that femininity harms women is not seen as a good enough reason to distance onerself from it, because liberal feminism refuses to acknowledge femininity as harmful to women. Even saying so gets you accused of misogyny, since according to liberal feminism, the real victims of misogyny and patriarchy are not women, but femininity itself. And that's how you end up with nonsense like the idea that "femme-presenting people" are victimised by misogyny. For liberals, it's all about "people" being persecuted by prudes and close-minded bigots for any random preferences and lifestyle, such as the choice of what clothes they put on. And this is placed in the wider liberal persecution complex, right alongside shaming men for being pedos, or shaming harmful misogynistic kinks.

Being GNC is not some special identity, it's a rejection of femininity that is harmful to women.]]>
Liberals begrudgingly accept that some women are weirdos who didn't get the memo that they're supposed to be feminine, probably because they're a bit messed up in the head, but they are certainly not as high up on the liberal oppression pole as conventionally attractive feminine women, or men with violent misogynistic fetishes. Or, we can make this GNC lifestyle even less political - being femme or butch is not even about having certain inborn preferences - it's all about harmless fashion styles, something to experiment with, or simply the way you like to present, and something anyone can opt into or out of, like gender.

This attitude not only avoids pointing out the problems with femininity, but also acts like you need to have this integral specific preference for this other "fashion style" in order to justify taking it on. So for femininity to be rejected, the fashion/appearance/presentation/identity (note the progression, and how that factors into libfem/trans worldview) of GNC needs to resonate with you personally and naturally, in a world where women have been told their life this makes them unlovable, gross, unappealing. The fact that femininity harms women is not seen as a good enough reason to distance onerself from it, because liberal feminism refuses to acknowledge femininity as harmful to women. Even saying so gets you accused of misogyny, since according to liberal feminism, the real victims of misogyny and patriarchy are not women, but femininity itself. And that's how you end up with nonsense like the idea that "femme-presenting people" are victimised by misogyny. For liberals, it's all about "people" being persecuted by prudes and close-minded bigots for any random preferences and lifestyle, such as the choice of what clothes they put on. And this is placed in the wider liberal persecution complex, right alongside shaming men for being pedos, or shaming harmful misogynistic kinks.

Being GNC is not some special identity, it's a rejection of femininity that is harmful to women.]]>