Article written by

Lauredhel is an Australian woman and mother with a disability. She blogs about disability and accessibility, social and reproductive justice, gender, freedom from violence, the uses and misuses of language, medical science, otters, gardening, and cooking.

18 Responses

Page 1 of 1
  1. Black Knight
    Black Knight at |

    You have mail.

  2. outfox
    outfox at |

    So much here I hardly know where to start.

    If you’re replying with “No we’re not! Ner!” instead of “What’s it to you? Why are those things of prime importance?”, you’re still in the patriarchy’s frame. Some people say “But we need to do that, that’s PR, that’s how we have to market feminism (to young white privileged het women, anyhow).

    Applauds! And not just as a queer feminist concerned with progressive media conflating ‘populist’ feminism with the use of dumbing down and marginalising language.

    Do the speakers of “ner, not fugly lesbos” rebuttals realise that it’s potentially insulting to ALL man-desiring feminists, as well as to lesbians?

  3. Mary Tracy9
    Mary Tracy9 at |

    Thank you! Thank you for at least attempting to debunk this survey! I’ve been waiting for someone to objectively criticize it, but all I heard so far was either “GREAT” or “duh, I always knew it”.

    I am most interested in how they defined “feminism”. My guess is that to get those results it was the kind that goes “I’m all up for equality and stuff, as long as women still look attractive for me, I get a supply of lap dancers, strippers and prostitutes, I don’t have to controbute in the housework or suffer the consequences of NOT watching objectified women all around”.

    Most certainly, they are NOT talking about RADICAL FEMINISM here. I doubt that radical feminists would be so willing to embrace the “patriarchally-aproved” attractiveness, and I doubt that those who DON’T will be considered attractive by any research.

  4. blue milk
    blue milk at |

    Absolutely, keep us thinking critically.

  5. She’s got a point. « Our Descent Into Madness

    […] it at all the first time around, myself. In a more serious reaction to the study in question, Lauredhel at Hoyden About Town […]

  6. Mr Tog
    Mr Tog at |

    Very perceptive, Lauredhel. Interestingly I have never heard the word ‘masculinism’ used. Is that because there is no such thing or because it is so ubiquitous it’s virtually synonymous with civilisation and therefore does not require a label? Simone de Beauvoir had a lot to say on this subject, postulating that the very ‘otherness’ of being female is so endemic as to go unnoticed by most people. Masculinism thus becomes, a priori, the framework in which critical thought is evaluated. Given that starting point, it is very difficult to advance thought into areas which do not arise naturally from that set of assumptions. The article you quote is a classic example of how this warps perceptions. Ostensibly portraying a positive view of feminism, it’s findings are evaluated from a masculine perspective and just reinforce the status quo.

    Perhaps what we need to do is envision what true equality would look like. If such a vision was widely accepted then it might be easier to move towards it.

  7. Winter
    Winter at |

    Thank you! Thank you! I couldn’t work out why all the joyous responses on feminist blogs were irritating me so much.

  8. Black Knight
    Black Knight at |

    I’ve just realized that I’m a dickhead. I sent the full article to Tiggers, not Lor. Um, no doubt you can work it out between you :)

  9. annaham
    annaham at |

    This is my favorite blog post in recent memory. I was sort of bugged by the study as well, and could not figure out why, and you’ve pretty much laid out the reasons *why* the study is so…uncomfortable-making.

    As a “hetero” feminist who is not completely XXX2K-Compliant (as in: I am not conventionally attractive, do not shave my legs, do not wear high heels or many other traditionally feminine things, and only wear makeup sporadically) but is in a “successful” relationship, I have to wonder: Why should my status as a somewhat-“approved” feminist even matter? Why should there be a hierarchy? No “version” of feminism should have precedence over another–whether it’s queer feminism, liberal feminism, or whatever, and no feminist should have to feel like they must measure up to the heterosexual standard.

  10. tigtog
    tigtog at |

    No worries, BK. We were mildly confused for a short while until I checked my email and found your missive.

  11. Feminism and Romance - Rudman paper followup at Hoyden About Town

    […] So I have a copy of the Rudman paper asserting that not all us feminists are fugly lonely lezzos after all. (My first post on the issue is here.) […]

  12. The 46th Carnival of Feminists « Cubically Challenged

    […] The Hoyden about Town tears up a paper that seemingly applauds feminism, but then, only “because its not all lesbians, and does have attractive women, you […]

  13. Recommended Reading: Feminist Bloggers : Elaine Vigneault

    […] Feminism, really? […]

  14. The Spin » Blog Archive » Feminism’s still hot

    […] (Alas, if you’re one of those hot, sexually satisfying feminists who thinks all this sounds like total patriarchal BS, you can check out the feminist rebuttal here.) […]

  15. Feminist Victim-blaming
    Feminist Victim-blaming at |

    […] commented that they wish it weren’t so heterosexist, and Laudedhel at Hoyden about Town wrote two great, very critical posts, including a takedown of the study’s methodology itself. Most of the other […]

  16. Not that “feminists have better sex” bullshit again « Mind the Gap

    […] everything is not so rosy. First of all, that kind of study is very scientifically dubious, as Hoyden About Town pointed out a while back, the last time a study like this reared its stupid, ugly head. We’re not […]

Comments are closed.