Monica Dux, one of the co-authors of new book The Great Feminist Denial, has an opinion piece in the Age:
And it hits one of my oldest pet peeves: rejecting a large part of feminism’s history, rejecting a large group of current feminists, just because Dux doesn’t like the “image” they project.
While researching our book my co-author Zora Simic and I asked women what turned them off the feminist label. The most common answer was that it’s the man-hating, hairy-legged lesbian. In a way this wasn’t surprising. Since the 1980s most surveys of women on feminism have returned similar findings. What was surprising is that this hirsute cliche — now more than 30 years old — is still so prevalent in women’s minds.
We all know what she looks like. She’s unwaxed, unattractive and unfeminine (probably with saggy boobs, given her predilection for torching bras). But while most women can describe her characteristics, they can rarely name a woman who personifies the stereotype.
So, who is this woman that everyone is so eager to disassociate themselves from? “Hairy-legged lesbian” is, arguably, popular shorthand for the radical feminist. Radical feminism, which emerged from the diverse women’s movement of the 1960s, focused on patriarchy as the source of women’s oppression. It ranged from the extreme (lesbian separatism) to the moderate (a critique of pornography). Yet while the extreme end of radical feminism looms largest in the public imagination, its impact was marginal, more akin to that of an eccentric opposition backbencher than a minister making policy.
Ultimately, the real power of the radical feminist has been in providing fuel for conservative scaremongers, as she’s been morphed into a homophobic, simplistic, but enormously convenient stereotype on which to hang old-fashioned feminist bashing.
Here’s the thing, Monica Dux. I, a person your co-author Zora interviewed at some length for the book, have hairy legs. I have hairy ampits. I’m fat, which is generally considered “unattractive” in Western patriarchal culture. My breasts sag. Apart from the lesbianism, I am your scary negative cliche. And some of my friends are 100% your scary negative cliche. This person is not a myth. We’re out here. And we’re feminists.
Would you be aghast if we walked around wearing ‘THIS IS WHAT A FEMINIST LOOKS LIKE’ T-shirts?
I am a cliche, a negative stereotype, because I don’t pluck and shave and wax and diet and have a surgical breast lift. The only thing that “saves” me from being 100% your horrifying threat to feminism is the fact that I fuck men. Why is that a big deal to you? Why are you rejecting lesbians from your movement? Or do you not reject them – do you just want to hide them away in a closet and pretend that your feminism is all sexy women hot for men, just so homophobes don’t think any the worse of you?
Does your feminism also pander to racists, to ableists, to anti-trans bigots, or do you single out homophobes for the kid-glove treatment?
I am, according to you, the person turning young women off feminism. My body, according to you, is feminism’s marketing problem. I am, according to you, one of the feminists that the New Feminism needs to distance itself from. I need to be denounced in order for the movement to move on and attract new members. Instead of rejecting the sexist attitudes that lead to my body being denigrated, you pander to them and reinforce them, and you seek to distance yourself from me.
This is bigoted bullshit.
You are repeating and re-creating the shameful “lavender menace” history in this opinion piece. THAT is the history that needs to be rejected. That is the history that should not be re-embraced.
If your feminism demonises me, the problem is with your feminism, not with my body. If you need to reject me, if you need to use my body, this natural body I live in, as the spectre of everything that is wrong with feminism, your feminism has a problem.
And if your feminism rejects lesbians, your feminism is broken.
You go on to say this:
In the act of calling ourselves feminists we are expressing solidarity (not necessarily agreement) with others who share our core values. We’re also showing respect to the many women who’ve championed those values for more than 100 years. Being mindful of their legacy helps us avoid repeating mistakes, but it is also our best defence against feminism’s detractors propagating even more false assumptions, cliches and distortions.
And yet, you propagate the cliche in this opinion piece. You yourself consider hairy-legged lesbians an image problem. You reject radical feminists.
You continue:
Next time you’re asked if you are a feminist, it might be more correct to reply: I am, but not an anachronistic cliche of a narrow version of second wave radical feminism.
Or perhaps I’ll say that I AM a hairy-legged makeup-hater, and anyone who has a problem with that can get the fuck over it. And that my white-woman beauty choices are not the most important thing about feminism. Feminism is about equal opportunity and healthcare and civil rights and reproductive justice and freedom from violence and oppression, and the ending of rigid sex roles and exploitation and objectification all over the world – all tenets of the massively influential second-wave feminist movement in which our mothers and grandmothers and sisters worked so hard and achieved so much, which you have overlooked in your haste to dismiss them.
I have no time for a feminism that thinks women should conform to patriarchal beauty standards and compulsory heterosexuality before they can be accepted. That thinks that hairy, saggy-breasted women drag down the image of the movement. And, above all, I reject homophobic “feminism”.
That’s bullshit.
~~~~
Update 21 Oct 2008:
Monica Dux: “My nameless, shameless adversary”, The Age, 18 Oct 2008
Lauredhel: “In Which the Strawfeminist Makes Yet Another Appearance“, Shakesville, 20 Oct 2008
Related posts:
- Keep your eye on the ball
- Sam de Brito to Women– FEMINISM: UR DOIN IT RONG (but don’t worry, you just need a man to set you straight).
- Welcome, oldfeminist, to the bloggy world!
- Does it really take a divisive stereotype to catch a divisive stereotype?
- Quick hit: Quentin Bryce honours her radical ancestry (and past) [1]
This is an excellent response, and I honestly dont think I have any perfect solution. The only thing I can suggest would be that all women are made to feel that hairy legged or not, feminism is meant for them. I have no idea how this could be achieved, but I know that a problem for some women in getting involved with feminist activities is the belief that they wont be welcome at any meetings because they prefer to shave their legs and because they aren’t virulently hateful towards men. Obviously they would be welcome, but somewhere along the way they have been made to feel that they are not the image for feminism. So while keeping your legs hairy and not conforming to societal standards of beauty is fine, it should be made clear that these are personal choices and are not required for feminism. I know its not a great answer, but its probably a nice start.
Oh, and just so we’re clear, I dont consider hairy legs to be a negative image of feminism. I consider the idea that all feminst women must conform to a certain archtype, as in the hairy legged man hating lesbian, to be a negative and extremely unhelpful image. Not that its not ok to be a hairy legged lesbian, I would hope not man hating, but it is not ok to tell others that they must conform to your ideals.
Thanks for that Robert. Have you actually read the post and comments?
Nowhere have I seen the idea promulgated that a woman has to be a ‘hairy legged lesbian’ to be a feminist. I’m also very cynical about the idea that this mythical creature actually puts women off feminism. Where’s the evidence?. I think it’s people having a fear of this figure they’ve created, but then projecting it onto others. Oh, it’s not me who has the problem, but all these other people do. The figure has nothing much to do with the complexity of real women. It’s just a simplistic representation of a scarey monster.
And what Mindy said.
Nowhere have I seen the idea promulgated that a woman has to be a ‘hairy legged lesbian’ to be a feminist.
Fine, this image is everywhere. I see you everywhere, too, but largely on comparatively quality sites (she says boastfully, because Fine is one of my regulars, but I hope you get my drift.) If you hung out where Joe Pub(l)ic hangs out, and express a contrary view, you’ll very soon be hit by the “hairy legged ugly dog feminazi can’t get a man” meme. Trust me.
I was going to say “what Mindy said” but you beat me to it. Also, what Rebekka said after that. Being paid to write does give additional power and responsibility – and NO I don’t think that lets us bloggers off the hook, MSMers.
Sorry for the syntax. Trying to read, comment and cook. Doesn’t work.
I guess you’re right, Helen. I only visit the quality sites. I guess I’m thinking of the young women who I teach. They can be foolish sometimes, but mostly they have the sense to judge people by other factors. Or do you think I’m way too optimistic?
Yes, if you judge the GP by the young women you teach. I’m afraid the “you feminists are hairy legged/lesbian*/hairy armpitted/moustache wearing freaks who can’t get a man and complain about patriarchal beauty norms because you’re jelus LOL” are still legion.
*Automatically assumed to be an insult, since they don’t knowingly know any.
I reread my comment and I wasn’t clear, sorry. I was really saying that feminists don’t promulgate the idea that you need to be the proverbial… to be a good feminist. It’s only people who don’t know any better who use that figure as a frightener and then project it onto feminists. And that I have my doubts whether it’s a really effective scarey figure. So, I’m feeling confused and not writing well tonight and I can’t even use the heat as an excuse anymore.
I’m hearing you, Fine, and agree.
This particular compartmentalisation of feminists into those of “acceptable” (i.e. patriarchy-conforming) appearance, and those who are the “marketing problem”, does remind me rather of those who seek to divide people of colour into “the good ones” (based on false notions of authentic indigineity or economic productivity) and “the bad ones”, or mothers into acceptable (married, in a financially stable relationship, neither too many children nor too few) and unacceptable (“welfare mother” stereotypes) …. and so on. The same mechanisms seem to be at play, and I think it’s fairly clear that the people doing this particular compartmentalisations were never interested in a true human rights movement in the first place.
Pandering to “Now you’ve driven me away from feminism, and it’s YOUR fault, HA!” is a bit of a pet peeve here.
I also don’t think the image is one perpetuated by feminism, but Fine, when you say “And that I have my doubts whether it’s a really effective scarey figure”, don’t you think that for women generally, when the idea that our value is solely in how (patriarchally approved) attractive we are is drummed into us by mainstream culture from the minute we’re born, that the idea that if we’re feminists we’re going to be hairy-legged, droopy-breasted, short-haired ugly lesbians in boiler suits might be a tad scary?
In that it attacks the very basis of our patriarchally-approved worth?
Because honestly, the stereotype is just that, and also, there’s nothing wrong with being hairy-legged (I frequently am myself) etc, but if all your life you have been inundated with cultural messages that if you’re not pretty, and can’t attract men, you’re worthless, then clearly the thought of being Ms Scary Stereotype Feminist and unattractive to men is going to be, well, frightening.
Rebekka, I take your point. But, people who want to scare us with this image use this argument without anything to back it up. It just becomes a very glib stick (sorry, bad metaphor) to beat women with. My answer is, how do you know this? Where’s the evidence? Or is there just a lot of assuming going on? Basically, I think women buy into this to different degrees. Not everyone is scared of the monster.
Clearly enough people are “scared of the monster” to generate an entire book decrying it.
And enough women identify with parts of the stereotype to get pissed off when they’re told that basically they are the reason young women are resisting feminism.
A stereotype doesn’t need evidence, Fine. How many people know, in the absence of any evidence, that gay men are effeminate and highly promiscuous and try to convert straight men to Their Agenda? This is still a damaging stereotype (just look at the anti-gay-marriage arguments). The answer isn’t to tell gay men to be more masculine and try not to let people see if they enjoy casual sex.
“people who want to scare us with this image use this argument without anything to back it up.”
Yes, absolutely. That’s the nature of stereotypes, isn’t it! QoT has put it better than I could.
I agree. But my point is that as well as being influenced by these images, women are influenced by the real women they know; their family, friends, lovers, colleagues, co-workers etc. This means they know a whole range of women who don’t fit into stereotypes (because who actually does?) They may actually know a ‘hairly legged lesbian’ they love, like or admire. Their mother might be one. These real women may have a greater influence than any stereotyped, unreal image.
That’s an interesting point.
I’m wondering, though, how the balance between people they know and mainstream stereotype works for the majority of young women in their late teens/early 20s.
When I was in high school, I didn’t know anyone who identified as a lesbian (or at least, not openly at that point), and until I met people who did, at uni, my mental image of a lesbian was very much the stereotype. I was relatively sheltered from mainstream media – I wasn’t allowed to watch television, and my reading of magazines was strictly curtailed – but my reading of books wasn’t restricted and despite my parents’ efforts to counteract the mainstream, and despite the fact that my mum, my grandmother and my only Australian aunt (the rest are all overseas) are all feminists, it was clear enough to my teenaged brain that (a) they were the exceptions to the stereotype and (b) they were old and hideous anyway and I wanted to be hot and have boys drool over me.
Perhaps it’s a bit different now with kids having the internet, etc, but there was overwhelming pressure to be attractive, and a definite stereotype that persisted until I was at uni – and in fact despite realising that the stereotype was just that, I didn’t actually *identify* as a feminist until I’d left uni and had a job.
hv nmbr f qstns. d mn chs wht th fnd ttrctv? r s t srt f blt n blgcl mprtv. D fmnsts dscnt vltnr psychlg, bcs t sms t cntr th cncpt f gndr cndtnng. Wh s ths nfms ptrrch? D y thnk bcs hv dck gt tgthr wth ll m ptrrchl bdds nd plt th sbjgtn f wmn?, sn’t tht jst flsh w f syng “th thm”? spcll gvn tht t s bltntl bvs tht wmn thmslvs prtcpt n, prpgt nd prft frm th md ndstrs tht r-nfrc str typcl cncpts f bt. )fr bth mn nd wmn) Wht d wmn fnd ttrctv? hv lsbn frnds, wh sm t fnd th sm thngs ttrctv bt th fml frm s mn mn d… thnk wht mght b rll hldng fmnsm bck s th prcptn tht ts nt k t b “strtypcll” fmnn n pprnc f yr gng t b fmnst. Tht s f yr lkng t th Prs Hltn gnrtn…. bt thn, fl th m b lst cs lrd. Rdcl fmnsm, n s fr s t hs sd thngs lk “ll sx wth mn s rp”, nd prchng sprtsm, lng wth sttmnts lk “wmn cn’t b sxst” hs rll dn lt f dmg t m prsnl pnn f fmnsm….. cnt rll spk fr thrs. myb ts tm fr chsv nvrsl thr f fmnsm, nd fr fmnsm t xmn sm f ts drl hld tnts n th lght f crrnt vdnc nd mdrn thght. n m pnn, th “hr lsbn” s th lst f fmnsms wrrs.
You may find this useful.
@ quinnjin:
* If you think evolutionary psychology explains all, how do you explain the historical and cultural variations in what has been considered the height of female beauty?
* Not all men are patriarchs – try a dictionary. Also, nobody ever said that women don’t participate in the patriarchy – the established hierarchy is the source of security and power, so of course nearly everybody plays into it. You might also take a look at the word “kyriarchy”. For the rest, follow Helen’s link.
* the rest of your points seem to be wild generalisations or repetition of long-debunked myths
quinnjin, you’re in the wrong place. Try here and here. Or maybe here.
I would also recommend reading more of the site before shooting off at the mouth, thereby potentially saving yourself from coming off as a twit.
I love you all so hard. Nothing like seeing “There is a new comment on this post” in my inbox to find one (1) trollish newb and four (4) glorious smackdown-filled replies.
It has been such a crap day and now it is so much better.
Glas to be of assistance, QoT. Quinnjin, you’re welcome to rebut, of course. Give it your best shot.
I could get angry I guess but why bother….”trollish newb” and other little in click sayings dont mean Sh*t to me. I still havent had a decent rebuttle to any of my criticisms on any of these sights actually, and given that I am a relative newb,thats pretty weak. Considering every one else here seems to be an expert.
Long debunked my arse, which exactly of my statements has been long debunked? It seems you may be using sweeping statements and obliterating my post to avoid having to deal with glaring inconsistencies and fallacies in feminist theory, which in my opinion, is detrimental to the all the good work done in the name of feminism.
If the patriarchy is participated in by women as you say, why in god(or esses) name call it a patriarchy at all? Because its convenient to your penchant for thinly veiled misandry?
I never said that evolutionary psychology has all the answers. Dont be ridiculous and don’t put words in my mouth.
What I was meaning was that in light of theories of evolutionary psychology, and in my experience the opinions of women far older and wiser and experienced than myself, and I suspect than the academics here, perhaps the much cherished idea of gender types being COMPLETELY conditioned are probably far more likely to have been debunked.
Common sense seems to me to suggest that a good old fashioned nature verses nuture mix is probably at play.
Is anyone capable of giving a reasonable explanation as to why some feminists believe women can’t be sexist?
And let me guess, where should I be? Are you going to tell me where I should be?
How about you rebut my statements adequately before having a little in group hi five with your mates and then i might bother rebutting yours.
Of course I may have to do some research, I haven’t devoted a life time to studying gender politics, but Im pretty sure I can give you a good run for your money.
Slapped down my arse, I dont think so. Try again.
Quinn, you seem to make a habit of coming on to blogs and (a) not reading the comments policy and (b) rambling. I’ve unapproved your last three comments for now, because we have a policy of not allowing one voice to dominate the discussion, which four comments in a row from you would surely do. I wasn’t the one who disemvowelled you above, btw.
I will address one note from one of those unapproved comments because I think it points to a larger problem:
Actually, the introduction page to FF101 says this:
The bit you’re quoting is part of the “Why was I sent to this blog?” page. Your claim is that you weren’t sent there, so why did you even read that page other than curiosity, and why are you offended by an answer which was never intended to apply to your situation?
Either you are incapable of reading for meaning, or you are disingenuously misrepresenting.
Read the comments policy, do other readers the courtesy of drafting your comments offline and editing them for brevity and clarity before submitting them, and read more carefully if you want to be engaged here as a poster of good faith. If you continue to demonstrate that you lack basic netiquette don’t bother.
P.S. For merely one long-debunked trope you repeated above, the line “all men are rapists” was said by a fictional character in a novel. The novel was written by a feminist author, certainly, but it was never said by a feminist as a political rallying point.
Dude. The reason nobody is bothering to pick apart your illogical rantings on the failings of feminism is that illogical rantings on the failings of feminism are irritating, jarrings in their lack of logic, and jam packed with annoying things to rebut that would take all effing day to tease out: they’re jumbles, mish mashes of arrogance, false arguments, A Current Affair style ‘critical thinking’ and a liberal helping of aggressive rude assertions. So you know, we could ‘rebut’ your ‘arguments’ but you might need to actually want to engage in a conversation for that to happen rather than spewing an angry screed AT people and going ‘THERE! Clean up THAT mess! OHO!!! You can’t??? [note diferences in meaning of can't/won't/could not be bothered/bored now] WELL THEN! You must acknowledge that this is because I am right!’.
No. Never wrestle with a pig in mud, never argue with idiots, don’t bother he’s not worth it…these things (though surprisingly not Official Feminist Ideology) have stood feminists long used to angry ranting visitors who have no desire to have an actual conversation about different opinions in good stead (and if you had desired a good conversation you really went about it the wrong way…picture coming into the home of a religious relative…you would like to assert your opinion when you disagree but rather than a calm rational conversation you walk in and immediately upon them opening the door you begin mocking god/the bible/idiots who believe in it…not very conducive to a proper conversation is it.
So wandering in and just stringing together multiple accusatory questions (which go to your massive misunderstandings of feminism, or indeed that there are differences in feminisms and within each strand) getting more and more insulting and wild (oh and I really liked both your dismissal of your Straw Feminists and your slagging off of Paris Hilton et al…classy, note how FEMINISTS are not all “Paris Hilton what a vapid whore”?) ‘just because I have a dick’ etc? Come on, the whole thing was a set up. You didn’t want to engage respectfully in a conversation to discuss differences, you wanted to assert your intellectual superiority and insult everyone on a site, and you chose to do it by screaming and wailing on a long dead topic thread – you showed no interest in reading what people actually DO say here, it was nothing other than a stock standard drive-by by a feminist hating twit with a keyboard.
quinnjin, hi, firstly let me just say I’m not joining the pile-on ok? Cos I hate it when that happens. But I have a couple of things to say to you, because years ago I held a few similar beliefs about feminism to the ones you’ve mentioned and I know lots of other feminists who did too. None of us were born with gender studies degrees.
The points you’ve raised here did not come out of feminist theory, they came out of the feminist backlash era. You know how the media can totally demonise something if they choose to? Like Muslims being associated with terrorism. That’s how feminism was demonised back in the 1980s and a lot of it has stuck in people’s minds even though it’s not true.
Also, you can’t win an argument on a blog this size. Blogs have hierarchies, so there is a kind of power imbalance. What you could do is put your opinions on your own blog and invite people to take them apart there.
Feminism has a lot of empowering information so I hope you give it a chance at least.
Linda makes very good points, and more patiently than the rest of us have done.
Quinn, I admit that I am bringing baggage from your existing posts on FF101 and then you deciding to do an off-topic drive-by here to my responses to you, although I feel that mine is an understandable reaction.
You do appear to be regurgitating backlash talking points, which we are quite naturally rather sick of hearing. This is not a 101 blog. You’ve already been pointed to a blog that’s dedicated to Feminism 101 and addressing these talking points that disrupt ongoing feminist discussions. If you really want to have answers, engage over there within the bounds of the Comments Policy and give it a proper go.
Your questions/assertions/challenges are not on topic for this post, and we do not tolerate derailments here. If you insist on engaging with old backlash tropes here, how about you try the Antifeminist Bingo post? At least you would be on topic on that thread.
“illogical rantings on the failings of feminism are irritating, jarrings in their lack of logic, and jam packed with annoying things to rebut that would take all effing day to tease out: they’re jumbles, mish mashes of arrogance, false arguments, A Current Affair style ‘critical thinking’ and a liberal helping of aggressive rude assertions”
With a side-order of bad spelling and punctuation. Apparently, we’re all members of a “click”, who have no “rebuttle” for anything and keep giving each other a “”hi five” (but not “hi fiving” teh menz, because we hates teh menz with only “thinly veiled misandry”) and apostrophes have been rendered obsolete by the feminist revolution that destroyed the patriarchy, and also apostrophes.
Jeeeeeeeeez, Rebekka, attack the *idea* not the *spelling*! I mean, it’s not like we can judge a person based on their utter lack of regard for communicating clearly, or how they apparently choose to present themselves in a written forum.
Not to mention his annoyance with these ‘sights’.
[giant snip ~L]
It is obvious that this is not the place to debate the questions I’m asking.
[More snip. Cheers for that brief moment of clarity, quinnjin. Seeya. ~L. ]
Actually, you know what? you guys were having an interesting debate and I did more or less fuck it up. Fair point, i’m in the wrong place and Im not sure where I should be. I feel like a bull in a china shop… or an epileptic in a mine field. Take
your pick. Fuck politeness… i see why your so pissed, tho I dont validate your arguments, which seem to be no less ranting and flawed than my own.
Of course I see how feminism is demonised in the dumb arse mainstream media. For me stereo typical images of feminism are not an issue. My issues are with aspects of feminism I either don’t understand or simply disagree with.
The lack of coherence in my posts is probably not helped by my tendency to surf blogs at 4 ocklock in the morning.
I also wish you could re-edit posts after they have been submitted.
I consider my self sufficiently chastised, okay? I realise I am new to this and that if I want to learn anything I need to be more humble. I am a hot head. Famous for it. but not a moron. (I hope)
My apologies once again.
Yes, it may be because of the good old fashioned nature verses “nuture” mix.
QJ: I never said that evolutionary psychology has all the answers. Dont be ridiculous and don’t put words in my mouth.
Ah, but we never said an awful LOT of the things you claimed we said, so it’s a bit late for that really.
End of derail, please, folks. Cheers.
As a hairy-legged queer feminist, I appreciate this so much! Thank-you.
When I came out (as a teenager!), I felt that it was my burden to be the femmiest femme on the block. I was probably hoping to win my fellow highschoolers over to feminism, but I recall feeling vastly uncomfortable and unreal doing so.
I guess my gender presentation is still more femme than butch, but I wear my hairy legs with pride. Hairy ladies: We’re misogynists’ worst nightmare!