She’s got a point.

October 16, 2007 at 7:38 am (feminism, stupidity)

And I’m guilty of not addressing it at all the first time around, myself. In a more serious reaction to the study in question, Lauredhel at Hoyden About Town writes:

The reporting of this paper is all working within antifeminist framing of “You feminist types are ugly and single and gay and have bad sex”, even in rebuttal.

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). It’s all about “advertising” to a “market” – again, capitalist patriarchal framing.

What would the paper have said if the results were the opposite? What’s the problem with being lesbian, single, or having a non-patriarchally-approved appearance? Would this make feminism’s tenets any less valid? Do women who aren’t XXX2K-compliant deserve a voice? Do they deserve freedom from violence, equal pay, political representation, reproductive justice?

Thanks for the should-have-been obvious reminder.



  1. lauredhel said,


    More to come on this, now that I have the full paper at hand.

  2. Daisy said,

    Yeah, that sort of partially occurred to me too, though my incomplete thought was “What’s wrong with being a lesbian?” not “What’s wrong with being single and/or not conventionally pretty?” Gooddd point.

    Though I do think showing that feminists have healthier relationships is worthwhile — that’s less about refuting stereotypes that shouldn’t be bad anyway, and trying to sell feminism, and more about making a positive case that feminism improves lives. Straight women’s lives and queer women’s lives, and straight and queer men’s lives, too.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: