Feminism: Adding an 'F' to LGBTQ Activism

This Little Girl Just Schooled Tesco Over A Sexist Sign Because “Anybody Can Like Superheroes” http://t.co/Gp9rGmNvlA

— Natalie Brown (@Natalie_Brown) January 11, 2015

When you’re constantly relying on a third party to define your sexuality, you’re inevitably going to write yourself onto the sidelines of social activism, which is precisely what contemporary feminism is currently doing. With its insane Marxist belief that biological “sex” and “gender” are two separate entities that do not overlap or influence each other, contemporary feminism has bought into postmodern subjectivity. Issues are left to be parsed in terms of value judgments rendered by individuals on the basis of sheer whim. This includes defining what it means to be a woman.

It’s bad enough when contemporary feminists attack shopping malls for categorizing “boys” versus “girls” clothing. The complaint is always the same: “My daughter wanted a superhero shirt that was unavailable in the girls’ department!” Pants were unavailable in the girls’ department 100 years ago. Women wore them anyway. Instead of raising independent thinkers, contemporary feminists raise dependent complainers who derive their entire sense of gender identity from a store’s marketing department. This is the dark side of allowing society to define your gender. Suddenly a generation of women is convinced they have male tendencies because they have a penchant for Superman. It couldn’t be that they want to wear his logo because they find him strong, appealing, or — God-forbid — attractive. Because his logo is sported in the boys’ department only, it must mean any little girl who wants to wear his shirt is obviously a trannie.

Contemporary feminists don’t let go of the wardrobe situation there. They also have to address the evils of t-shirts brandishing the words “pretty,” “bride,” and “wife of,” along with the dreaded cosmetics. The same women who go out of their way to defend a drag queen’s right to glam it up in public dub “girly” clothing one of the greatest sins of our culture. HuffPo featured a study conducted by university professor Rebecca Bigler on the impact girly-T messages like “pretty” and “Future Bride” had on tween and teenage girls:

[Bigler] found that girls who believe being sexually attractive is an important part of their identity have less academic success and less motivation to succeed in school. …Bigler cited earlier studies that also found those girls to have lower self-esteem and fewer peer relations.

… For their research, Bigler and her colleagues first tested girls to find out where they fell on an internalized sexualization scale: Girls who indicated, for example, that they preferred to wear sexy clothing scored higher; girls who preferred modest clothing scored lower. Then, the researchers had the girls prepare to shoot a newscast on which they were told they would be evaluated. The girls were secretly filmed as they got ready for their segments. The group who had scored high on internalized sexualization spent more time putting on makeup and less time reading the script than the group who had scored low.

How “sexually attractive,” “sexy clothing” and “modest clothing” are defined to these girls is never explained, nor is the correlation they are drawing between sexuality and academic motivation. Synthesizing both this study and the previous one mentioned, it would be far more logical to conclude that teen girls who place more importance on sexuality than academics often do so because they have socialization issues and are looking to gain attention the most logical way they know how, by displaying their bodies for the appreciation of others.

Contemporary feminists wouldn’t think so, because gender is an effect not a cause. The fact that a woman’s ultimate power lies in her ability to reproduce, that is her sexuality itself, eludes gender feminists. Therefore, teen girls with socialization issues would never flaunt their sexuality as a biological imperative to gain the attention they believe would make them feel good about themselves. These girls would have to be told by society to do such a thing. And society tells girls to embrace “pretty” sexuality through evil logo t-shirts.

What happened to the girls with socialization issues before logo t-shirts and other mass media were invented? They are apparently irrelevant to this study. Following popular trend, Bigler went looking for results that would defend the notion that “pretty” and “pretty brilliant” are two different terms, and that “sexy” girls and nerdy girls are in two very different classes because, as Christina Hoff-Sommers explains, “gender is an obstacle.” As a result, once again, contemporary feminism creates a generation of women dependent on societal messages, not biological or psychological instinct, to define what it means to be a woman.

Which is why, for these feminists at least, being a woman often involves being as un-feminine as possible, even to the point of not having a vagina at all. Now that the campus rape panic has been dispelled for the long-running myth that it is, contemporary feminists are scrambling for purpose. They seem to have found it in the gays, adding “F” to the ever-growing LGBTQ acronym. Because when gender is what pop culture defines it to be, who’s to say who is a woman anymore?

Obviously not human beings with vaginas. They’re old school, at least according to the totally trendy Mount Holyoke theatre department. After choosing to admit biological men who “identify” as women (gender “…categorization is not independent of political and social ideologies” is the current way of towing the Marxist feminist line) the traditionally all-female college decided to “retire” The Vagina Monologues from its catalog for “not being feminist enough”:

At its core, the show offers an extremely narrow perspective on what it means to be a woman…. Gender is a wide and varied experience, one that cannot simply be reduced to biological or anatomical distinctions…

Let’s be clear. When a transgendered student gets on that stage and begins talking about their penis at a women’s college to a theater full of primarily women, they will be accepted as a woman, despite speaking of a biological experience no woman could ever possibly relate to? The real statement behind Mount Holyoke’s move is that gender feminists have fought so long and so hard against femininity that they’re finally accepting their manhood. They’re also admitting their complete irrelevancy to the very real needs of women that feminism was designed to address.