Strong Women Don't Have to Be Masculine
I worked in Young Women's. I run a camp for girls with bleeding disorders. And I'm just kind of a feminist. So, I read a lot of stuff on "making strong women." It's important. It's especially important with our camp--girls that have to live their lives standing up for themselves as women, but then also as women with a disease that is associated with males. And here's one thing that I've come to be bothered by, and I'm developing more and more thoughts about: being a strong woman doesn't mean you have to be masculine.
Women are gentler than men. They just are. Women like to nurture people, and they don't like to hurt other people. It's in our nature! And that's not a bad thing. Our biological purpose is to nurture. I'm not even going to go into eternal purpose, but we could go there, too. And that isn't weakness.
But, a lot of feminist internet sensations are teaching that in order to be a strong woman, you need to be masculine.
I read an buzzfeed-style article the other day called "Rejected Princesses." This is a list of historical/fictional women that this writer/artist wants Disney Princess movies to be made about, to actually teach girls about being strong women.. Some of them I can totally get behind: Sermerssuaq, a folk hero who could apparently lift kayaks with three fingers and stuff--kind of a female Paul Bunyan. Mariya Oktyabrskaya, a Russian, female tank-commander in WWII. Ida B Wells, a black, civil rights journalist. Hypatia, an Ancient Greek, female mathematician. Tsurunime Ohori, a Japanese woman who fought off pirates invading her home island. Awesome.
But then, a lot of them I just thought, "That's not something to revere. That's them demonstrating the worst natural flaws of men." I'm not saying that women don't have natural flaws--we do. We're mean to each other. We judge. We don't forgive. We can be demanding and stubborn and flighty and fickle. Men can be ruthless and violent. Heartless and power-hungry. So, why does demonstrating the ruthlessness and bloodthirsty violence of men make a strong woman?
They suggested that Wu Zetian should be a Disney Princess--this is a woman who, literally, killed her own baby, along with many others, to become Empress of China. Or Khutulun, a female Genghis Khan--we don't suggest boys should be like Genghis Khan. Why suggest that a girl acting like Genghis Khan is a "strong woman?" Boudica, a Briton woman who went on a burning spree, of innocent people because she was mad at the Romans. Masako Hojo, the wife of a Shogun who took pleasure in torturing her husband's mistresses--so in that case she's demonstrating the poor traits of women, but the point still stands. Julie D'Aubigny, a Seventeenth Century French badgirl who basically slept with anyone who would open his legs, and set fire to a convent.
Then they suggested some who had good traits, but decided to focus on their masculine moments: Nzinga Mbande. She has a lot to revere, I admit. But, they decide to focus on the moment when the Portuguese conquerors, in a meeting, refused to offer her a chair. So, she told one of her servant girls to get down on all fours, and then used her as a chair. Okay, up to this point, I'm saying, "I like you." Then, at the end of the meeting, she reaches down and slits the servant's throat, telling the explorers, "Queens don't use the same seat twice." What? And people look at this is and say, "You're awesome!"?
Or Petra Herrera. Okay, it's good she stood up for what she believed. Too bad she aligned with Pancho Villa--one of the most ruthless outlaws of all time!
A different article I was reading was talking about female book characters who then get basically destroyed in their live-action renditions. One of the characters they complained about was Cersei Lannister from Game of Thrones. I haven't seen the TV series (and don't want to), so I can't comment on their treatment of the character, but the article said that, "Cersei is the strongest woman in the book." Okay, first of all, even by their standards...Asha? Ygritte? Arya? Brienne? Meera? Osha? Daenerys? No, let's choose Cersei Lannister, a woman who would kill anyone who got in the way of her power and own personal satisfaction. The woman who throws a kingdom into chaos because of her lust and lack of self-control. The woman who will only be loyal to her own brothers as long as it is advantageous to her. The woman who sees her own children as pawns in her quest for power. That makes perfect sense. But, I would posit that the strongest woman in the books is Catelyn Stark. A woman who loves her children fiercely, is loyal and faithful to her husband, and is not afraid of the success of others. If Cersei were Robb Stark's mother, he would have been dead--at her hands--the minute he started acting like the Lord/King/Leader/Whatever-your-faction-sees-him-as he was and no longer needed the direction of his mother, even though he was fourteen. We wouldn't have passages about how proud she was of him. Catelyn Stark knows her power--and she knows how to use it--but she doesn't use it ruthlessly and without moral thought.
I saw an article about a photographer who, instead of dressing her daughter up like Disney Princesses, takes picture of her young daughter dressed up like female role models in history. It's a fine idea, but one of the women? Coco Chanel. I don't know about you, but I don't really want my daughter looking up to a woman who ratted out Jewish fashion designers to the Nazis so that she could swoop in and take over their companies for cheap. Or who sold the names of French Resistance fighters. I won't even go into her treatment of female sexuality, because, even though I find it wrong, not everyone would. I think we can all agree that seeking power at someone else's expense is a very bad thing. And this isn't speculation. There are at least 40 solid, verified, pieces of archived material that prove that Coco Chanel was a Nazi Operative in Occupied France for her own gain (monetary and sexual). She was prosecuted by the Free France Purge, but Churchill intervened (supposedly to protect Nazi sympathizers at the top of British Government).
Why is it wrong to be feminine? The worst assault on womanhood right now is not unequal treatment. The most dangerous assault on womanhood right now is the implication that womanhood shouldn't exist. That to be feminine is bad.
As Margaret D Nadauld, Young Women General President said, "The world has enough women who are tough; we need women who are tender. There are enough women who are coarse; we need women who are kind. There are enough women who are rude; we need women who are refined. We have enough women of fame and fortune; we need more women of faith. We have enough greed; we need more goodness. We have enough vanity; we need more virtue. We have enough popularity; we need more purity."
Women are gentler than men. They just are. Women like to nurture people, and they don't like to hurt other people. It's in our nature! And that's not a bad thing. Our biological purpose is to nurture. I'm not even going to go into eternal purpose, but we could go there, too. And that isn't weakness.
But, a lot of feminist internet sensations are teaching that in order to be a strong woman, you need to be masculine.
I read an buzzfeed-style article the other day called "Rejected Princesses." This is a list of historical/fictional women that this writer/artist wants Disney Princess movies to be made about, to actually teach girls about being strong women.. Some of them I can totally get behind: Sermerssuaq, a folk hero who could apparently lift kayaks with three fingers and stuff--kind of a female Paul Bunyan. Mariya Oktyabrskaya, a Russian, female tank-commander in WWII. Ida B Wells, a black, civil rights journalist. Hypatia, an Ancient Greek, female mathematician. Tsurunime Ohori, a Japanese woman who fought off pirates invading her home island. Awesome.
But then, a lot of them I just thought, "That's not something to revere. That's them demonstrating the worst natural flaws of men." I'm not saying that women don't have natural flaws--we do. We're mean to each other. We judge. We don't forgive. We can be demanding and stubborn and flighty and fickle. Men can be ruthless and violent. Heartless and power-hungry. So, why does demonstrating the ruthlessness and bloodthirsty violence of men make a strong woman?
They suggested that Wu Zetian should be a Disney Princess--this is a woman who, literally, killed her own baby, along with many others, to become Empress of China. Or Khutulun, a female Genghis Khan--we don't suggest boys should be like Genghis Khan. Why suggest that a girl acting like Genghis Khan is a "strong woman?" Boudica, a Briton woman who went on a burning spree, of innocent people because she was mad at the Romans. Masako Hojo, the wife of a Shogun who took pleasure in torturing her husband's mistresses--so in that case she's demonstrating the poor traits of women, but the point still stands. Julie D'Aubigny, a Seventeenth Century French badgirl who basically slept with anyone who would open his legs, and set fire to a convent.
Then they suggested some who had good traits, but decided to focus on their masculine moments: Nzinga Mbande. She has a lot to revere, I admit. But, they decide to focus on the moment when the Portuguese conquerors, in a meeting, refused to offer her a chair. So, she told one of her servant girls to get down on all fours, and then used her as a chair. Okay, up to this point, I'm saying, "I like you." Then, at the end of the meeting, she reaches down and slits the servant's throat, telling the explorers, "Queens don't use the same seat twice." What? And people look at this is and say, "You're awesome!"?
Or Petra Herrera. Okay, it's good she stood up for what she believed. Too bad she aligned with Pancho Villa--one of the most ruthless outlaws of all time!
A different article I was reading was talking about female book characters who then get basically destroyed in their live-action renditions. One of the characters they complained about was Cersei Lannister from Game of Thrones. I haven't seen the TV series (and don't want to), so I can't comment on their treatment of the character, but the article said that, "Cersei is the strongest woman in the book." Okay, first of all, even by their standards...Asha? Ygritte? Arya? Brienne? Meera? Osha? Daenerys? No, let's choose Cersei Lannister, a woman who would kill anyone who got in the way of her power and own personal satisfaction. The woman who throws a kingdom into chaos because of her lust and lack of self-control. The woman who will only be loyal to her own brothers as long as it is advantageous to her. The woman who sees her own children as pawns in her quest for power. That makes perfect sense. But, I would posit that the strongest woman in the books is Catelyn Stark. A woman who loves her children fiercely, is loyal and faithful to her husband, and is not afraid of the success of others. If Cersei were Robb Stark's mother, he would have been dead--at her hands--the minute he started acting like the Lord/King/Leader/Whatever-your-faction-sees-him-as he was and no longer needed the direction of his mother, even though he was fourteen. We wouldn't have passages about how proud she was of him. Catelyn Stark knows her power--and she knows how to use it--but she doesn't use it ruthlessly and without moral thought.
I saw an article about a photographer who, instead of dressing her daughter up like Disney Princesses, takes picture of her young daughter dressed up like female role models in history. It's a fine idea, but one of the women? Coco Chanel. I don't know about you, but I don't really want my daughter looking up to a woman who ratted out Jewish fashion designers to the Nazis so that she could swoop in and take over their companies for cheap. Or who sold the names of French Resistance fighters. I won't even go into her treatment of female sexuality, because, even though I find it wrong, not everyone would. I think we can all agree that seeking power at someone else's expense is a very bad thing. And this isn't speculation. There are at least 40 solid, verified, pieces of archived material that prove that Coco Chanel was a Nazi Operative in Occupied France for her own gain (monetary and sexual). She was prosecuted by the Free France Purge, but Churchill intervened (supposedly to protect Nazi sympathizers at the top of British Government).
Why is it wrong to be feminine? The worst assault on womanhood right now is not unequal treatment. The most dangerous assault on womanhood right now is the implication that womanhood shouldn't exist. That to be feminine is bad.
As Margaret D Nadauld, Young Women General President said, "The world has enough women who are tough; we need women who are tender. There are enough women who are coarse; we need women who are kind. There are enough women who are rude; we need women who are refined. We have enough women of fame and fortune; we need more women of faith. We have enough greed; we need more goodness. We have enough vanity; we need more virtue. We have enough popularity; we need more purity."
Comments