Pilgrim Soul pointed me to an absolutely headdesk-worthy piece on Momlogic about how feminism has hurt women’s love lives and that feminism wasn’t about feminine things but about releasing “masculine energy.” Both of those assertions elicited the same response from me: huh? But author Wendy Walsh thinks she makes perfect sense when she says
I am indebted to feminists. But feminism did not liberate femininity. Feminism liberated masculine energy in women. It was a masculinist movement. And this is a good thing.
Masculine energy? What is that? And feminism was never about “liberating femininity” but about equality for women. “Femininity” (or feminine energy, if you will) is usually interpreted within our culture as being all about sewing and cooking and skirts and the color pink, and Walsh seems to adhere to that, given how she defines its flipside, that so-called masculine energy.
Because of masculism, er, I mean feminism, we can now procure income in the male-dominated marketplace and buy ourselves any kind of life we want. Those of us who aren’t completely fulfilled baking cookies can now choose to fly jets, put out fires, or handcuff bad guys. We can also look for a cure for cancer, design computer programs, and sink basketballs, if those things suit our fancy.
Basically, careers like piloting and law enforcement, and hobbies like basketball, are representative of masculine energies, not feminine ones. So all feminism did was allow us to get in touch with our inner man.
But wait, there’s more! Walsh also is completely missing the point when it comes to feminism and happy love lives. Or, rather, she thinks the two things are incompatible.
I do think feminism has screwed up our love lives. First, because women are sometimes unsure of how to turn off this new masculine energy when confronted with a romantic suitor in a candlelit restaurant. We act like he’s one of the boys from work. And then get upset when he treats us like one of the boys from work — achieving his goal (in this case, sex) and then moving to a new project. At times, there appears to be so few vulnerable feelings in today’s “hook-ups” that it’s like two men are dating!
Like two men are dating! Because there aren’t “vulnerable feelings” which really should always be expressed by women so they are not confused with men. (I have to wonder: does Walsh think that a man who dates an “invulnerable” feminist is secretly gay or something?) Walsh also posits that “his goal” is always sex, overlooking that women may also have that same goal in mind. As for switching off masculine energy when confronted with candlelit dinner, I’d argue that it can be much harder to switch off the social conditioning that tells women they have to define their lives and energies and actions in terms of whether they are masculine or feminine.
Feminism also gave us an easy exit door from relationships. That’s a good thing if it were a truly bad relationship, but too often our economic freedom sends us fleeing out the back door of a “good enough” relationship, instead of learning to work through conflict. Who needs conflict resolution skills when you don’t need the ally?
Gee, I wish we could go back to the good ol’ days when women needed a man to support her! That pesky economic freedom really screws up true love when women have the temerity to decide whether or not a relationship is “good enough.”
It seemed with all the effort to conform and succeed in a male world that we unknowingly threw out a crucial, feminine skill — the ability to be the emotional conduit for a logic-locked man. For centuries, women have held the keys to the emotional locker in relationships.
Seriously, stop it. Just stop it. Oh wait, Walsh has more to say? Fine, I’ll give her one more shot.
One of my best role models is a dear girlfriend who runs a publicly traded company. Her husband is a major entertainment studio executive. They are a true power couple. I once asked her how the power is divided at home. She begged me not to tell anyone, so I’ll only tell you guys. Her answer: “At home, I am all girl. I let him be the king of our household because when he’s all man, I get paid back between the sheets.” Now that’s a smart feminist.
That explosion you may have heard was my head spontaneously combusting. Either my masculine energy got too out of control and caused me to burst into pieces, or it was the result of Walsh’s theories making my head spin. I’m guessing it was the latter.
She kind of insults men, too, doesn’t she?
I don’t mean that in the “what about the menz?” way, if that was unclear.
@DM: No worries, I totally understood how you meant it. And you’re right, propagating these kinds of ideas does not help break down stereotypes for either gender. Woe unto any man with feminine energies, apparently.
Or to any man who doesn’t just want sex.
Nonsense. Everyone knows that masculine energy is only applied to doing chicks, punching minorities, and LOGICALLY CALCULATING THE CONSEQUENCES OF OUR ACTIONS.
We are like super-powered engines of doing, punching, and rationality.
Why oh why do WOMEN write shit like this?
“For centuries, women have held the keys to the emotional locker in relationships.”
seriously? SERIOUSLY? What a disgusting white-washing of history. Oh yes women might have been completely powerless, virtual property of their husbands, in the past but the secret? the secret was that behind the scenes they were in charge. No they fucking weren’t you idiot.
By the way, I just ate lunch and that last paragraph almost made it all come right back up.
Bluebears – this woman should be forced, forced I tell you, to sit down and read Wendy Moore’s outstanding Wedlock which details the exact extent to which women in Eighteenth and Nineteenth century England did not have this secret power.
Also on an entirely different note this piece was far too dangerous for my blood pressure this close to giving birth.
@bluebears: The last paragraph was absolutely atrocious. All man in bed? Fucking spare me. And yes, @emilyanne: there was no “secret power,” contrary to Walsh’s inane assertions.
@braak: Don’t forget scratching yourself while eating jerky and watching the game.
“At times, there appears to be so few vulnerable feelings in today’s “hook-ups” that it’s like two men are dating!”
You see, ladies, men don’t have emotions. Emotions are a woman’s compensation prize for not having a penis*.
(I’ll tell that to my gay male friends who’ve gotten hurt in relationships with dudes…obviously they’re confused about whence their energy.)
*Note: I just used this exact line about week ago in a comment on another blog, on an entry criticizing an essay that had a different subject matter. I guess that just goes to show how pernicious the idea is…or how much I like that line.
Wow, being some dude’s conduit for emotion/sex is so enticing. Though I can see why “being a girl” to your husband’s “king” is sexually appealing, you know, if you’re into BDSM.
Two men dating–it’s like seeing a dog walk on its hind legs!
Also, subtly homophobic.
Like two men dating!? What could be more odd?!
Unnatural, I tell you!
@Spark – Yeah, but unless they do hardcore slavery BDSM, what you do at home isn’t necessarily the same as what you do in bed.
Plus, what does “he’s all man in bed” even mean? What is she trying to suggest? No pegging?
@emilyanne: maybe you should just slowly back away from the internet until the big day.
If I see two men dating, I’m like, which one is the “man” and which one is the “woman”? How do they know who picks up the check??
@sarahmc: I’m sure she’s one of those people that’s convinced that even in homosexual relationships one partner is “all girl.”
OMG 2 DUDES DATING? Too much masculine energy for one relationship! They need to let some of that masculine energy out! But not via sex or anything weird like that!
@baraqiel: LOL! Definitely no pegging! Only the feminine get penetrated!
I suspect women like Walsh feel pretty powerless as women. They recognize the inequalities between women and men, but instead of embracing feminism and working to empower women and girls, they sort of take a different route – praising a very rigid, narrow “femininity” and pretending women’s “femininity” makes us even better than men! Some anti-feminist men play this game, as well. It’s like an attempt to trick us women into cheerfully accepting our lot in life, because at least we ladies are in touch with our emotions and know how to load the dishwasher correctly, amirite?!
@SarahMC: Yes, totally agree. I know many women like this. It always struck me as equal parts Stockholm Syndrom and sheer laziness (as it requires less energy to pretend a problem doesn’t exist than to fix it).
@SarahMC: Yes. It’s the same as believing “hysteria” pertains to a woman’s womb. Honestly, I don’t even know what it means to be “in touch” with your emotions. That you cry when watching Titanic and rage at people when you get your period? That’s the shit that a lot of people associate with “womanly emotions.”
It’s so true – I know that when I’m at work and I finish a project, I make sure to never talk to anyone involved with that project ever again. It’s even better when the project only ever existed to soothe my ego or advance my career, because then my masculine energy doesn’t get all confused by altruism.
Give me a break…
“We act like he’s one of the boys from work. And then get upset when he treats us like one of the boys from work — achieving his goal (in this case, sex) and then moving to a new project.
Wait, you mean guys are having sex at work? I don’t know if I’m glad or sorry that I work alone. *rolls eyes*
I just checked out the site and man, it’s pretty lame. Celebrity gossip and weight loss ads-now that’s what I call mom logic! That is, if you leave your brain in the delivery room along with the placenta.
@Emilyanne: Breathe deeply. Long, calming breaths. I’m doing them with you.
@braak: Could you also keep the belching down?
Emotional conduit? JesusfuckingChrist.
And at the end she pats herself on the back for being such a “smart feminist.”
Haha…having a job is masculine. For real!
Oh sweet baby Jesus… are you sure the woman that wrote that crap wasn’t actually my ex-boyfriend?
He told me my mother was too masculine because she had the audacity to fart in her own home and has no issue with lifting and moving heavy pieces of furniture AND she makes jokes!!!
He then proceeded to tell me the way I shake hands is revolting and that women should only give, what I term as ‘the dead fish’ hand shake.
Hence he is now the ex-boyfriend…
Well, y’all have just about covered the vast display of idiocy here. Jeezus. All I can add is that feminism /= power through manipulation and trickery.
The poor woman. The poor, stupid woman.
The obsession with defining proper gender role behavior is so striking to me. It’s an obvious statement to say that she sounds like she’s operating out of fear and insecurity, but I truly don’t understand why it is that following some script that isn’t yours and has nothing in particular to do with you. It’s not like it’s safer inside the gender box.
Nice to know that her friends are big shots, though. That makes her whole argument valid.
There’s tons of crap in writing out there about all kinds of fuzzy energy, but I won’t read anything that uses misuses the word. It’s one of my first bullshit flags.
Hah! mischiefmanager: “Some of my best friends are high-powered feminists!”
So where’s my fire extinguisher, fighter jet and handcuffs then?
At least I’m not so full from lunch now.
Just… ugh. I really like this blog, but I’m supposed to be recognizing and avoiding ‘depressive thoughts’ …
One of those excerpts triggered me SO bad (not a complaint about your post, more about her idiocy).
“Feminism also gave us an easy exit door from relationships. That’s a good thing if it were a truly bad relationship, but too often our economic freedom sends us fleeing out the back door of a “good enough” relationship, instead of learning to work through conflict. Who needs conflict resolution skills when you don’t need the ally?”
That one.
The reason: My dad has just decided he wants to divorce mum after a 40 year relationship and 25 years of marriage. He’s found a younger woman who can give him what he wants sexually. And in the wake of that announcement I’ve been learning about how he’s been psychologically violent (mum didn’t even know it qualified as such) and has coerced and cajoled her into having his kind of kinky sex and never agreeing to having her kind of not at all kinky sex. I haven’t told her that actually qualifies as rape – better she arrive at that conclusion herself.
All the time it’s been HER holding the relationship together because (as she rationalizes) she knows that there’s no such thing as the perfect relationship and this was “good enough” for her. That’s her way of putting it. It was “good enough”. She’s settled for a relationship that has been abusive and emotionally damaging for over 40 years only to be dumped for a mutual co-worker and friend of the family since ’88. This “good enough”. Women don’t need to accept “good enough”. Women need to learn to recognize when “good enough” is terribly bad for us and we should get out of there.
Mum’s been spending 40 fucking years of working through conflict BECAUSE she was convinced that an abusive relationship was “good enough”.
ARGH!!!
Sorry to rant. That concept about women needing to settle for “good enough” just angers me in so many ways. Why can’t we just choose to be single rather than settle for something that doesn’t make us happy, but some patronizing self-appointed wise-person has decided is “good enough” for us? Why must we stay in relationships we don’t want? Why is not okay to be single?