#performative femininity
Text
Mizu's mom glaring at her for not being a good cook/"perfect" wife really gets to me because like. Mizu lived her whole life living as a boy/man since childhood (bc mom made it a point to drill it in Mizu's head that bounty hunters are hunting a mixed-race girl), and had no one to teach her how to be a "girl"/"perfect wife"/"gender conforming woman." How is she to know what to do as expected?
Like, duh mom...ofc Mizu's not gonna be good at performing her expected duties as a wife/woman. Gender roles are enforced, not inherent!
#mizu#blue eye samurai#bes#blue eye samurai mizu#mizu blue eye samurai#bes mizu#performative femininity
390 notes
·
View notes
Text
An unadorned face became the honorable new look of feminism in the early 1970s, and no one was happier with the freedom not to wear makeup than I, yet it could hardly escape my attention that more women supported the Equal Rights Amendment and legal abortion than could walk out of the house without their eye shadow. Did I think of them as somewhat pitiable? Yes I did. Did they bitterly resent the righteous pressure put on them to look, in their terms, less attractive? Yes they did. A more complete breakdown and confusion of aims, goals and values could not have occurred, and of all the movement rifts I have witnessed, this one remains for me the most poignant and the most difficult to resolve.
If women's faces are supposed to benefit from cosmetics, the underside of the equation is that the wearer of makeup dislikes her face without it, believing she is wan, colorless, uninteresting, flat, an insignificant blob of blemished skin with eyes that are too small, a nose that is too broad, cheekbones that are nonexistent and a mouth that fails of its own accord to whisper of sexual desire. This is the central contradiction of makeup, and the one I find most appalling. Cosmetics have been seen historically as proof of feminine vanity, yet they are proof, if anything, of feminine insecurity, an abiding belief that the face underneath is insufficient unto itself.
As it happens, some women look good in makeup—in societal terms I will even say that they look better in makeup; I'll grant them that, for who among us has not been trained to discern beauty in women in terms of professional, expensive glamour—the actress, the model, the President's wife? When my cosmetically adept friends complete their conjurer's art of creating their faces, I marvel at the finished picture, the makeover, the transformation: an even, glowing skin, a widened eye, a richly defined and luscious mouth. In short, a face that has responded to the age-old injunction of man to woman: Smile. A made-up woman does not need to be inwardly happy to give the impression of ecstatic pleasure, nor does she require expressive, mobile features to project the illusion of vibrant, animated life.
-Susan Brownmiller, Femininity
695 notes
·
View notes
Text
The quoted tweet:
They are....so close to getting it.
Instead of letting go of "being feminine enough", they just stick their head further into the sex stereotype extremes (and anyone who doesn't tick off "enough" of the right boxes for either "gender" should ID as an amorphous paper doll????)
129 notes
·
View notes
Text
Just saw the Barbie movie AGAIN and realized what Allan is.
Allan is weird Ken. He is a Ken who doesn’t necessarily perform his gender, or conform to normal ideas of what a Ken is supposed to be. He is a deviation from the norm. But he isn’t treated that way! Instead, he’s just Ken’s buddy. In a world of Kens and Barbies there are also Allans; people who don’t conform to the system, but aren’t weird because they don’t fit into the system.
Weird Barbie is a Barbie and thus operates within the system, but still defies it. Allan doesn’t operate within the system and thus does not defy it.
Another thing:
Barbie isn’t an ideal, but a projection of ideals. Barbie exists because she follows ideals, just as Weird Barbie exists because she defies ideals. Barbie isn’t the ideal woman - she’s the woman that’s supposed to be the ideal woman. She becomes the ideal woman when she becomes human, because an ideal woman is one that has defies patriarchy by accepting her flaws. That performs her gender for herself.
28 notes
·
View notes
Note
Not being able to perform femininity not only can isolate you from friends in school. Sometimes I feel isolated from my own mother and sister because they care about make up and getting their nails done and dieting. I love them dearly but I don't participate in those things but I still want to spend time with them even if I don't do those things so I just watch them and listen to them and try to be as positive as possible. If I don't, I lose any opportunity to spend quality time with them.
I deeply deeply hate how women and girls are expected to bond over femininity because we aren't given any other choice. If we were encouraged to have other interests and hobbies it would be so much easier to make friends and talk to each other no matter how we look. Sorry for the venting.
infinite love to you ♥️ i'm certain many here can relate. please feel free to dm me anytime you need to talk
18 notes
·
View notes
Text
Called Aunt B yesterday to thank her for the copy of Small Graces she had shipped. Only read the first chapter, and it wasn't anything I didn't already know; but the language was delicious. She said it was more poetry than prose, and I don't exactly agree...but I don't exactly disagree either. Good to have a relative to talk books with. She kept getting excited and going, "Wait 'til you get to the chapter on--oh shoot, spoilers! Oh, but I can't wait to talk to you about...rrrrr, can't say it!"
Promised to call her back next week when I'd had a chance to finish the book.
She'd taken her husband out to see the new Barbie movie and said it was incisive in its feminism, and made her feel lucky she'd had a career in education where the pressure to perform that kind of femininity had been less. I was a little surprised to hear her talk about performative femininity--she's nearing in her eighties, an economist by training, though she'd had a full career as a public school teacher. Always been a very concrete thinker, according to her husband, who can never resist adding, "First wife was a physicist, second was an economist. Guess I've always had a thing for smart blondes."
Her husband, Cousin C (I don't know if he's my father's oldest cousin or my grandfather's youngest, he hovers between generations like that) called me straightaway after and wanted to talk about the Barbie movie too. He said there were some really smart details about Ken, and it got him thinking about how he always felt like he couldn't quite fit into the man-box. Interesting to hear him call it that--can't help wondering whether he's been reading Brene Brown (by the time you read this, she may or may not be relevant among shame researchers, but she has a whole TED Talk on the ways social shame constrains men and women differently, at least in this time and place). Alternatively, it could be the Barbie movie has a literal man-box that Ken comes in. I asked Cousin C about it and he said he didn't want to give away any spoilers.
I told them I'd take my girlfriend out to the movies and call again after we'd seen it.
(Strange to have a devout Christian in my family who remains fundamentally disinterested in the culture wars. Splits his retirement between refugee resettlement and disaster relief, and anyway he's married to a woman who has exactly zero time for anything she can't stub her toe on. But he's never been anything other than supportive of my name and pronouns, and he's never batted an eye when I mention having a girlfriend.)
(Strange that this seems strange to me. I remember what my home community was like before the culture wars quite got their hooks in. I suppose there are people old enough to have lived whole lives before the poison set in, who decided not to touch it and to continue living and practicing as they always had.)
It's good to have them in my life.
#pronouns#barbie 2023#brene brown#interfaith dialogue#sorta#performative femininity#man-box#Small Graces
6 notes
·
View notes
Text
i used to think i have a deep voice but recently i've heard other women with much deeper voices. i think once women stop performatively trying to emulate toddlers' voices we'll see way more variance in how women's voices actually sound
#ok xavery#performative femininity#mine is much more mid-tone#but people say mine is deep because i'm not talking like i'm constantly inhaling helium#or maybe it's actually deep idefk anymore
2 notes
·
View notes
Text
I saw a QoTD in a rad-aligned forum that got me thinking.
What's the most humiliating part of being a woman.
Some said how our reproductive processes are treated. Some said penetration. Some said femininity. I think all have good points, but I personally think the worst thing about being a woman is that our humiliation and dignity is never considered. Never taken seriously.
Women's views of herself, no matter what she thinks of herself, is mocked. Otger people decide how you feel. It's mocked, exactly the status quo, or someone's kink.
Femininity can be humiliation. To fall in love with an abuser can be humiliating. To be assaulted and just have it made about you, expected, or deserved. To be stuck to server people less intelligent and less deserving than you.
Never can we talk about humiliation or our dignity without someone else just deciding that's what's normal for all women- so why care?
You see this especially in how people talk about assault between the sexes. Men are just to embarrassed to come forward. And.. women aren't? (Mocked. Belittled. Status quo.)
You see this in femininity. Dresses are humiliating. Either "Yeah we all think that but it's okay, that's how a woman dresses up" or "well I like it. I've decided all women do too." (Status Quo)
To have trusted someone completely and have them hurt or betray you. Yeah "scorned wife" but women are normally bitter and jealous! Wait you mean you feel vulnerable? Lol no you're supposed to be mad. You want revenge. Sexy revenge wirh eyeliner and a skintight dress to show him what he lost. (Someone's kink)
What do you mean women have dignity? What do you mean she's humiliated.
That's just what women are to most people.
#femininity#critique of how others view and treat womanhood#ofc I feel womanhood is more than just humiliation. im specifically talking about the one worst part I feel.#womanhood#radical feminism#performative femininity
4 notes
·
View notes
Text
At what age does a girl child begin to review her assets and count her deficient parts? When does she close the bedroom door and begin to gaze privately into the mirror at contortionist angles to get a view from the rear, the left profile, the right, to check the curve of her calf muscle, the shape of her thighs, to ponder her shoulder blades and wonder if she is going to have a waistline? And pull in her stomach, throw out her chest and pose again in a search for the most flattering angle, making a mental note of what needs to be worked on, what had better develop, stay contained, or else? At what age does the process begin, this obsessive concentration on the minutiae of her physical being that will occupy some portion of her waking hours quite possibly for the rest of her life? When is she allowed to forget that her anatomy is being monitored by others, that there is a standard of desirable beauty, of individual parts, that she is measured against by boyfriends, loved ones, acquaintances at work, competitors, enemies and strangers? How can she be immune to the national celebration of this season’s movie star sporting this season’s body, to the calendar art in the neighborhood gas station, to the glamorous model in the high-fashion photograph, to the chance remark of a lover, the wistful preference of a husband, the whistle or the unexpected hostile comment heard on the street?
-Susan Brownmiller, Femininity
#Susan brownmiller#femininity#performative femininity#femininity and passivity#female oppression#beauty rituals#male entitlement
336 notes
·
View notes
Text
Married Single Mothers
A married single mother is a married woman with kids, usually in a dual-income household, who receives no help from her husband with cooking, cleaning, or childcare, such that the way she spends her time - take kids to daycare, go to work, pick kids up, make dinner, put kids to bed, clean (maybe), go to bed - looks like it would if she were a single mother.
Back In The Day(TM) when a dual-income household looked more like a man working a strenuous or high-stress job for long hours, while his wife worked part time, or perhaps full-time in something that was low stress or didn't pay a lot, maybe it could be justified that he could come home, crack open A Beer, sit in the Recliner, and watch The Big Game with no asks or responsibilities. After all, they had a big yard for him to cut, a picket fence to keep painted, two cars to keep up, and a "Honey Do" list.
To avoid rehashing the history of work hours them over time, and the factor of profession choice, here are two sources if you don't already know what I'm talking about:
https://eh.net/encyclopedia/hours-of-work-in-u-s-history/
https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1997/04/art1full.pdf
Now, however, the gap between men and women's hours worked and the type of work they're doing is closing. If there's a couple who are bringing home similar wages at a non-management desk job, and maybe she works 40 hours and he works 44 hours. It's really hard to argue why that 4 extra hours of work justifies him watching TV, hanging out with friends, or doing his hobbies instead of helping with childcare or other "indoor chores". If they're urban renters, he can't even claim that more strenuous but less frequent chores like home repairs, cutting the grass or fixing the cars compensate for not cooking, cleaning, or raising his kids. Oh you take the trash to the dumpster? So does the 60 year old lady down the hall?
As I usually do, I'll start by blaming the Victorians by democratizing upper-class gender roles because, now displaced from their farms and having their work taken away by machines and mass production, middle class women had nothing to do. Now, working was just for the poor, and middle-class Victorian identity revolved a great deal around not looking poor. What were they supposed to do all day? Definitely not become rigorously educated or political active...At the same time, child labor was outlawed (considering factories and mines are different from family farms, justifiably so) and children became "economically worthless but emotionally priceless". So, like eugenics and breeding fucked-up-looking dogs, a contrived version of floral saccharine motherhood became the status quo -- be dedicate the whole of one's being, identity, purpose, and existence to raising children.
The 1950s were almost like a Renaissance of this ideal, likely as a reflexive response to men being away in the hell that is war. Women who may not have chosen to do so under any other circumstances were working in factories, filling in other jobs men left for the war, and having to live in relative austerity due to wartime rationing and shortages. A lot of men returning from the war were lonely and homeless, and they'd spent their time away living in inhospitable concrete bunkers and mud holes, constantly surrounded by death and destruction, and not knowing if they will go home at all (would home even be there when they returned?). Women whose husbands or boyfriends were drafted spent all that time wondering if that man could be dead. Single women had to mostly put their romantic lives on hold. When the war ended, most people was overcompensating toward cocooning and romanticization of home, social order, and family life.
Do I blame them? Not necessarily.
Has it still had unintended negative consequences? Yeah.
Trad LARPers idealize the 1950s when it was actually a very exceptional time. On one hand, it was the result of a psychological reaction against WWII. On the other, it was a time of unprecedented economic prosperity -- and what goes up must come down. I'm not an economist but I do subscribe to the cyclical view of history and even if the general trend line of something like GDP trends upward, it has to go down to some extent to move upward.
https://ourworldindata.org/female-labor-supply
Women's labor participation in the US and UK had marginally increased from pre-WWII to post-war. Interestingly, Germany had about 15-20% higher female labor participation than the US since about 1895, which also increased gradually during the pre-WWII era, and peaked during Kinder, Küche, Kirche Nazi rule before returning to a similar level as 1895, where it remained until the 1980s. It's not as simple as every Western woman was once fulfilled as a docile tradwife, then Betty Friedan wrote a book, and then the fabric of society was torn asunder by the Boss Babe Apocalypse.
If not feminism, then what do I think made it so hard for families to live on a single income - gender of the earner irrelevant - and made things so generally unaffordable?
Three words: The Powell Memo.
youtube
I would caution against taking the memo at face value as many do, as an earnest call for business leaders to defend themselves against Communists and Fascists who hate "free enterprise". Rather, it can be read as an emotional fear-mongering call for businesses to weaponize the government to, really, take over the country in a multi-pronged effort which resulted in neoconservative and arguably neoliberalism.
At timestamp 48:17 Historiansplaining starts analyzing the memo and placing it in the larger context. Please listen to it. It's comfortable to listen to at 2x speed so it's not that long. There are shorter views but they are extremely biased and not near as nuanced as this one.
The banking industry is a problem. Obviously having the most people with the most debt possible that they're still able to reliably pay on is in the interest of banks. If it exists, there's a loan for it. Credit card debt is a huge problem for Americans. The 30 year mortgage was introduced with the New Deal to help destitute people buy houses, now most people who buy houses use a 30 year mortgage to have remotely affordable payments. There are now 50 year mortgages and those will be the "new normal" if the trend doesn't reverse.
Part of the housing cost crisis is due to 1920s-1060s zoning restrictions created to protect property values, but also to create de facto class- and race-segregated neighborhoods. I'm not the type of person to argue that it's a human right to live in downtown LA or Manhattan, but if it's possible and desired to build affordable housing in a certain place and the only thing preventing it is zoning law, lobbyists, or NIMBY Karens, then that's a problem that can and should be addressed.
The auto industry and adjacent corporations lobbied urban planners to design in a way that would encourage or force people to buy their products. We have the automakers weighing in on efficiency standards such that, instead of like every other country that bases efficiency on weight, American cars are based on footprint which gives automakers leeway to sell more profitable SUVs. Do we need screens and cameras in our cars? No, but people who want new cars don't have another option. Can't afford it? Some companies (ex. Nissan) have moved from 7- to 10-year car loans. By the time you've paid your car off, the transmission will have turned into a tube of K'Nex and it'll be time to finance another one.
College loans, whether they're through a bank or the government -- universities win because they got your money. The Boomers were the last generation to be able to pay for their tuition with a summer job flipping burgers. The midcentury expansion of federal lending - which like the 30 year mortgage started as a measure strictly for the very poor - has caused tuition to fill the space allotted. Useless majors and required electives have exploded since the federal student loan expansion.
Speaking of which, credential inflation means that not only do you have to pay more for college, but you have to go longer just to access the same jobs. In some fields, someone with a Masters degree and the debt to go with it may end up earning just a bit more than the hypothetical $15/hour minimum wage.
The majority of Americans live in a state of debt slavery as a result of what some may call "crony capitalism" but I prefer "economic Fascism" because a) The F-Word makes a lot of people uncomfortable and b) it's technically true. Corporatism, the economic facet of Fascism is defined as "the organization of society by corporate groups, such as agricultural, labour, military, business, scientific, or guild associations, on the basis of their common interest".
If we don't live in economic Fascism, then what the fuck would we be doing different?
After addressing the contrivance that is gender roles-as-we-know-them and going on a meander through economics, I'll now acknowledge my digression and return to the topic of married single mothers.
Due to these economic conditions, most households with kids are dual income by necessity. Tradcons like to portray dual-income households as self-indulgently depriving their kids of an at-home parent for the sake of affording a bigger house, nicer cars, or more vacations. That's not the case and most dual-income households are that way moreso to afford necessities, and I don't think it's reasonable to expect a whole family to move into one of their parents' house, get on benefits, or live in a van just to be able to be able to afford being single-income.
In general, the root of the problem, unsurprisingly, is the mismatch between neo-midcentury ways of doing things and the reality of The Current Year.
The neo-midcentury way goes somewhat like: go to college for your Passion. Get an advanced degree because - don't worry - you will be able to get a high paying job and the debt won't be a problem if the name on your diploma is a Very Good one. Just go to college. Just get a degree.
Like the mainstream media tells you, look for Love At First Sight. Don't be a buzz-kill who thinks or talks about your future plans until at least 6 months into the relationship when you're afraid to leave due to sunk-cost fallacy and secretly afraid to commit due to FOMO. Time to get married. This is such a special time to have your first debt together. Make sure you have a credit card to put your honeymoon on.
Move to a high-demand area, but not so high-demand that you can't afford it obviously. You're going to want to move to the second most popular area so your commute can be between 1-2 hours and your mortgage will assure you live paycheck to paycheck. Because you're commuting for so much of the day, you'll need a nice car, so definitely buy it new.
Now it's time to have a kid. Everything you've done to this point, you find, has set you up in one way or another for failure. It would be cheaper for one to stay home, but their future earnings would be at risk and it's too expensive to pay for two student loans with one paycheck. Plus his spreadsheet job is just so much more important than your spreadsheet job. Because why? Because it just is. You've already moved a few hour drive away from any relatives who could help with childcare.
"Did we really agree to have kids? Did we really want it to be like this? Or were we just going through the motions, smiling and nodding to the expectations of society and our parents?" you wonder as the 18 month old in your arms noticeably shits their diaper and hits you in the face with a sippy cup while you stoop to pick up the dino nugget the 3 year old has dropped over and over again while some Cocomelon bullshit plays on their greasy, sticky iPad...all while your husband plays Elden Ring in the next room. You call out for help. Did he really not hear you, or does he want plausible deniability. Who is this man you married?
But wait...your vision is black with a glowing orange circle above. You hear distant music. You open your eyes...
"Destination wedding? Cocomelon? Married single mom? What are you talking about? You must have hit your head hard," says a teenager with greasy black hair and a Korn t-shirt.
They extend their hand and help you off the ground. You stand.
"Come on, we're gonna miss Hatebreed."
I'm not an antinatalist, so I lean toward most people probably should at least consider having kids. I, for one, want the human species to persist. People who don't are pretty cringe -- black-pilled about the environment, or they're mad that they were born without their consent (?) because they have to wake up every day and experience First World Problems.
Who we decide to marry is possibly the most important decision we make. More than where we live or what profession we choose. We're caught between the old-fashioned way that works under a specific set of circumstances that largely don't apply anymore, and a modern way that is little more than a reactionary movement against the social mores of Old People without considering life beyond age 27.
As Nietzsche foretold (PBUH), modernity puts us in a position with no easy answers. We don't have a god telling us what our values are and what we should do with ourselves, and existing with so many possibilities is almost more dangerous and burdensome in a way than having a pre-determined system like tradition. The boundary between good and evil isn't always clear and it's rarely straight. Many enemies take many forms; they can appear as anything and can speak from both sides of their mouth at the same time.
Freedom is very hard because you're not just yourself. You are yourself and god at the same time. It's not as simple as obeying a disembodied voice anymore. I'm not blaming married single moms at all for the position they find themselves in because they're victims of society. People who were supposed to be giving them good advice were giving conflicted and outdated advice, and probably acting out the old axiom that misery loves company.
I really have a beef with the Boomers, too, for normalizing the idea that being married is hell -- the end of one's individuality and anything they once enjoyed or valued. When society holds up doing the bare minimum - it's miserable but it's not outright abusive - as what young people should expect from marriage, it means the young people aren't looking for or insisting on better for themselves.
Women get accused of having unrealistic standards. "They all want a man who's 6' tall, has 6-pack abs, and makes 6 figures!" Fair enough, that's statistically a rare type and not enough to go around to all the women who want that. However, any time a woman has any standards beyond the absolute bare minimum - not physically abusive, not addicted to substances in a functionally detrimental way, has a job, has all his appendages, can walk and talk - it gets compared to asking for a "666 man".
When women complain (rightly) about being a married single mom or the "double shift", particularly tradcon and redpill men will say, "ACKSHYUALLY you don't want a man to help with chores because such and such statistic says women will go bang Alpha Tyrone if their man does chores, so you don't know what you want and you'll actually be happier if you do all chores and childcare yourself because that's what makes women fulfilled."
That's a convenient conclusion to reach.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."
-- Mark Twain
People can't want different things, too. Women aren't a monolith. I definitely believe too there are women who don't know what they want. A lot of people in general are running on societal programming that, on some level they recognize is herding them off a cliff, but they don't have the vocabulary - they don't even have the gastalt(?) - to describe what is happening.
There's a very good faith contingent of the men's rights movement that's expressing very admirable sentiments that are compatible with what the good faith contingent of what feminists are saying.
They're saying: "Why are we assumed to be expendable? Why is it shameful for a man to say he wants to stay home and raise a family? Why is a man's worth still based on how much money he makes? Why do some people assume that if a man is interacting with a kid in public that he's a predator? Why are chores and childcare seen as emasculating?"
Some people can believe in and live according to traditional gender roles, which is their business, but there's a missed opportunity here. Many women find conflict between wanting a family and pursuing their career, and/or want a more equitable distribution of housework in dual-income households; and there is a portion of men who would like to be able to care less about their career and more about their family, or they want to raise a family and don't care about work at all.
To the extent that men - or a particular man - are held to a traditional gender role, any woman who involves herself will be expected to fill the complementary support role. In a society where dual-income households are economically mandatory, women can't fulfill that role whether the individual woman wants to or not. Even if she would otherwise enjoy childcare and chores as a SAHM if the choice were available, adding full-time work to that- no one has the mental bandwidth for that.
While the interim quasi-solution for this requires, on an individual level, women to be pragmatic and creative, to look beyond the inadequate guidance of people who grew up in completely different conditions - who arguably didn't even do that fucking great for themselves - "just make better choices" doesn't fix the problem.
The push for women to enter the workforce wasn't accompanied by an equal push for men to enter the home, and I'm going to dedicate a post to that.
#feminism#amazon feminism#married single mothers#performative femininity#stay at home parent#modernity#corporatism#debt slavery#stay at home dad#men's liberation#the second shift#traditional gender roles#gender roles
1 note
·
View note
Text
ty lee is by far the most underrated atla character imo. as far as minor principal players, it’s easy to disregard her as the least fleshed out fire nation kid, the most underdeveloped. her role as a foil to any of the main characters is vague, and many people just assume she’s there to bring some sort of levity and humor to azula’s plotline. she’s dismissed as the pretty ditzy girl, or even (shudders) “the bimbo.” but when you actually make the effort to consider what we do see of her, to extrapolate from her few yet crucial scenes anything regarding her underlying motivations, you quickly realize that one of the most layered, multifaceted, compelling, intriguing, ambiguous, and perhaps even straight up insane characters in the entire show has been hiding in plain sight all along. and also that that’s the entire point.
#SHE DIDNT JUST FOOL AZULA (& al) SHE ALSO FOOLED US! THE AUDIENCE!!!#or well. most of you. not me tho im different#ty lee#I love you commentary on femininity and power dynamics girl#it feels like only mailee and tyzula shippers actually give a shit abt her#(tysuki shippers too i guess)#but even individually she is just. SO fascinating!!!!#masks & performance & acrobatics & taking you down from the inside!!!!!#I need to write an actual longass character analysis of her someday#I know I already kind of did but it was pretty shallow iirc#I think I can go deeper.
1K notes
·
View notes
Text
having a lot of fun thinking about the different types of genderlessness embodied by different doctors.. not in-universe agender identity (as fun and interesting as that is to think about) but in a more narrative sense of a genderless character. like, 11 is genderless like a child. 4 is genderless like an insect. 7 is genderless like a dark silhouette in a doorway. 8 is genderless like a dissected corpse is genderless. do u know what i mean
#13 is genderless like a woman who doesn't perform femininity#12 is genderless like a mythical hero#6 is a faggot#p#dw#f slur
3K notes
·
View notes
Text
and while we're talking about earrings, we all know why they look similar to the cowbell right. significations of ownership/docility
#performing femininity and being livestock. make yourself appealing... show that you 'deserve' and 'want' to be chosen (devoured)#rgu#nanami kiryuu#utena tenjou
321 notes
·
View notes
Text
girls will put on the kinda outfit i've been wearing since middle school and call it "boymode" and i'm just 🧍♂️ can you give a gnc woman a break here
#like. don't do this to me#i already knew conservatives don't think i'm performing womanhood properly#now you've got the liberals on that bullshit too#and it's esp annoying when they're still shaving and wearing makeup#you want to be counterculture so bad but you can't even let go of the benefits of femininity#i don't want to be counterculture though#i'm literally so normal
405 notes
·
View notes
Last Seen Blogs
