#because i feel like so much of society's idea of womanhood is very heteronormative and focused around femininity

[iamonlyhereforthefreefood]

I think if you're a queer/neurodivergent/gender non-conforming girl then there was a high chance you had a "not like other girls" phase. And obviously there is a problem with the not like other girls thing because it demonizes girls/women who are more traditionally feminine which obviously there is nothing wrong with, however I do think when you're a queer not traditionally feminine woman or girl you start to feel disconnected from what allegedly is the typical female experience. I see so many posts and memes on Instagram that will be like "men won't get this" or "all women have had this experience" and it's something you don't get or something you've never experienced. And now as an adult I tend to ignore those memes because I'm older I'm aware that women aren't a monolith and every woman experiences life differently. But when you're 15 and see things like that you start to think "well if this is the typical experience girls have then clearly I'm not like other girls". A lot of "not like other girls" memes to have this sense of superiority "other girls are sluts, I'm not" "other girls are vain, I'm not" but at the same time I've seen plenty of memes that seem self deprecating and almost like they come from this place of isolation. I think a lot of girls who had a not like other girls phase really felt disconnected from their peers and those memes were a coping mechanism. I think most people outgrew the not like other girls phase because they grew up and met other women who were neurodivergent and/or queer, grew up and met other women with similar interests and hobbies, grew up and met other women who also had "not like other girls" phases as a result of feeling isolated in high school.

I'm not like other girls, because women aren't a monolith and I'm my unique own person, just like every other woman. I'm also similar to so many other women. I have so many hobbies and experiences that other women share, including the experience of being 15 and thinking you're broken for not fitting into society's idea of what it means to be a girl.

[annebrontesrequiem]

Femininity and Bridgerton

So 27 days ago a lovely anon said that they’d be glad to hear my thoughts on femininity and Bridgerton, and since I’m now finally free from school I decided to stop playing Genshin Impact and binging Disney movies and actually do something.

This is going to probably be very long (spoilers it’s 1,800 words long), so more under the cut.

So, a few things. Firstly I am specifically talking about Bridgerton, as the way that femininity is portrayed in media is a very complex and arduous topic. Secondly this is obviously just my opinion and you can absolutely disagree, even tell me if you do I love listening to different perspectives. Thirdly I’m talking about a show that is very heteronormative (the painter and Benedict aside as I’m focusing mostly on Daphne in this post), and presents a very specific part of straight, cis, upper class femininity. So keep that in mind as well. Also as I’m going to be talking about patriarchy, femininity, and masculinity I know that there might be a few TERFs that crawl out of the woodwork and just… don’t. This isn’t for you and while I’m at it please go read some actual feminist texts. Also I know that this is a period piece but I will be addressing that don’t worry.

Also I am going to be talking about that one scene so trigger warning I’m going to be talking about sexual assault.

Also full Bridgerton season one spoilers.

----

So, all that set up out of the way, let’s talk about femininity in the Bridgerton series.

A good deal of Bridgerton focuses on the ways in which women are often confined by their role as women in society, as well as how they subvert that role for their own gains. This is used well in some cases, such as when the Viscountess uses the network that is forged between servants and women of the upper class to subvert Daphne’s marriage to Nigel Berbrooke. Being a period piece with a (mostly) diverse cast it also allows for women of color, specifically black women, to be portrayed in a very feminine light, where in society at large they are usually not allowed to inhabit such a space. However in attempting to subvert the status that women often occupied in Regency England the show accidentally reinforces views of femininity and its value.

Let’s talk about Eloise and Daphne. Eloise is very outspoken about the difficulties that comes with being a woman in society, wishing to break out of the confines of femininity. Daphne, on the other hand, wishes to stay within the traditional woman’s sphere, get married, have children, run a household. And while in text these two women often debate the meaning of their position as women, each making very valid points about their status and how they’re confined by it, the framing makes it seem that Eloise’s position is ultimately the “better” one.

Full disclosure, Eloise is my favorite Bridgerton character. I love her outspokenness, her determination to make something out of her life, the fact that she attempts to make the oppression of the society around her explicit. However I think the way she is framed as this, for lack of a better term, “girlboss” in the making is often reductive. The show seems to have this idea that Daphne is in some ways inferior in goal to Eloise. That is, Eloise’s value isn’t that she is an ambitious person whose status as a woman hampers said ambition, but rather that she is in some ways morally and intellectually superior to Daphne by rejecting her femininity and repressing qualities that are considered less masculine and thus lesser.s It presents this idea of women’s empowerment wherein one is only empowered if they deliberately step out of traditional femininity, either in appearance or in life path, rather than confronting a society that sees femininity as inferior. Daphne’s wish to continue in the traditional sphere of womanhood is somehow lesser, and she only becomes truly empowered later in the series when she becomes more aggressive (we’ll talk about that later).

That Eloise has her own book where she presumably falls in love and gets married makes this all the more confusing. Does she then lose her intellect and her status as an empowering woman? The messages feel very mixed. In portraying Eloise as enlightened for actively resisting the woman’s sphere and Daphne as needing to learn to be more “assertive” to gain said enlightenment, the show accidentally presents femininity as inherently passive, inferior to the assertion that is more traditionally masculine. This is something that modern period dramas often fall into. Empowered women are only empowered by attempting to transcend their femininity, to become more masculine. The bottom line isn’t to present women and femininity as equal in all ways to men and masculinity, but femininity is something reductive that must be shed to truly become equal.

Since we’re talking about Daphne I want to examine her character arc within this lens as well. Daphne is adamant that she wants a love-match. She is also very aware of the importance of presentation, as well as the importance of reputation. This is a very solid foundation, as is a way where Bridgerton taps into the complexity of the role of women in regency society in a good way. However as the show goes on this complexity seems to fade in favor of making Daphne, again I’m sorry, a “girlboss”. This is made explicit in the scene in which Daphne violates Simon’s consent, as well as the way in which this act is framed.

Now you can tell immediately from the framing of the scene in which Daphne violates Simon’s consent what this is supposed to be interpretated as. From the music to the triumphant looks on Daphne’s face, this is supposed to be a moment in which Daphne has finally gained control of her life. And yet in doing this, and in presenting this whole scene as a result of Simon’s “betrayal” – and thus something his has to take the blame for – the show is making a value judgement. Daphne can only become strong by becoming “assertive” (ie aggressive) to the point of violating someone’s consent.

The topic of rape culture is a very long and arduous one which I will not be diving into, but I do wish to point to the fact that men are supposed to be aggressive, both sexually and otherwise. Men are the ones who always “want it”, who are uncontrollable, and who are willing to be aggressive to get what they want. This toxic idea of sex and masculinity is what I felt Daphne dipped into during this scene, and instead of presenting it as horrifying or a betrayal on Daphne part, it is presented as the climax of her character arc. I believe a showrunner once said that it was imperative to the “education” of Daphne Bridgerton. Thus is Daphne’s strength no longer her determination to be happy within the sphere she has been placed in by patriarchy, but her willingness to take back her life, no matter the cost. And yes this could’ve been a message about how men are also assaulted, but that is not at all what the showrunners wanted you to get out of this scene.

Lastly I want to touch on the men in the Bridgerton universe, because the devaluation of femininity also affects men no less than it does women. All the men in the Bridgerton universe are either bad people or rakes. Name me one (1) man in the Bridgerton universe who is presented as feminine, either in appearance or personality. And no femininity is not the same as being gay, the painter is not feminine. To be a man worthy of screen time or romance in the Bridgerton universe one must be as traditionally masculine as possible, and ready to make that your defining character trait.

Now I know that this is a large romance novel issue, as someone who has read three of the Outlander books I am unfortunately aware of how romance novels fall into this derivative state. But just because something is common that doesn’t mean it is any less worthy of criticism. The argument that it’s simply being “period accurate” is also something I don’t accept. Yes the regency era was incredibly patriarchal, but that does not mean that the women within it were helpless and could only break out of that helplessness by rejecting their own femininity. Jane Austen is a classic example, but I will also point to women such as Elizabeth Gaskell, the Bronte Sisters, and George Eliot in terms of English women who were highly intelligent and worthy of acclaim despite still associating themselves with their status as women in society. For a broader historical view I’d also like to present Catherine the Great and Empress Josephine who, despite being viewed in an often very derivative manner by the men around them, rose to great prominence and power.

In the end this is a larger societal issue and not one that my post will magically fix. But I will say this: we need to stop telling women and girls that the only way to get rid of patriarchy is to reject femininity. In doing so we say that masculinity is indeed the better trait, that by repressing one’s emotions and one’s femininity one can attain equality. We also need to stop telling men that the only way to ensure their own value to be aggressive, to tap into that toxic masculinity which we spoon feed them from birth. This hurts everyone, men, women, non-binary people. It makes the world a worse place and only when we stop trying to wiggle our way out of femininity and actually acknowledge its status as equal to masculinity will we achieve this.

I believe Bridgerton wanted to do that, wanted to present the complexities and anxieties of women living in a patriarchal world and the way in which they can subvert that world to their advantage. However it falls into the same trap it seems to be attempting to get out of, and at the end of the day one is left with a sense of vapidness. Though I may like Bridgerton (so much so that I binge watched the series twice and am even considering reading the books) I think that we need to acknowledge its flaws, because only then will we be able to move forward and make media that is more enjoyable, more nuanced, and ultimately better in terms of expectations and norms.

Like I said this is a very complicated topic, but I hope I got my point across well. Thank you if you read all the way through this and I hope you have a lovely day!

[droidmom]

please give me your LGBT headcanons for any characters in The Lost World tv show??

Oooooooh it’s been a bit since I’ve watched so I apologize if I misremember much, but fuck yes.

Marguerite I always wanna say is a lesbian because she has those energies! but she has too much chemistry with uh Literally Everyone so she’s just bi as hell. I also think that since she has to weaponize her sexuality so often it’d be interesting for her to be ace, but idk. Maybe aro actually, which makes it easier to not get attached in the situations she has to act in. It would also be a rly interesting reason for why her Feelings for Roxton scare her so much. Lastly I do love that she embraces being a Woman TM to manipulate men but I think she might feel divorced from Womanhood on a personal level due to that use. She’s just kind of… whatever she’s needed to be? So if she thinks about who she Actually is for too long… it might go in a more non-binary direction. Lmao sorry this one is just “let’s vaguely assign every possible letter to Marguerite.” 

Challenger is just the EPITOME of bi culture. If I didn’t get those energies from him so hardcore I’d probably go with some combo of gay and ace since he looks at bugs with more interest than he often does @ women, but… bi culture! I also need him and Marguerite to be a bi brotp. Oh! He also gives off trans vibes tbh? 

Veronica is a lesbian who needs to embrace it rather than embracing Ned. She and Assai were probably doing really gay shit that she didn’t really recognize as gay shit because she had no frame of reference. There’s definitely a plus in having not grown up in standard society but I just… can’t really see her having a totally free and fluid idea of sexuality since there’s so much Heterosexuality in the jungle apparently :/ Oh and kinda sorta growing up with the Amazons probably helped deter heteronormativity but also might have confused matters further considering how naturally intimate a lot of them were with each other.

Ned I wanna say is straight just because he’s annoying kljhskjd but nah. He was never in love with Gladys he just saw her as a trophy to be won (which… is how straight people can be though so… hmmm.) At the very least he’s got repressed gay feelings for Roxton and used Veronica to further convince himself otherwise.

Roxton I get gay energies from but as with Marguerite gotta go bi! Their relationship is mlm/wlw solidarity. I’d love for him to be a trans guy too in an ideal world. He kind of… Tries Too Hard to be Macho sometimes like he has something to prove? Marguerite kind of turns those stereotypes on their head which goes from being Too Conflicting at first to being a relief. I also feel the need to mention that he gets pegged, even though it’s not quite relevant. 

Summerleeeee probably on the ace/aro spectrum. I feel like his love for Anna could have easily been a platonic thing he embraced due to The Times. Iirc most of what we saw about her was his guilt, too, so it’s hard to tell exactly what things were like beforehand. I do have to acknowledge he and Challenger have some gay shit going on tho.

Finn! I forgot about her for a moment but she is a little lesbian (maybe ace lesbian?) and she needs to be protected at all costs even though she could shiv me as easily as she breathes. I also think it would be super easy for her to be non-binary since the society she came from was in shambles and “Finn” could easily be a name she chose for herself.

[allonevoice]

Paper Three: bell hooks and “Paris Is Burning”

In bell hooks’ analysis of the documentary “Paris Is Burning”, much is deconstructed in the film’s contents, and how it presents them as well as a offers a meta-confrontation with the racial and gender related issues in society.  The text also presents an adversarial framework scrutinizing the art of documentary film-making itself.  

The documentary subjects of “Paris Is Burning” view family as in the vein of “chosen family”, as one person in the film put it “a group of human beings in a mutual bond”.  This occurs because often the subjects of the film, the homosexual black men and those who participate in the drag balls, have a traumatic relationship to their heteronormative nuclear families that is wrought with perjury, intolerance and abandonment.  The subjects utilize the drag culture and its participants as an opportunity for a support system and a community of expression, even going so far as having assigned “mother” roles, overseers of the “houses”, matriarchal and patriarchal mentors.

           “Realness” as described in the film is the ability to construct and present yourself as a “passing” straight male or female, or a white person.  As one participant in the film says, “if you can not “look gay”, if you can look straight, then that is real”.  Another subject of the film says outright, “I’d like to be a spoiled rich white girl” and this is one of the many pellucid tragic moments of the film, where all the fanfare and celebratory drag-glam stops, and the crux of many of bell hooks’ arguments stem from.  The criterion for self-described “fem-realness queens” is all about being able to costume oneself effectively in the identity of the domineering heteronormative white society.  It is the hope to escape oppression and intolerance by trying to find perverse fulfillment in camouflaging with the culture and coding of one’s oppressor. Trying to attain safety and acceptance (therefore, problematically, self-acceptance and external validation) by presenting oneself as the idealized character.  Hooks is cunning to point out the macabre shadow of white supremacy that the subjects of the film (and the epistemic nature of the film itself, in its white-created gaze) are living in.  Hooks is concerned with the subjects’ idealization of white people and white culture (from the nature of pageantry itself, to the homogenized pantheon of publicized characters and famous stars they’re striving, seemingly self-deprecatingly, to emulate).  The consideration here may be that it could escape these performers that their goals and fantasies are all evidence of their subjugation by mainstream white culture while their masquerades also perpetuating and embody problematic stereotypes.

           I agree most with the idea (As I’ve discussed in previous papers) of bell hooks’ acerbic comments about neutral gaze and that Livingston’s view and editing choices do not originate in a vacuum.  The very medium of a documentary necessitates a subjectively curated experience.  On this “…it is precisely the mood of celebration that masks the extent to which the balls are not necessarily radical expressions of subversive imagination at work undermining and challenging the status quo.  Much of the films focus on pageantry takes the ritual of the black drag ball and makes it a spectacle” (hooks 150).  

Admittedly, “Paris is Burning” shares a handful of candid moments in the interviews where the subjects are very open about their struggles for acceptance, and their lack of safety or opportunities in the professional and social world.  These lachrymose and telling moments of the film could potentially allow the audience a chance to empathize and contemplate the plight of the subjects of the film and the ubiquitous ills of racial, sexual and social injustice, but Livingston’s edits distractedly opt to cut to extended scenes of the flamboyant fanfare over sober-minded poignancy.  Most of the film focuses on the festive and escapist expression that is the pageantry of the ball, which is an accurately regal presentation, but Livingston consistently cuts abruptly to these scenes after a sobering moment, almost as if a lighthearted panacea for the audience, to alleviate the intense reality of the subject’s harsh lives and dramatic experiences.  

           From a racial standpoint, hooks asserts that the very nature of peak femininity for the subject of the films “was that perceived to be the exclusive property of white womanhood” (bell hooks 147).  The act of drag, for hooks, is not a counterculture and subversive activity, if it participates in white-worship fetishism that has been oppressing people of color in the mainstream society all along. One of the subjects of the film even blatantly professes the viewpoint, “every minorities’ goal or wish is to be white”, with an un-ironic self-confident air of worldliness in their tone.  Not only is this subject’s statement a completely unfounded generalization, but it doesn’t get extrapolated and put under a microscope to be ransacked for political and social significance and nuance.  As earlier stated, the film does little to offer screen time for these sorts of people’s sentiments to be examined.  Presumably, the person who made that statement means that because of all of the proliferation of images in media forms of the glamorous white-washed homogeneous stars, models, actors, singers and on the alabaster Mount Rushmore of pop culture deities, the wishful and wistful drag-queens can only imagine themselves as successful, safe, secure and celebrated if they are white.  This examination opens the floor for some discussion about representation in media and the harmful effects that a lack thereof can have on people of colors’ viewpoint and aspirations and cultural pride/hopefulness. Presumably, the person who said that also meant that whiteness wasn’t in fact the end goal, but the perks and privileges that comes with the aspired-to white identity.  To speak of this offers an opportunity to speak of systemic biases and privileges that leave marginalized people in dire straits.

           I agree with hooks on her critical view of Livingston’s perspective influence as an outsider from this subculture (the innocent ethnographic view as a crutch and a harmful perspective) as well as the harsh assessment of the subjects’ portrayal.  I watched the documentary before I read her chapter on the film and felt it was overtly obvious (perhaps as a byproduct of this class and another that I am taking this semester) that the film is an artifact that has crystallized “a graphic documentary portrait of the ways in which colonized black people (in this case black gay brothers, some of whom were drag queens) worship at the throne of whiteness even when such worship demands that we live in perpetual self-hate, steal, lie, go hungry and even die in its pursuit” (bell hooks page 149) The image clusters of opulence are all that of whiteness and white people, and the documentary has a mostly-casual and “comedically-quirky” presentation to these tragic subjects and their subculture full of people struggling to live, struggling to understand themselves and feel happy, safe and expressive.  Livingston does a disservice to the subjects of this film and to the potential ambition and fervency of such a topic and an opportunity of such coverage by making the film a spectacle (to borrow hooks’ term). Rather, the documentary deserved a more biting and unapologetic tone not just covering a subversive and insular cultural phenomena but taking the time to exploring the struggle of these homosexual and transsexual people of color and giving a podium to a thesis that examines the historical and culturally oppressive and imperial context that created this scenario.