Some things in life are subjective, but both personal expressions, such as items of clothing or makeup, perfume, etc., and external and internal behavioural tendencies, such as being devoid of individualism, and existing for the sake of others, are not.
Femininity can only ever be objective. There is no such thing as a subjective approach to such a subject within radical feminist philosophy. Only sexual liberalism promotes the relativist belief that behaviours women perform can be 'empowering, 'brave,' etc., not on the basis of the behaviours being of an objective quality, as that would imply such behaviours should be universal (even among women), but that there exists a non-subjective character to it.
When we look at long hair, we don't see anything inherently oppressive or of a poor quality. While it's true that a lot of women, especially in third world countries, are forced to grow out their hair long because it's considered 'unwomanly' for them to have short hair, for those who willingly choose, without coercion involved, so it's an actual choice, to have long hair, they're not doing themselves any wrong. There's nothing bad about having long hair, it's just long hair. Clearly, if someone wants, and has, long hair out of their own volition, this means that long hair is good for them (with this 'goodness,' in this specific context, existing on an individual level). For women who have short hair, since it's somewhat socially unacceptable to have short hair anyway, they're clearly doing it because they want this, and, thus, such a decision is good for them. Short hair isn't good for all women, and long hair isn't good for all women. It really just depends on the person, for nothing can really be said about hair length in relation to that of quality. Hair length doesn't really have a quality, but it possesses a value which differs from individual to individual, of any sex.
However, this is only one aspect of femininity, and an aspect of femininity that feminists don't even criticise to begin with. Feminists will say that many women, especially in the past, especially in the third world, are culturally pressured into having long hair, and that is wrong of patriarchal society. Feminists will, additionally, say that hair length is a natural phenomenon, and not something socially constructed. While technically part of femininity, it is by no means unnatural, with there also being the criticism of the stigma attached to men having long hair. Long hair isn't an invention, but just an organic occurrence. The same cannot be said for a different property of femininity, high heels.
High heels are objectively (keyword: objectively) uncomfortable, to both women and men. They are not suited for running whatsoever, as they prohibit all running, and are slightly above ground level, which causes one to lose grip on the ground. They are hard, not soft, expensive, and make one's feet ache after moderately lengthy periods of walking. When one walks, one's feet feel the hard, rough plastic that exists beneath the main portion of the shoes, causing one to experience mental pain as well as physical pain.
No one naturally wears high heels. Absolutely no one. They are not products crafted with the intention of improving walking, or how easy the ground is on one's feet. Instead, they are uncomfortable, rough, painful, and of a harder material than almost all shoes. They are also more difficult to slip off, and are dreadful when attempting to walk down or up stairs. High heels can, then, be said to be of an objectively negative quality, universally so. It's not the case that high heels are good for some people and bad for others. It's the case that high heels are objectively bad for all human beings. One can value high heels, certainly, but that doesn't mean such value placed upon such objects is just and correct. The quality of high heels is independent of the beliefs and attitudes of the people aware of their existence, transcending individual beliefs, and remaining, static, as a negative phenomenon related to femininity.
The worst part about the debate surrounding femininity, between feminists and sexual liberals, is the fact that men will bluntly tell women why they find products associated with femininity uncomfortable, that they are, indeed, of a negative value for them, that adopting such femininity-orientated practises would be harmful to them. If it's bad for men, it's bad for women. Here's what's really important, what must be understood. If something is unpleasant for one sex, it's unpleasant for the other sex. Equally so. The quality of a skirt does not alter when someone of a different sex slips into it. That would be pseudo-science. It still remains as a negative cultural product.
Feminists have critiqued these femininity-related practises for decades (including, quite prominently, Sheila Jeffreys), but to TRAs and sexual liberals, such criticism is constantly undermined with words such as 'empowering,' 'choice,' 'valid.' It is wrong, and, quite obviously, misogynistic. These people can even recognise that such practises and behaviours are harming of the psychological health and sanity of men. Somehow, however, it apparently doesn't harm women in an identical way. Strangely enough, and quite ironically at that, I suppose this is the one time it's actually worth listening to men on this issue (cis-identified men, that is), as they'll actually provide criticisms of femininity when they're asked to apply the abusive construct of femininity to themselves.
[–]worried19 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun - (1 child)
[–]SexualityCritical[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun - (0 children)