Not sure myself what "by design" means in respect of feminity, and to my mind, feminity is equitably a social construct, and a biological fact.

Perhaps, if "by design" implies that a woman herself intends how feminine she might or might not be perceived, (is that possible? or just another social construct about how social constructs combine with biologically embedded tendencies), then, perhaps, the social construct of feminity, needs to be considered within the original choice of the use of the word "feminism". Obviously the first "feminists" were not all big butch dykes.

In fact, I would argue, that many men, find the "tom boy" type self image, to be more feminine than the boob jobs and mini skirts ever could be.

Of course it is possible to be a feminine feminist.

What else are all women who have wider hips, narrower shoulders, and tend to cover up their body because it attracts men's gaze.

For a start Vanilla you could read the articles on OLO.

Steel: "For a start Vanilla you could read the articles on OLO."

Sure, I take your point. If you look at my comment history, you'll find that I have argued voraciously with some OLO feminists about their attitudes. Thought I loathe these labels, I believe I'm what some people call a "sex-positive" feminist, which is why, in part, you and I were in agreement about Bill Henson for example. (As was, I might add, every feminist I know. I refuse to count Hetty Johnson as a feminist as I believe child-protection is her real focus, whether or not you agree with her methods, and I do not.)

However, I still stand by what I said in my earlier post. I have always learnt and believed that feminism teaches women to be proud of whatever role they decide to take on. And men too, come to think of it. That does not mean every feminist I've met agrees with me. Many don't. It's one of the things I love about the movement toward sexual equality — it really is robust and challenging and intellectually demanding. It is not black and white. I rejoice in its complexity.

And, anecdotally — not, I concede, statistically, because I've never seen the stats — couples that believe in sexual equality seem to be happier than those who have taken traditional roles. This may have been different in earlier times, when those roles were expected, but in this day and age equality seems to better guarantee happiness and longevity of relationships.

Whitty (who's left now) once said something very wise about women and feminism. He said we (women) are reluctant to criticise it because we are so grateful for it. We are loyal. He meant it as a criticism — that we lack the capacity to fault it because of that loyalty. But I see something different. My mother was a working-class woman who scholarshipped her way into medical school because she had an enlightened father who simply recognised her as clever and believed — despite the fact it was the 1940s, and women, especially poor women, simply didn't become doctors then — that she should be allowed to achieve their potential. I admire both my mother and my grandfather for their foresight and visions and yes, I am loyal to the movement that suggested gender (nor social class) should not hinder potential. I want and work for the best of that movement.

Steel, as I said earlier, I do appreciate your experience has been different. I honestly do — it's not just lip service. Some men have sh!t lives. Affirmative action — with which in this day and age I profoundly disagree — has seen some less able women promoted before qualified men. So I do appreciate your take. On the other hand, you have, in the past, not only disagreed with my arguments but also suggested — several times — that you reckon I'm a bit of a der-brain in general. (I can provide examples if necessary.)

Tell me why you disagree with my argument. But there's no need to tell me again why you think I'm thick — I've heard it before and I get it.

R0bert, when I said "let myself go", I didn't mean "ended up a drooping-fag-out-of-side-of-mouth, shell-suit-wearing, stringy-haired, foul-mouthed, Westfield-food-hall-haunting harridan. I meant I used to be a size 10 and now I'm a size 12. Oh, ok, sometimes a size 14. But other than that, I'm quite presentable really.

On this topic, can I just say that I've seen pictures of the real Romany and she's a total fiery-haired spunk.

Vanilla, I took your comment as being tongue in cheek.
You are one of my favourite feminine feminists.

R0bert

This is a brilliant thread - thanks pelican :)

I've avoided it until now because

(a) the answer is so obvious, and

(b) I thought it was going to be another of those tedious OLO gender wars.

Happily, the latter hasn't proven to be the case, and most people seem to agree that the terms aren't mutually exclusive.

(c) Vanilla's excellent comments above expressed very similar sentiments to my thoughts on this fraught subject.

Of course it's possible to be simultaneously 'feminist' and 'feminine'. Indeed, every serious emotional/sexual relationship I've had has been with a woman who could be described as both.

Of course, it has to be said that from a male perspective the simultaneous accommodation of the independent career heroine and demonstrative, supportive lover and soulmate can prove terminally difficult, as far as the relationship is concerned. But my more recent and enduring experience is that it is quite possible to achieve, especially when true love is involved (not to mention financial security and low stress work).

Actually, I think it's possible to be, if not feminist, then 'feminist-friendly' and 'masculine' too. But that's probably a different topic :)