I have a new article out on toxic femininity. Here’s my argument summed up and why this article is useful 1/ https://doi.org/10.1080/19419899.2020.1785534
We are used to hearing about “toxic masculinity”. It refers to traits that promote and enforce men’s domination, and that harm everyone including men 2/
Scholars like @DrAndreaWaling have pointed out problems with toxic masculinity e.g. it suggests there can be “good” vs “bad” masculinity. This can reinforce the gender binary rather than challenge it 3/ https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08164649.2019.1679021
What about toxic femininity? It is sometimes used by Men’s Rights Activists to suggest men can be victimised by women, or, in pseudo feminist ways to suggest women are equally “as bad” as men. Other times it is used by feminists similarly to toxic masc. Outlined in this table: 4/
When used by feminists toxic femininity sounds similar to toxic masculinity, as the “gender roles that damage all of us” e.g. 5/ https://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/life-and-relationships/how-toxic-femininity-is-damaging-us-20180517-p4zfvt.html
But how can we consider what might be “toxic” about femininity (if anything) without being anti-feminist (like MRAs) OR falling into the same problems as toxic masculinity as identified by Waling and others? 6/
First, we need to look at how femininity has already been theorised. Here’s another handy table from the paper summarising these theories: 7/
But how are the specifically feminine “gender roles that damage all of us” enforced? How do they fit in here? Here is a summary of current ideas, including my own new term “rigid femininities”: 8/
While other terms usefully describe “toxic” ways that some forms of femininity comply with patriarchy or reinforce the gender binary, what is missing is an analysis of the political attachments that underpin these structures 9/
I borrow from Lauren Berlant’s “cruel optimism” here – she describes the “toxic” attachments we have that we think will help liberate us but actually reinforce the troubled system we find ourselves in 10/ https://www.dukeupress.edu/cruel-optimism
KEY: This isn’t about “good” vs “bad” femininity, this is about naming the political *approaches* to femininity that harm us all. I offer five key examples 11/
First, trans-exclusionary feminist femininity. The rigid belief that trans-exclusionary politics will achieve gender liberation. Involves heavy policing of “proper womanhood” and intensifies gendered body surveillance (eg bathroom policing). Strictly reinforces gender binary 12/
Second, entrepreneurial feminist femininity. Never questions the binary. Instead, gender is assumed as the natural starting point for advocating for entrepreneurialism within the existing class and gender structure 13/
Third, the cult of natural femininity. The idea that there is a “natural” form of authentic femininity. Marginalises “over the top” (highly raced, classed, sexualised) femininity. Often involves high levels of consumption to achieve 14/
Fourth, compulsorily heterosexual femininity. The rigid attachment to the idea that “female” = “woman” = “feminine” = “attracted to men”. Often deployed as the heterosexual mother figure, arbiter of sexual morality 15/
Fifth, neo-colonial femininity. Reinforces ongoing processes of colonisation in specific gendered way. Casts out anti-colonial activist femininities as pariah and strongly attached to Western neoliberal values and Nationalism 16/
NOTE: I’ve used picture examples here of exemplary personas but crucially this isn’t about how they look – it is about their politics. It is about what they stand for in a specifically gendered way: transphobia, class oppression, toxic body politics, homophobia, and racism 17/
In sum, considering “rigid femininities” offers a useful way to see how some approaches keep us locked in a toxic gendered system 19/
And as always, please DM me if you would like to read the article but don't have access. I still have some free copies available 20/