So life has overtaken me of late and hence a lack of writing.. and also time has been taken up with me deflecting and defending myself from certain opinions of me being a racist and a lipstick feminist so hence a racist lipstick feminist. Such deflection has taken up not only time but much mental agility – not so much the racist part – I have carefully defended myself on this point but more the lipstick feminist. To clear up the racism slurs, this was aimed at my one of my articles in which I had stated that all communities had trafficking and suppression of women issues and that a certain race and culture was not immune from this as had been indicated by certain current court cases and should therefore not turn a blind eye and in saying this was told that my views were akin to nazism rhetoric. So – I have deftly cleared this issue up but now to the lipstick feminist – this label troubles me greatly as I have no idea what it actually means. So I look up the insightful Wikipedia and find the below:
Lipstick feminism is a variety of Third-wave feminism that philosophically reclaims the sexual power of women, in response to the social and cultural backlash of the ideologically radical varieties of Second-wave feminism of the 1960s and the 1970s. In its course, the ideologic backlash generated negative stereotypes of contemporary Third-wave feminists, including the physical stereotype of the “ugly feminist” and the socio-cultural stereotype of the “anti-sex feminist”, which Lipstick-feminist philosophy proposes to correct by reclaiming personal control of female sex appeal. Linguistically, Lipstick feminism proposes to semantically reclaim, for feminist usage, double-standard insult words, such as “slut”, in order to eliminate the social stigma applied to a woman whose sexual behaviour was patriarchically interpreted to denote “immoral woman” and to connote the moral corruption of libertinage. Philosophically, Lipstick feminism proposes that a woman is empowered — psychologically, socially, politically – by the wearing of cosmetic make up, sexually suggestive clothes, and the practice of a sexual allure that appeals to men and to women. That such overt sexual practices empower a woman because they are personal social choices, and not coerced acquiescence to societally established gender roles, such as “the good girl”, “the decent woman”, “the abnegated mother”, “the virtuous sister”, et aliæ. Yet, opponent feminists propose that the empowerment of Lipstick feminism is a philosophic contradiction wherein a woman chooses to sexually objectify herself, and so ceases to be her own woman, in control neither of her self nor of her person. Nonetheless, Lipstick feminism counter-proposes that the practice of sexual allure is a form of power, and that, besides the reproductive power of prettiness, sex appeal is a form of social power in the interpersonal relations between a man and a woman, which occur in the realms of cultural, social, and gender equality. Moreover, Stiletto feminism, a more ideologically radical variety of Lipstick feminism, proposes that there exists no philosophic contradiction in being a feminist and in being female, a woman who is sexually alluring to men and to women. Besides the acceptance of makeup, the adherents of Stiletto feminism accept the existential (philosophic) validity of women practicing occupations specifically predicated upon female physical beauty, such as working as a striptease dancer or as a pole dancer, and the validity of the personal practices of public sexual exposition (flashing) and of lesbian (girl-on-girl) exhibitionism, as not un-feminist because such practices and preferences are personal choices, not external coercion.
In reading the above description, I do certainly wear clothing denoting my femininity and certainly have many shades of lipstick in my make up drawer so technically I perhaps do fit the lipstick feminist description but I have no desire to go on a slut walk or validate sexual exploitation of women. So I conform to no label it seems but what I do argue for is a form of equality for women, to the extent that it is possible and I caveat this because ultimately, biologically, women will be the bearer of children and for a short time at least, may have to put careers and lives on hold. I further advocate a form of feminism where young girls are not forced into early marriages and pregnancies; are not trafficked for sexual exploitation as young as eight and where women can be in charge of their own decisions and over their physical being.
But all this being said, I will still be labelled by other women with regard to the “form” of feminism that I supposedly adhere to and a number of women (such as those who have labelled me a “lipstick feminist”) will disagree with my stance and the way in which I endeavour to raise awareness of lack of equality for women. Ultimately I think that we are all driving towards the one goal and frankly I would rather do that with my lippie and heels on than not and just concede that I may not always be taken seriously (generally by other women).
But I conclude on a sad note and is not about feminism but human compassion. Tis about a young student in Nottingham who was 20 pence short of her bus fare for the last night bus home and notwithstanding 8 minutes of cajoling with the bus-driver (captured on CCTV), was not able to board the bus and was stranded in Nottingham town centre at 3am in the morning and was then attacked and raped. A lasting and scarring action all for 20 pence. So I do not preach feminism here (although many know my position on the power struggle and rape of women) but more a call of humanity, wishing that someone on the bus could have given the young girl the shortfall money. So I continue to keep banging my drum, not just for feminism per se but for a respect for others because one day it may be my daughter stranded somewhere and my only wish would be that someone might just come to her rescue if I or her father are unable to.