This entry will be in english.

So, while surfing Diaryland diaryrings, i found one called "feminismsux", and curious while being a little indignated, inquired about it. The description was as follows: "Are feminists just hairy-pitted conservatives? Are you tired of being told how to think, feel, act, etc. by people who purport to be for egalitarianism? Then this is for you." "My my", did i thoguht for myself, "This really sounds like a gathering of intelligent, rationnal, nuanced people, now". I checked out for the ring leader, who's a certain "somnambula", whom can be found at his or her diary, trying to get in contact with the inventive creator of this ring. To my dismay, this apparently charming person left neither an e-mail, a guestbook or the notes features on. So this is an attempt to communicate with the said individual, since he or she hasn't left me the chance to let this conversation remain private. I'll point out that I read this person's profile and an exceprt of this person's diary, so to find out how i may afress the person respectfully, and how the person had the habit to think.

Now, i'm not saying that this person is a coward for not leaving people he attacks a chance to ripost, and i'm not saying this person his an absolutist who oversimplify things superficially from his take on identity, nature and genders. You know me. I'm not like that. I'm not discussing, neither, the right to anonymity, it's not a question of rights here. I'm not even questionning the freedom of opinion, i'm using it fully here in my attempt to defend my ownopinion.

What i'm saying is, i don't quite understand. I don't understand people who are closed, or absolutely SURE of their believes, people who found their opinions on dogmas or truisms. This may be prematurate to say, but the person i'm talking of since to use such ways of thinking and expressing. I can't say, thought. I don't know, the eprson. Heck, i don't even have the possibility to reach him/her. You know how i love to communicate. You know i'm generally respectful too, even thought i tend to be quite sarcastic.

But for once, i'll try and be nice. I'll try to get in the mind of somebody who's against feminism, so who's against people of the female gender to be whatever they feel like being and who'd like not to be put down because of the intricate and incomprehensible blend of flesh they have between their legs (so complicated, in fact, there's not even one word to define it wholly, to the contrary of the male engine). I'll try.

I'll begin by telling a story.

Once upon a time, there was a little girl who read a lot of fairy tales. She liked doing that, along with eating candies, drawing, inventing stories and playing Batman with her brother. She found that Charles Perreault's, Grimm brothers', Handersen's and the Countess of Segur's writing quite incredible, with their beautiful description and romantic feelings. She likes those heroic quest, those leaps of the hearts and those fantastic creatures. However, something tended to put her off. See, as a child, she needed to indentify herself to the characters. She was a girl: so she wanted to indetify with the girls. But there was a big problem with those girls. They were always the same. Moreover, they were always blond, exquisitely beautiful, gracious, adorable. And they were nothing else. They were passive, didn't seem to have a lot of initiative, and, most horrendous of all, weren't much praised or acclaimed for their intelligence. Now, the little reading girl was one who craved for knowledge, she read her mother's universitary medical encyclopedies (without understanding much of it, to be honnest), and she considered intelligence one of the best thing in the world. We must admit she believed herself quite intelligent, at 6 or 7 years old.

So she wondered, why were the girls of those stories always blond, firstly? She was a brunette. Was it a flaw to be a brunette? She didn't chose it, after all. She didn't know how being a brunette could diminish her. And since she associated with the characters, she felt belittled. And that quite angered her. Secondly, why were they beautiful? Was it so important, to be beautiful? What did it gave? What did it serve? At that age, the word "sexual attraction" didn't meant much for her, and was rather a subject of embarassment and strange uneasiness than interest. So, considering this state of mind, all that talk about beauty was non-sense, and a little absurd. Moreover, the girls' beauty seemed more important than the boys' beauty, and, that was weird too. And, the most boring of all, why could they never act up by theirself? Heck, who needs a boy to pull you out of troubles? She always stood up by herself when she fell down, she was able to catch frogs and snakes alone, she could endure scratches on the knees and mosquitoes in the woods, she didn't need a prince to help her! She didn't have anything against boys, but they weren't so essential to her. Her mother was way more important, thought: she was omnipotent. She cooked, she drived, she worked, she read her stories whn they were too complicated, she taught her things, she punished, she rewarded, she held her hand. Oh, she ahd a father, sure, but at that time, her father wasn't much talkative. He loved her, alright, but he wasn't as present.

So this perplexity followed her through the years, feeding her thoughts. At first, she wanted to be blond too: children are conformists, that's the way they learn, by mimicking. But tehre was no way she could be blond. A 7 years old child don't go bleaching her hair. Moreover, her hair roots were (and still are) orange: would she had tried, she would have become a redhead. Not so much a blond princess.

But as the years passed, and as she saw most of the world, she understood those fairy tales were written a long time ago, a time when women were subdued, just because...

And that, she didn't understood neither. But she knew it was wrong. And fasle. She was raised as an able person, bot a cute and incompetent little girl. And she believed everyone else was able to be like her.

So she deemed herself... a feminist.

From then on, she was insulted for this. That was another subject of bewilderment, as she thought equality was quite a grand things. Blacks wanted equality, and it was ok, at least since some years: other religions wanted equality, and that was ok, until a a few years later. Homosexuals began to want equality too, and that didn't seem quite right at the moment, but as they made much and much noise, it began gradually to be ok. Now, women, since some decades, wanted equality. That had been right. But then, came a reverse movement: they talked about sexual differenciation, about female sexism, about abusr, and they associated it with feminism. So feminism was not ok. In short, blacks could be equal, muslims could be equal, homsexueals could be equal, everyone: but not women. It was even wrong to claim so. Feminist became an insult, people got prejudice about it, and it was associated with all sorts of bizzare, unrelated things, such as body hairs and absence of bras.

I think you all guessed the little girl was no one else than me.

So now, let's get back at the charming ring description I showed you earlier: " Are feminists just hairy-pitted conservatives? Are you tired of being told how to think, feel, act, etc. by people who purport to be for egalitarianism? Then this is for you". We'll decorticate it, all right.

"Hair pitted". Here comes the hairs again.

You know, some people use their apperance as a statement. Punks do, with plaid fabric, leather coat, ripped t-shirts, chains, combat boots, spiked hair. Rappers do, with puffy and pricy clothes, heavy chains, scarf and head visors. Gothics do, with dark vestments, dark makeup, dark devises embroidered on their stuff.

Apperance statement can be associated with a group,. indeed. But i believe it's rather an individual choices. It can also be a way to avoid conformity. It all depends, you see. You believe in god? Stick a religious bumper sticker on your car and wear a gold cross around your neck. Yoo love the environement? Wear green peace t-shirts and your hair long, if you please. Those two last situations, don't systematically make you a bigot or a hippie. You an believe in god and be Victor Hugo. You can want to save the environment and not be called John Lennon.

So Hairy Pits. That does sounds like a prejudice to me. It's not necessarly ebcause you're a feminist you' d want to let the hairs under your arms alone. It can be because you're a slob who don't care too much about the appearance like me. It can be because you're a feminist too: But that's very rare, i tell you. If you think the two goes indeniably together, well, my dear, you're jumping to conclusions. You're making the analogy between two things that are only indirectly related. You're oversimplicating. You're prejudicing.

Let's move on.

"Conservatives". To that, i can only say "YEAH right". In my head, "conservatives" means people who wants the statu quo, and to keep things like they were in the past. Feminists in general wants progress: in the past, women were dimished. Nobody can deny that: it would need, at least, an enormous dose of dishonnesty. Moreover, they don't want thing to stagnates. Hell, they're never satisfied, it seems: they want change .Where's the conservatism, for you? It seems that qualifying people who wants to propose reforms and new ways of thinking "conservatist" is a paradox. I don't need to spread much on this.

Next.

"Are you tired of being told how to think, feel, act, etc."... Well, if we're freudian, that does sounds like somebody feels attacked and returns the attack. We call that "projection". I don't think a movement aiming for equality, especially for women's equality, would like to impose on anybody. You know, the desire of respect isn't the desire of power. Ennemies of feminism don't seem to make the nuance. The truth is, they can't conceive feminist aren't the opposite of them. They are reactionnary and sexist: so, logically, feminist are the same but inverted. They "hate guys" and uh, "are lesbians". Yeah.

"by people who purport to be for egalitarianism?".. See above.

"Then this is for you". So now, as a conclusion, i'm wondering who this "you" is. I know a lot of women deem themselves anti-feminist, even thought when you think of it it's absurd. Everybody wants respect, right. Being feminist doesn't take from you the right of being pretty, sassy, with cute dresses and beautiful hair. I do it. I prefer comfy clothes, sure, but i'm vanitous too. It's fun to be. It's fun to feel pretty.

So, who is suscribing to a lie, now?

-L