Georgina Charlotte's comment begins like this:
How do leftist women justify the feminine, you ask?
Why should they have to? Personally, I reject the concept of femininity. By that, I mean that I reject the idea that there are a set of behaviors or personality traits that are essential to being a woman. I also reject the idea that I have an obligation to conform to what is considered feminine.
So for Georgina the very concept of the feminine is false. Furthermore, it is a false concept that is oppressive: it implies "an obligation to conform".
Not much support for the feminine in those beliefs.
Traditionalists, in contrast, are likely to argue that there do exist inherent differences between men and women, so that it makes sense to talk of masculine and feminine behaviours and traits. I'm at the most "essentialist" end of the traditionalist spectrum when it comes to sex differences. I do believe that there is a masculine and a feminine essence existing as part of the nature of reality and that men reach maturity by developing along masculine lines just as women do along feminine ones. That's one reason why our self-identity is so closely tied to a sense of ourselves as men and women. It also helps to explain why we usually admire particularly feminine women and masculine men.
Does the traditionalist view mean that men all have to be the same and act the same? No, it doesn't. Men will develop along masculine lines in different ways depending on their talents and personal characteristics. One man might be a scholar, another a sportsman. And something similar goes for women. An outgoing woman might be vivacious and feminine, a more retiring woman might be sensitive and feminine; one sister might appreciate the solitude of nature, another might like parties - but both can express a feminine nature in what they do and who they are.
Georgina goes on to write:
I also think that there are certain aspects of what is considered "feminine" that those women who have those traits should overcome -- timidity, weakness, and gullibility, for example.
But just because I find the concept of "femininity" profoundly silly (and perhaps damaging when social mores elevate weakness as a positive quality in women)...
This is Georgina's double whammy. She rejects the very concept of femininity as being "profoundly silly" (odd then that it has been taken so seriously by every successful civilisation) and she connects it negatively to weakness in women.
In one sense she is right. What we usually think of as feminine qualities aren't as "hardened" as the masculine ones. If that is what she means by "weakness" then perhaps she has a point.
But there are other ways to look at it. The masculine and the feminine don't exist in isolation from each other. They exist in relation to each other and go together to make up what is human. They are two parts in a dynamic relationship which together form what is human. So why see them as competing principles to be weighed against each other?
Georgina goes on to add this:
Most people are a mix of what was traditionally considered masculine and what was traditionally considered feminine. I practice law, argue with people, read history, play and watch sports, trade put-downs with men in the office, lift weights, cook wonderful desserts, wear dresses, and adore Jane Austen.
In my earlier post, I ran through a range of strategies leftist women use to permit themselves to be feminine. One that I listed was the following:
Another strategy is to claim to be mixing and matching, e.g. that you are wearing lipstick and high heels while drinking beer and putting up a shed in the backyard, or riding a Harley-Davidson whilst wearing lace.
Georgina is adopting this mix & match strategy - or something very much like it. The wearing of dresses and the making of desserts is offset by the lifting of weights and the watching of sports.
It's true that the interests of men and women overlap. It's not true, though, that the average person is a random mix of the traditionally feminine and masculine.
And there are limits to the mix & match strategy. Taken too far it would put people off. Do men really want to be in a relationship with women who are half masculine and half feminine? And how would Georgina really react if her husband were to say to her "Today I'm going to play football and have some drinks with my mates at the pub, but tomorrow I'm going to put on a dress and get my nails done down at the mall." The mix & match strategy is more like a game that middle-class lefties play to indicate political awareness - and part of the game is to know how far it can be taken.
Finally, Georgina writes:
I don't spend a lot of time worrying about where I fall on the spectrum of traditional femininity, as it is simply an irrelevant category in my life. What is important to me as a feminist is whether I have equal status and dignity in society, and whether I conduct myself in a morally responsible way.
An irrelevant category? Georgina, your femininity is significant to your self-identity. It is significant to your spouse. It is significant to how you serve your family and community. And it has an inherent value that you have the opportunity to be closely connected to.