I know. It seems implausible. But I read it on the Internet, so it must be almost true.
Today’s headline comes from this here link, which I’m promoting from the comments because, although the article was published in October of 2007, it is so rare and unexpected and seemingly anti-antifeminist it deserves another look.
The article summarizes a 2007 study wherein researchers inexplicably asked the question “Hey, what say we find out if feminists really are frigid man-hating hags?” After surveying a bunch of straight couples, they concluded that, despite the enormous popularity of myths describing feminists as the most miserable, “sexually unappealing” abominations on the planet, hetero relationships wherein feminism is somewhat embraced are “healthier” for both women and men.
Good news for straight women who are constantly plagued by fears that feminism is incompatible with heterosex.
Still, I have to wonder how many of the women identifying as “feminist” in the study were in fact the sort of feminist for whom “pole dancer” is a synonym. What I suggest is not altogether an unlikely scenario, since this species of feminist is, as we know, much more common than the feminist kind of feminist. Feminists who use their empowerfulization to reclaim femininity, you know, for themselves goddammit, would of course enjoy the reinforcingly pleasant side effect of appeasing dudes who are threatened by non-patriarchal gender roles. Which just might account for the male satisfaction with feminism found in the study.
I mention this because, in accordance with the dominant pornulated rape culture paradigm, women who really do defy traditional femininity and identify as human beings would, pretty much by definition, be sexually unappealing to today’s men of action. And by “men” I mean “male persons invested in the notion that women = sex.”
Of course, men who identify as “feminist” are subject to the narrowed eye of suspicion right off the bat.