Dworkin Is Factually Wrong AGAIN

Claiming that a standard of feminine beauty based upon a body where very little is left unaltered is the beauty standard resulting from a bourgeois democracy (because beauty is ‘democratized’ so anyone can sort of kind of maybe attain it with enough work) is SO AHISTORICAL, like ancient Egypt? Plastic surgery, fuck ton of makeup, shaving everything, perfumed cones on your wig monarchy/theocracy. France pre-revolution, a monarchy, fuck ton of makeup, giant fake hair, corsetry, after the revolution? Much less fake hair and makeup. I can cite SO many examples of body modification in precapitalist/monarchical societies it’d make your damned head spin. Victorian era, very much a bourgeois democracy, yes corsetry and fake hair (though that was disapproved of) but no makeup allowed for respectable ladies, no body shaving, and it was considered a sign of being bad and sinful if you were an ugly woman because “goodness makes women beautiful” *cue me punching something*.

Does she look feminist enough? Does she fuck like a feminist?

Are just “is she pretty enough” and “does she fuck like a nice girl or like a slut” by other names with different but equally restrictive demands placed upon women.

Effort spent monitoring whether women’s appearances and sexual behavior are acceptable by a set of arbitrary standards is never feminist

This Bridge Called My Back: Writings By Radical Women Of Color

So my friend recommended this book and I’m going to read it and it sounds awesome

This Bridge Called My Back: Writings By Radical Women Of Color

I want a term for working class

non-bourgeois feminism that isn’t co-opted by a bunch of swelfs and telfs that’s also not anarcho feminist or marxist feminist (I like both but I want one that’s broad revolutionary left)