What is our hatred of femininity? 

It’s easy to say the words “I’m a feminist”. It’s even easier to say, “I’m against sexism”. And both statements may well be true. Most would express dismay at the viscerally disturbing image of a woman, kidnapped and continuously raped by her captor, chained by her neck to the wall. Such examples of blatant atrocity are the less commonplace, so we are comfortable stating our disapproval. Now, depraved behaviour like the above would surely merit a crime to humanity. But the more mundane, persistent, and possibly dangerous side of sexism, is the version embedded in our daily lives, hidden in plain sight and taking refuge in our social norms. Such is the sexism which divides us. 

When misogyny undoubtedly manifests itself in the way we perceive, judge, and react, social media becomes a primary source that records and demonstrates these trends and allows us to think back. A few days ago, a young Oxford scholar logged onto her Weibo account, and selected some photos. She seemed confident and fulfilled, having graduated university as first of her year, and having been granted a 200% scholarship to her chosen PhD field, mathematical modeling. She has gathered quite a following on social media over the years, consisting of adoring fans who praise her academic achievement and her elegant lifestyle. She could not have anticipated the blowup, subsequent backlash, cyberbullying, and infamy that ensued. 

I will be addressing this professor by her first name, Kate, as I have no further information of her full name, preferred title, and pronouns. The less the better, I would presume, as danger lurks for attractive, learned, and confident women. More specifically, the spark to this weibo-wide meltdown was Kate’s announcement of her new credentials. In the caption, she articulated her happiness, expressed her determination to continue her studies, and empowered Asian women to pursue careers in math, a racially and sexually unequal field. The result? Public outrage. 

1. MATHEMATICAL MODELING –YOU MEAN MODELLING?

The vitriol against Kate was mainly in one form – cyberbullying and online violence – but its justification assumed two forms. The basic argument underlying both is that she ‘faked it’. She faked her resumé, her results, her credentials, all to garner popularity on the platform. One reason this could possibly be divined was that her caption ‘didn’t even seem realistic’. One user commented: “mathematical modeling isn’t a discipline. It’s one subject. Not a discipline.” Another followed up with more insolence: “I don’t think mathematical modeling is even a thing…isn’t that just homework? For math students?” She is chastised around the internet for “not being a good liar”, as her “facts don’t even hold up”. These assumptions could be easily corrected by a Google search, so obviously, this is the weaker of the two justifications, though both are flimsy enough as it is. Most of the doubt surrounding her facts stem from the disbelief she is treated with as a whole, and people jump at any ‘flaw’ they can conjure, wanting to believe the bullies poking holes rather than verifying whether the censure was even true. And why is this? What is this disbelief? Which brings us to the second reason: she’s too pretty.

‘She looks like she’s never even gone to university,’ one user wrote. ‘She looks like she’s trying to sell underwear.’ She looks like a sl*t; an influencer who profits of her looks; a fraud; a scam artist. Kate has posted pictures of her in a Lolita skirt and her in a silk overcoat. That isn’t how an Oxford student is supposed to behave. A woman at Oxford is supposed to be studious and modest. She is supposed to be completely uninterested in anything that diverts from her studies. She cannot be both an influencer and an academic. By logic, therefore, we find that Kate does not fit in with the ideal we have for an Oxford student. She must not be one. 

Coming from these two angles, Weibo users have reached the conclusion that this has all been a publicity ploy. That Kate has been doing it for the money. And, calling upon our long-stemmed cultural derision towards women showcasing their bodies, we bully her. The cycle of social media violence is now complete. New arrivals to the Weibo topic, without being much informed on the subject matter, understand from their fellow users what atrocious crimes Kate has committed. The entire shebang seems to be over.

However, as is with most of these hurried verdicts, the jury has reopened the case in discovery of new evidence. A renowned Weibo user who gained fame for outlining advanced math problems posted the following: “randomly made some questions, does the original user want to do them?” Regardless how demeaning and lax his tone was, Kate posted a dissection of his question, to which he responded simply: “it’s real.” Weibo jurors were shocked. Only after receiving confirmation from a man that we know to be intelligent because of his gender, did we finally come to accept Kate. Users deleted their previous, explicitly-worded and incredibly offensive posts; yet, interestingly, there was no remorse either. Following the situation, users reaffirmed how their previous opinions were justified, as she “dressed immodestly” and that was good enough proof for anyone to make such a mistake. Some others even went as far to denounce Kate further and in different ways, claiming that it’s not hard at all to receive a scholarship and start university at Oxford age 16. As expected, these theories did not gain as much traction as before. The whole extravaganza passed as quickly as it swept up. No charges were pressed, none of the original users dared speak up about their horrible misjudgments. After all, it’s just a misjudgment; no matter how they might’ve hurt Kate by calling her a sex worker, they should not be required to take account for their actions. 

2. BUT WOMEN ARE EITHER PRETTY OR SMART. HOW CAN SHE BE BOTH?

A lot of articles have argued that because women’s achievements are often covered or shadowed by their male coworkers, we find a woman in Oxford, reaching higher heights than her male acquaintances, so unsettling that we refuse to believe it. And I think this viewpoint is completely valid. Though we do not realize it, how we perceive the accomplishment of females is still potently influenced by male merit, or in some cases, male frailty. This year, when the National Chinese Men’s Soccer Team performed poorly and the Women’s Team performed by comparison well, we remarked: “sad to see that the men’s team did worse than even the women.” We did not celebrate the female athletes for their achievements. Instead, we lamented that the men could not do as well. To us, this was proof enough that the men’s team was lacking in any ability whatsoever; wherein lies the power of a man if he cannot even surpass his female counterparts?

Yet I do not think this is the case for Kate. We often see newspaper headlines detailing how a young, hardworking woman born in poverty made her way through the ranks and ended up in Harvard. To these stories, we applaud. We have become somewhat desensitized to women achieving high places on the scholastic ladder. So the Oxford degree might not be the entire problem. Rather, Kate is more hated on for her luxurious lifestyle, buoyant personality, and openness to newer, more “risqué” methods of self-expression, all of which do not fit with mainstream societal expectations for high-achieving women. We are fine with a woman in Oxford. But that comes at a condition — they must fit in the narrow role we give them, or else they will be chastised.

A stereotype for educated women is that they are too educated to showcase or discuss “indecent matters” such as relationships, sex, or even revealing clothes. A stereotype for women proud of their femininity is that they are vapid, uneducated, and profit solely off their physical attractiveness. In other words, we classify “smart” women and “pretty” women as two entirely different categories, each bequeathed with our own perceptions, stereotypes, and biases. As Ms. Wormwood acutely points out in the musical Matilda: “you see the difference? You chose books. I chose looks.” Just picture a woman who loves shopping, as opposed to a woman who loves reading. The difference in the representations is apparent. One is materialistic, another is modest. One is promiscuous, another is demure. What if these two women were the same person? And here comes the irreconcilable difference that marks Kate’s case — we believe these two stereotypes cannot exist simultaneously, since stock images do not accommodate multidimensional characters. Yet the female identity is fabulously and deeply diverse. Women are not limited by the bounds of any stereotypes, not to mention these two. 

3. LOOKS, BOOKS, OR WHAT

We often represent a scholarly woman, or in fact many other strong female protagonists, as the woman who would not like shopping, who rejects what we believe as the sins of femininity — materialism, promiscuity, and coquettishness. Belle from Beauty and the Beast reads when all the other girls in the Kingdom pine after a male. Katniss Everdeen from The Hunger Games finds no value in material possessions; and while other destitute young women sell their bodies for money, she is too strong and un-feminine to succumb to this vice, instead choosing to hunt with a male friend. We put these women on a pedestal and proclaim them superior than their more feminine subordinates. Kate was once thought to choose books before looks, and this brought her popularity; however, when people believed she turned to the other side to prize looks above books, we turned against her. Imagine it was the other way around. Someone we previously thought dumb turned out to be an Oxford student graduating first of her class. Though this too is a deconstruction of our misogynistic worldview, we would accept it far more than we would accept a woman reconciling with more traditionally feminine parts of her. Legally Blonde, a cult classic made in 2001 that was tremendously popular around English-speaking countries at that time, represented just that — a vacuous young woman becoming more intelligent over time, turning from materialistic pursuits to practicality and intellectual advancement. We loved that. We lapped it up. So what is this obsession with these girl-power females, who, as strong female role models, reject other young women who are not similarly ‘strong’? 

I believe the entire books vs. looks comparison can be generalized to a more universal trend. Books represent traditional male achievement that females were barred from entering; looks represent the traditionally female roles that women were subjugated in and compelled to enter. Males, from the start of these rigid gender roles, have held a unique contempt for traditionally female traits. If a man, during these times, took on a traditionally female role, he would be subject to much ridicule. Women were the “Other”, the Lesser, thus they had to have certain characteristics, characteristics that cemented their lesser-ness, their otherness. 

However, over time, following the women’s suffrage movement and other similar women’s rights movements across the globe, the female understanding has achieved an awakening. It is necessary to unshackle women, and allow them to enter fields previously dominated by men. This process is still ongoing. However, it is undeniable that currently women have access to rights that weren’t possible a century ago thanks to those brave suffragettes who fought for the young women of tomorrow. And now, we look back towards the traditional female identity with disgust and ridicule, simply because it is too “female”. 

We need to understand that feminism is not only about equality between all genders, but equality within the female gender, equality and inclusion for all types of female expression. We need to understand that though men had a great influence in creating the traditional female identity, reclaiming it and taking pride in it is a great step forward in women’s rights activism. Devaluing traditional femininity is a big part of misogyny that must be dismantled and not echoed. Women internationally can demonstrate an array of traits, and these traits may be traditionally feminine or not, but they should be how each woman chooses to express herself without targeting others. No matter which gender, it is okay to love makeup. It is okay to love shopping. It is okay to love math. It is okay to be smart. It is okay to be all of these things at once. Especially for women, whose personal identities often displace them from stereotypes and thus result in tragedy. 

Having “strong female lead characters” like Belle or Katniss is not a huge step forward for feminism — presenting one singular character as a special case among her oblivious female counterparts does not respect the female identity. But having people like Kate, pioneers of Asian women in very typically masculine fields, does. And being in a typically masculine field does not mean Kate must reject her feminine identity. Instead, as we clearly see, she embraces her own version of it. She wears a short skirt on campus with pride. She wraps a delicately crafted silk overcoat around herself without caring what others would think. She likes luxurious items, meaning that she likes items that are well crafted, beautifully designed, and ethically sourced. It doesn’t make her “shallow” or “vapid” or “fraudulent”. Instead, it well shows that for women, with a brilliant mind easily comes an appreciation for her the traditionally feminine identity. And we...just have to accept it. 

4. KATE, YOU DON’T NEED TO APOLOGIZE

Have you ever scoffed at an influencer wearing a bikini? Have you ever narrowed your eyes at women putting on makeup? Have you ever seen or heard or read about women on media who claim they are “not like other girls”, that they are superior to the female population because they are more like a traditional male? 

It is too female to profit off your body. It is too female to admire material goods. It is too female to love beauty. It is too female to wear revealing outfits. Kate, an intellectual, is not allowed to do any of the above, or her credibility is ruined. Women who do demonstrate the above traits cannot be intelligent like Kate. The divide is apparent, but also entirely artificial. 

The entire Weibo contingency ended with a formal address from Kate. In it, she expressed that after some period of self-reflection, she has decided that she seemed so “unconvincing” to viewers because her general vibe was that she held too high an esteem for money and material items that it was misleading. I completely understand why she posted this, and I have nothing bad to say about it. However, in my personal opinion the entire post was gratuitous, and I hope it was more of a courtesy post than genuine. What I regret most, though, is that by this mass pressure and abuse applied on her, we forced an entirely organic, unique, brilliant woman whose sole existence knocked down stereotypes like they were strawmen, to change. We forced her to concede “I like money” on social media, and we forced her to admit: “I like to boast, and I like wealth, and luxurious things”. Like her personality was problematic somehow. We forced a newly-graduated, first-of-her-class, 200% Oxford scholarship recipient who was having the time of her life to endure this torment and then apologize. 

It is all fun and games when we discuss this of our own volition, but when one is the victim and target of such mass cyberbullying as Kate has faced, this becomes no small issue. Psychology has told us that everyone’s genes predispose them to react differently. Kate may be a confident young woman that don’t let any negative comments get to her. I hope that is the case. But as social media definitely does not reveal all facets of one’s life, there is no way to know. Severe defamation as what transpired is criminally prosecutable, ethically heinous, and could possibly cause trauma that could never be resolved. Imagine being called a “sl*t” on social media by millions of people. Imagine facing altered judgments from those dear to you, your family, your acquaintances, your loved ones. Imagine you are already suffering from a mental disorder, or other sensitive, prolonged stress. We have put a scar on this young woman’s life when she still has so much life ahead of her. This crime is unpardonable. We should not treat it trivially. It is not comparable to the hate that celebrities receive on a day-to-day basis, as celebrities are well-equipped and experienced in dealing with such occasions, most having their own PR teams, while Kate is just a normal person living her life. There should be no intention to harm, defame, or malign anybody who has participated in the online harassment of Kate. But I truly hope we will never see these actions replicated on another young woman. And I truly hope that Kate will be able to find help if she needs it.

So last but not least, as we’ve all no doubt anticipated, one fundamental question remains. Did Kate surreptitiously acquire experts’ help when solving the Weibo PhD-level problem?

Or is it…how can we eliminate the misogyny surrounding femininity?