You literally stated strong (and the appearance of muscles in this case) is what makes women pretty now. You literally followed that up with "STRONG IS THE NEW PRETTY" But when someone with muscles is criticized for not being feminine, inherent in that critique is the implication that femininity requires softness and weakness-I AM CRITICIZING THAT IDEA ONLY! Again I AM NOT SAYING THAT AND HAVE NOT SAID THAT. You seem to think I’m saying women without muscles are ugly or bad or wrong. That’s not me doing anything to make myself feel better.Īnd here’s a part of my original post you have failed to acknowledge: “the idea that there is a single look that is more feminine is inherently sexist and passé” that means there’s not one definition of femininity. I’m not degrading anything other than sexist, classist social beauty standards that have sought to marginalize and limit women (especially women of color) for centuries. I’m suggesting that equating softness and weakness with femininity or being “pretty” is terribly problematic. You’ll have to provide some sort of logic to make that claim. And strength is a far more positive goal than “pretty.” Your assumption that I’m doing anything to make myself feel better is preposterous. “Strong” doesn’t necessarily mean “jacked.” But certainly the implication that femininity is reliant on softness or weakness can be critiqued. Yes, I criticized the logic of the women who were offensive in the original poster’s story, but the line you quote is not degradation. When the standard those people are setting/reproducing is problematic, then yeah, I do “get to” critique that.