Can we – I – become heterosexual feminists (s) who refuse to conform to "gendered emotions?"

#eL

Aug 3

- A Thought Catered from reading "They Call it Love" (Alva Gotby)

Growing up, I wondered why women are expected to labour emotionally. Why are men entitled to sex, care, and nurture from women but not so much the other way around? Why does it only matter for women to fulfill their emotional spheres and that those outside this region are just "preferences" and not "mandatory?"

It's like... If we were born women, there are conditions, like cookies on those website pages, where "the mandatory marketing statistics" contain, but not limited to:

to fulfil emotional needs
to surrender to men's, state's, church's, and police's codes of conduct on what womanhood is (to carry out optimistic emotional harmony and labour all the time)
to willingly accept hysteria treatments, including social exclusion or being called "crazy and manic" for refusing to carry on this burden

And on the side, there are some preferred cookies. Those who might sound like these:

the right to be "more logical" and to be "less emotional," *but we are allowed to call you "a defect."
the right to protest for emotional misconduct, *but we don't guarantee that anything will change
the right to refuse treatments, *but we will still leave you out of the social norm

Then, feminism came into the front pictures of my sanity. Suddenly, I understand that all these "cookies" are not "mandatory marketing statistics" at all. Perhaps, there are so many other kinds of rewriting the cookies, such as:

- "Women can be anything."

- "Men are not entitled to women's emotional .labour"

- "Capitalism, society, and ruling spheres are not entitled to women's emotional labor."

It is perfect, yes! On the paper….

For out here, I think there is still one unspeakable rule for a heterosexual man which still applies: It is freedom of choice, right? So, as a non-women, it is my right not to choose women who refuse to be emotional.

While there is nothing wrong with being emotional, while perhaps it is something "natural" for humans, I guess there will always be women like me who are not inherently optimistically emotional. I am very passionate. I curse a lot. I protest injustice all the time. I complained if women were refrained again.

Yet, it does leave me to a domain of my own: a pool of womanhood. Don't get me wrong; I love being surrounded by women.

Still, it doesn't help that until now, and I can only find romantic – and sexual – attraction toward men. And out here…. Men who roamed around are sadly still very much highly expectant that women "must" be the emotional beacon and its heavy labor workers.

Where does it leave women like me? Celibates, I guess.

It is indeed quite embarrassing to write this in a very raw way. Yet, I guess, isn't it the question a lot of (heterosexual) women bear in mind:

How about we, heterosexual women, who chose not to be the "emotional laborers" in the pool of romantic & sexual competitions? Will we be left as "unavailable goods" all over again?

Can we - I - become heterosexual feminists (s) who refuse to conform to "gendered emotions?"