I must admit, the two mainstream archetypes for womanhood - “feminine and hollow” vs. “masculine girlboss” - are both so uninspiring. Your female ancestors labored & sacrificed & bled; they helped to tame the wilderness into civilization for you; were they all unfeminine?
I’d love to see the revival of feminine archetypes that enable a depth of living. The vision of femininity as a shallow, entirely soft, consumption-driven existence is just a polar inversion of feminism, affirming the idea that to live seriously and do anything interesting with your time requires you to become masculine
Nature intended for beautiful women to float through life effortlessly, having fun, doing pilates, not partaking in the plebeian existence of professional striving. It is a recognition that female beauty in itself is enough, that it does not need status markers to validate nor reward it.
This is what is so unsettling about the SF “hot” tech girl discourse. Striving for money & prestige is inherently masculine, antithetical to the feminine ideal. When women who boast of their Stanford pedigree & VC funding also boast of their “hotness,” they’re trying to subvert nature’s will: a futile endeavor to conflate achievement & beauty as a singular force.
But nature rejects this heresy, as it demands a masculine-feminine polarity. Ultimately even these women implicitly admit that despite their impressive resumes, the primary metric by which potential mates will judge them by is beauty & feminine energy.