Several readers have written to me recently asking me to write a post on how to "handle" femmes.  I'm not typically attracted to femmes myself, but I've dated a few (and have hosted a guest post about mistakes butches make in butch-femme relationships).

My take is this: the problem is the question. 

Femmes aren't something to be "dealt with;" they're individual people to be understood and communicated with.  Thinking about things in your girlfriend that you don't understand as "femme characteristics" rather than as the characteristics of a particular partner or individual is not a good place to start.

Second--and I'm only talking to female-identified butches here--it creates this dichotomous idea that you are the masculine one and they are the feminine one.  Yes, I know you like the butch-femme dynamic--presumably, so does your femme partner.  But you are a woman.  Chances are, this is part of the reason they're with you and not with a man.  Acting like they are the "crazy, emotional, typical" woman implicitly puts you in the role of the "sensible man."  That is too straight, dude.  Way too straight.  It sails right past the butch-femme dynamic and lands in the heteronormativity bucket.

Complaining about "dealing" with femmes makes you sound like one of those irritating Men's Health headlines (e.g., "Why Don't Women Just Say What They Mean?").  Newsflash: no one says what they mean.  And we are all emotional.  We just express these things in different ways.  It's a bad idea to talk about your relationship in a way that makes you sound like a bro (again, unless your identity is consistent with bro-dom, in which case, go for it). 

OMG.  I just got word that I didn't get a job I really, really wanted because the boss-to-be thought that I would be "too much of a leader" and insufficiently deferential.  Problems with this assessment include:

• I've been told that I'm not confident *enough*--how is it possible that I came across as someone who would be too much of a leader?
• The boss-to-be hinted at this in the interview, basically asking me if I would defer to the boss's judgment.  I said, unequivocally, that I would.  I said something like, "Certainly, I'll be honest about my opinion, but you're the boss and I know I have a great deal to learn from you.  If you want me to do something, I will do it to the absolute best of my ability whether I agree with it or not."  How is that not deferential?

I've been thinking about this quite a bit since I heard it earlier today.  After some reflection, I told my "inside source" that I think the problem might have had partly to do with gender.  That is, women are expected to act in a certain way.  By showing up in a women's suit, etc., I made it look like I was trying to "do femininity," but that I was doing it wrong.

If this is true--and my inside source (herself an incredibly smart, assertive, feminine woman) thinks it might be--then the solution might be to make it clear that I am not attempting to "do" femininity at all.  Maybe if I wear a men's suit and even a tie, it will be clear that I am trying to "do" masculinity.

In truth, I am not trying to "do" anything but be the best possible version of myself.  But I wonder if, subconsciously, my would-be boss (though extremely progressive) understood me as a woman, judging me by implicitly comparing me to other women.  If I wore guys' clothes, I would be putting myself more firmly in the "masculine" category.  Not that I would be judged as a man, but rather that I might be judged more by a masculine standard, meaning that my apparent lack of deference(!) would be judged compared to men, not to women, and thus looked upon more favorably, since assertiveness is a quality more valued in men.

Either way, depressing.