The definition of “feminist” has changed over the years, but I am fairly confident we have all seen at least one example of today’s version.
She is typically a woman who defies her need for a man by wearing a button proclaiming, “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle” on her “This is what a feminist looks like” T-shirt.
We live in a time when women are empowered more than the mothers of the feminist movement could have ever imagined, and it’s superb. But do we want to continue in the direction we’re going?
Today’s feminists are sometimes more than over-the-top in their quests for “emancipation.” How much more emancipated can we get? As in most “equality” movements, it seems as though feminists are looking for rights that exceed those of the men with which they are in constant competition.
Their propaganda-driven campaigns carve divisions between the sexes. There is a way to be a feminist in a graceful way. You can be a girl in pearls and a feminist at the same time; at the risk of being jumped on for my pre-historic method of thinking, we’re girls — it’s okay to maintain a certain level of femininity.
That’s part of what makes us different from men.
I believe that a true feminist is an exceptionally strong woman in any capacity; yes, even a traditional capacity accepted by mainstream society. What constitutes strong? Being able to handle the curve balls life throws? Endeavoring to excel at a career? Having a good family and social life? Enjoying hobbies, and trying to make every day a new opportunity to better ourselves and the world?
Somewhere along the way, the meaning of “feminism” became lost in translation .
Take “The Vagina Monologues,” which is enormously popular to universities and women alike — the darling of women’s studies departments, yet in an effort to empower women, it has an effect of almost degradation.
“The Vagina Monologues” is an attempt to embrace the power of womanhood and to decry violence against women — both extraordinarily noble ideas.
But isn’t a play that focuses on women as sexual objects essentially perpetuating the problem that promotes violence in the first place?
Why is it women are always complaining we’re not given equal time, equal pay and equal rights, yet we rave about a piece of work that objectifies a part of the body? If we really want to be equal, let’s celebrate the use of our mental capacity!
In celebrating that we have different body parts, we’re basically saying, “Hi, men. You’re still smarter than us, just like you’ve been claiming all these years. We’re just making a point of proving it by writing a play about one of the only things that make us different!”
But it’s not true! So why are we going out of our way to perpetuate a myth of female physical, but not mental superiority?
Some of the greatest women in history have been known for their mental endurance — not their ability to seduce an underage girl, as was mentioned in “The Vagina Monologues.”
In fact, there are so many women who exemplify mental strength, courage and innovative authority that Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison wrote an entire book about them. “American Heroines: The Spirited Women Who Shaped Our Country,” spans 347 pages and pays homage to 45 of the women who made women what we are today — feminists, in fact, who revolutionized the idea of women in society by participating in activities that today’s feminists would no doubt discount as traditional female behavior.
Most of them were married, had families, didn’t hate men and embraced traditional society, but still managed to change it.
A certain Ms. Ann Coulter gets the reputation for being many things, including cold, hard, calculated, the nightmare of liberals; but maybe it’s because she’s a woman of superior intelligence that isn’t afraid to point out hypocrisy in society.
People, even other women, don’t like being called on their hypocritical behavior, particularly by a woman. The left can only claim ridiculous activists like Gloria Steinem and Barbara Boxer.
What do they do?
Challenge elections?
Bash men in a congressional fashion?
Why are feminists so angry that an “anti-feminist” group was chosen to help women in Iraq? Is it because feminists have a political agenda and they saw a new opportunity to promote that agenda in the fledgling political landscape of Iraq? Why are they “anti-feminist”? Because they’re going to teach the women of Iraq to be strong and independent without teaching them how to overthrow the government?
I’m a feminist. But I’m not the kind of feminist that wears it on my shirt or writes it on a sign. I like to think I have it in my character and in my hope for the future of women. We’ve achieved so much, and we’re capable of so much more. So let’s hear it for the girls and for the women full of potential — the power-lunching, family-running women and mothers of the future, we are!
Send comments to Danielle at [email protected].
