Stereotypically Effed.

My dear followers,

It is I again. This time, you will not see me whining about things people repeatedly say or ask. However, I will whine about something in our society. I came across an article recently where they talk about a radical feminist, Jessica Valenti, who beaks former Governor Sarah Palin saying she cannot be a feminist because she is a conservative, a wife, and a mother. Some of you may be thinking, "aren't feminists supposed to be liberals though? Feminists don't usually get married." or whatever other thoughts may be running through your mind that would lead you to agree with this Jessica chick.

In high school and until the beginning of my university years, I hated feminists. When I thought of a feminist, the thought that came to my mind was a bitter divorcée, old maid, or lesbian who hated men, and blamed society's values for that. That may be applicable to some modern feminists out there. But I've come to realize that that is not what defines feminism. When I was in high school I was talking to one of my teachers about feminism, and said, "Urgh, I hate feminists. They're just a bunch of angry women who want to rule the world."
This teacher, in response to the comment I made, said, "Jesus Christ was a feminist if you think about it. He forgave the adulterous woman, taught men not to lust on other women, and treated women with respect." Her response was what marked the beginning of my quest to redefine feminism.

Originally, the objective of feminism was to grant women equal rights that men had. In the USA women weren't allowed to vote until 1893 (and that was just for the state of Colorado), until 1963 women made $0.75 for every dollar an equally qualified man made in the same job, women didn't start serving in the jury until 1870, and the first birth control clinic wasn't open until 1916. (Information Please Database, 2007). So yes, in a political and economic sense, women have been historically oppressed, especially when compared to men. So there is logical reason to place more emphasis on women and building them up politically and economically when pursuing gender equality.

But here's the problem: with time, women took this to the extreme. They, through their attitudes and coherence in lifestyle and values, took it to the point where they allowed society to redefine feminism. People don't see feminism as granting women the same rights that men have; it's about making women identical to men, it's about undermining men, it's about holding irrelevant liberal views. If I were to tell someone I'm a feminist, they don't see me as someone who simply believes in gender equality; they see me as one of the crazy women from Salt Lake City protesting to have the priesthood.

Thus, my objective for this post is to list out the common stereotypes for feminists and discuss why feminism has no causation for holding the views and values that feminists stereotypically are expected to hold.

Stereotype #1: Man-haters

On one occasion, I was hanging out with a couple guyfriends and they were checking out girls and commenting on their looks. I turn to them and say, "Why do you men objectify women this way? They're human beings composed of more than just boobs and a butt."
One of them said, "Kim, are you a feminist?"
I said, "Depending on what you define as a feminist, yes."
He said, "Ah, so you're a man-hater."

I don't hate men. My close friends can stand by me on that. Yes, they have their stereotypical weaknesses (though, not all of them have them) -- like promiscuity, indifference, superficiality, impulsiveness, etc. But they also have their strengths; think of the industrial revolution, for example. It occurred before women were granted the rights that they have today (1700's-1800's), thus making it clear that, thanks to the men, we have machines that facilitate our work and increase efficiency (though leading to structural unemployment, which is another issue). Yes, one can argue that had women been given the same rights, opportunities, and privileges that men were given back in the day, we could have still had those things, if not better. But, we didn't. And what a great thing that men were able to use their time in the spotlight wisely!

The point I am trying to make here is, to be a feminist doesn't mean you need to resent or undermine men. Yes, it is exciting to see women succeed and shine, but men don't need to be put down in order for women to achieve that spotlight. If women are as awesome as they have been proving to be these past decades, there is no necessity to label men as pigs, stupid, incompetent, perverted, etc.

Stereotype #2: Pro-choice

I guess you can argue that abortion has to do with feminism in that a woman has the right to choose not to carry an unwanted child for 9 months she can't afford to sustain. But when I think of feminism, I think: "Society and government have some things to correct so that women can be given the same rights and opportunities as men do." In this case, the fact that women have to carry a child for 9 months followed by a painful delivery as a result of unprotected sex, while men can just walk away from the situation, isn't the government or society's fault (unless it's rape); it's nature's fault.

The same way the sky is blue, female bodies are naturally designed for a more demanding procreation role than men's bodies. Yes, it's unfair -- but there's not much you can do about it (other than abstaining and/or using protection). Getting an abortion will not equalize your rights to those of men. When I think of rights, I think of voting, working, voicing your opinions, or contributing to society in some way -- not of seeing your unborn child as a parasite that needs to be removed. In fact, I think the only party whose rights are being played with are the child's which is to live (not the mother's or the father's).

Stereotype #3: Single parents

Here's another liberal view that stereotypical feminists hold: family. They would argue that women shouldn't need a husband in order to have children; she should have the right to have and raise children without being married (though sperm donor, adoption, etc.). Motherhood is definitely a great thing and you could even argue that those women have better hearts than married couples who purposely plan not to have children. One can also argue that waiting to be married to start a family is a form of depriving a woman of her right to raise a child.

But how is choosing to provide a complete family for my children keeping me from my rights? I don't see choosing to deprive my child of a father as a right. In fact, I think when you wait until you're married to start a family, you're granting your child the right to be raised in a complete, two-parent home. So, in other words, it's not about you -- it's about your kid and choosing what's best for him/her, and that's what motherhood is about. So if a mother chooses to raise her kid in a two-parent home, she's not being an anti-feminist; she's just choosing what she believes to be the best nurturing environment for her child. Isn't feminism about granting women that right to choose?

Stereotype #4: Keeping their last name

Last names are another one too. I love my last name Mottola. If I never get married, I'll be happy keeping my last name. It's cool. But if I do get married, I think it's traditional and fun to take your husband's last name! How is that depriving myself of any of my rights if I chose to take my husband's last name? You could argue that if your husband had an ugly last name or for whatever other reason you didn't want to take his last name, and you weren't allowed to keep your own, then that's being deprived of a right. Sure, that's fair. Just don't label married women who choose to take their husband's last name as anti-feminists. That's just silly.

Stereotype #5: Career-oriented

I read an article the other day about a conservative woman (Phyllis Schlafly, founder of pro-family organization Eagle Forum) who said that women paid the same as men won't find husbands. Obviously this is an extreme way to look at it, and yes I would agree that that's an anti-feminist comment. So in this sense, yes, I would agree that women should never shrink themselves just so they can find a husband.

On the other hand, if a woman chooses to sacrifice her career to be a full-time mom and wife, she's not being an anti-feminist. That was her decision. Unless of course she was trying to get other women to do the same. Like the argument I used for abortion and for single parents, she's putting her children's needs first, and that's her right. A woman can believe in gender equality and fight for female rights without paying a nanny to raise her kids for her.

Stereotype #6: Rape is only the guy's fault

I totally agree that rape happens because the rapist chose to rape and that no one should ever blame the victim for getting raped. But, for safety's sake, girls should avoid walking by themselves at night in skimpy clothing. It would be easy to argue that this kind of a mentality is a deprivation of a woman's right to wear whatever she wants. But would you ever wear nice clothes and expensive jewellery when walking alone down a dangerous neighbourhood at night? Of course not! For your safety's sake, you wouldn't wear that. Are you gonna be an expensive clothes activist because of it? No, because that's dumb. For the same reason, it is safer to keep yourself from a situation where you could more likely be raped.

Stereotype #7: Chivalry is dead

How many times have I heard boys say they were hesitant to open the door for girls because the last time they did, the girls reacted negatively? Seriously, how is letting a dude be nice to you undermining your rights as a woman? As my friend so wisely put it, "Girls who don't like chivalry are stupid". Dang, right! If you really feel inferior every time someone opens the door, helps carry your books, pushes your chair to the table, or lets you in first, instead of feeling respected (which is the original purpose of chivalry), it's your self-esteem that needs some working on. It's one thing to not expect boys to be chivalrous, but it's another thing to not allow them to be chivalrous.

The moral here is that the concept of feminism is not and shouldn't be correlated with liberal values, or modern feminist lifestyles or views. The same way conservative people shouldn't beak the Clinton chick for being pregnant and actually keeping her baby (though some of the tweets were hilarious), liberal people shouldn't beak Sarah Palin for being called a feminist. A conservative woman like Sarah Palin can be a feminist. And I'll even be bold enough to say that a radical conservative Phyllis Schlafly can be considered a feminist because she believes in women's basic rights (freedom of speech being one of them, evidenced by the books she published and her talks and interviews). Obviously she has very extreme anti-feminist views that I personally don't agree with, but you don't see her protesting against a woman's right to vote, to be educated, or to work. I think the problem here is people have taken certain concepts to such an extreme that society has redefined them to the point where those concepts which originally had progressive approaches have developed negative connotations. Some have responded to this by coming up with new terms to replace those original concepts, or, which is what I'm trying to do, redefine those concepts by what they originally meant through research and study.