Skip to main content

Old-School Feminism Isn't Sexist

Feminism: "noun, the advocacy of women's rights on the basis of the equality of the sexes."

The right to work. That's feminism. The right to vote. That's feminism. Equal education and employment opportunities. That's feminism. Equal pay. That's feminism. Reproductive rights. That's feminism.

Feminism is about equality. It's about women being treated as equals in and out of the home, in and out of the school, in and out of the workplace, in and out of any place where they step foot. In accordance with the law, all men and women should be treated as equals. 

Here's what feminism isn't: feminism isn't seeking vengeance against innocent parties, due to the abuses and inequalities of the past. Feminism isn't seeking privilege over peers. Feminism isn't about power and control just for the sake of power and control.

I'm an old-school feminist. I think it's wrong young women are often discouraged from taking an interest in certain academic studies which would be more profitable to them in the long-run. I think it's unfair women have to work twice as hard as men to even get noticed professionally. I think it's despicable many in business see women as nothing but a pretty face. I think it's unjust women get paid less than men for working the same job, with the same level of efficiency. I think it's criminal male legislators are able to deem what women can and cannot do with their bodies after they become impregnated. While progressions have been made on the women-rights front over the years, we still have a long ways to go - with certain groups actively attempting to regress said progressions (just look at the Supreme Court). Having said that, these new-school "feminists" (I see them as anything but) are doing more harm than good for the cause, and need to seriously reflect, and change their tactics, before the term feminist becomes even more unfairly bastardized than it is today.

Many new-school feminists don't want equality. They want vengeance. They want punishment. They want power. And it doesn't matter how it's attained. I'm sorry, but that's not feminist. If anything, it's antithetical to the cause. 

"Believe all women!" That's not feminist. In yesteryear, women weren't even given the time of day to report alleged cases of sexual improprieties to law enforcement. Hearing them; taking their allegations seriously; thoroughly investigating them; and allowing the evidence/truth to prevail is equality. If a little boy alleged a grown woman fondled him, would we still say, "Believe all women!"? I'd sure hope not. If the woman were physically attractive, would that thereby decrease the potential trauma experienced by the boy? No. Abuse has no gender, so every contention of it should be heard; taken seriously; thoroughly investigated; and proven or disproven through evidence. That's equality.

"Vote all women!" Again, that's not feminist. It's not feminist to go around saying a woman should be elected to public office simply because she's a woman. Is that not what men have been doing for centuries? "Vote for the man! He's not a woman!" It also does a disservice to qualified women running for office. While they may very well take pride in their sex, I have a wild hunch they take just as much pride in their educational and professional accomplishments. That's equality.

Making false accusations of sexual improprieties against men only hurts the cause. Playing solely the gender-card only hurts the cause. Seeming to care more about punishing people in power, with or without just cause, only for the sake of attaining power, over achieving equality, does nothing but hurt the cause. As the definition states, feminism is about equality, and the more these new-school feminists stray away from said definition, the further old-school feminists will need to travel to attain it.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"