Feminism, as defined by Dictionary.com, is the “doctrine advocating social, political and all other rights of women equal to those of men.”
Sounds a plan.
So why were so many of the Women’s March on Washington, D.C., participants wearing hats made to symbolize a female reproductive organ?
See, that’s what I don’t get. I haven’t a clue how the advocacy for the dictionary definition of feminism logically leads to the wearing of such hats. What’s the message with putting a portrayal of a private organ, whether male or female, on one’s head?
That you have one?
That you want one?
Seriously, clueless on that count.
Obviously, not all the women in the march on D.C. were there to wear ridiculous hats, or demand the stop of Donald Trump becoming president, or even to demand full, unfettered and-or taxpaid access to birth control and abortion, which is what so many of these types of women’s events end up being, it seems.
Some marchers, admittedly, were there simply to draw attention to the fact that equality between genders is something that should never be taken lightly, and that males and females should be granted equal access to roles, positions, employment opportunities and the like, not just in America but at more misogynist spots around the world.
OK to that, too. But sadly, that more rational message was lost in a sea of moronic messaging – including ones that tried to paint President Trump in the same anti-women, anti-gay, anti-minority class as say, adherents of Sharia.
Or, as celebrity actress Ashley Judd said, reciting another’s poem: “I feel Hitler in these streets, Nazis renamed.”
Come on, now. Do women in America really have it that bad? It’s just ridiculous to suggest America doesn’t offer women the same opportunities for success as men.
It’s victim politics. And here, in my view, is what real feminism is:
When I was girl, I played baseball, not softball. I played baseball with my father, baseball with my brother, and baseball in Little League — the only giirl at the time, in my area, to do so. Some mocked, some were shocked, some applauded. Regardless, I had equal access.
When I joined the Army, I chose to go in as a 63H (a tank track repairer). My military test scores were high enough to enter about any MOS I wanted; for personal reasons, I picked mechanics. And during my service, I actually worked on trucks and on power-packs for tanks. I was one of the few women in a field of men who chose that path. Some mocked, some were shocked, some applauded. I had the equal access.
When I separated from the Army and went to find work in the civilian sector, I ultimately landed a position at a tire shop, then at two separate diesel truck shops — the only female, once again, in a sea of guys. Some mocked, some were shocked, some applauded. But once again, I had the access.
When I was married and my husband and I decided to have a family, I chose to continue working full-time for the first two, then to stay home with the third, then to go back to work for the fourth, all the while shrugging off the many, many warnings from women who said having children would destroy my chance for career success. Hmm … I think of those warnings sometimes as I consider my two published books (and more on the way), my journalism and writing awards, my many, many, many published works, my appearances on national television and radio … truly, the list goes long.
And here’s the kicker: Aren’t these types of experiences just what what these marchers on Washington, D.C., say they’re fighting for — equality? Equal access?
So my take on feminism is this: I like the dictionary definition. I’ll fight for the dictionary definition, when such fight is necessary. But the angry women marching on D.C. name-calling Trump and wearing ridiculous hats don’t represent the realities of America, 2017 — or even of the America of my youth and growing years. The access, for those who truly want it, is pretty much already there.
Regarding your “What Feminism Really Is…” commentary:
To say that the women’s march was about “feminism” is, I believe, both a bit of a stretch and something of a straw man (which you proceed to attack — I’ll get to that in a moment). I can allow that the march did not seem to have a clear focused message or agenda, but if I had to pick a topic that it was trying to address, I would probably have to go with standing up for women’s health/reproductive rights (hence the funny hats) — NOT feminism. Much of the Trump administration, and specifically Vice President Pence, have views that start with anti-abortion but end up with the subjugation of women’s health and sexual decisions to government and social control or sanction. Many women (most? I have no idea) feel the fight for control of their own bodies is far from over, and I can’t disagree with that sentiment. I won’t get into an abortion discussion here, but I have to think that there’s a better way to regulate/reduce/eliminate abortions in this country than to subject women to oversight, censure, and/or penalties for making decisions about their health, the apparent tools of choice for those most against abortion. Men certainly don’t have to deal with this level of scrutiny when it comes to their health and sexual choices.
So I don’t think the march was about feminism, per se, but let’s say you’re right and it was. You mention all of the opportunities you had and took advantage of at various points in your life, using them as examples of how women need only act to take advantage of opportunities they already have. In some cases, I can certainly agree with this. But I do have a few questions:
1) You say you played baseball in Little League. And bravo, by the way. Baseball and softball are similar but very different sports (I preferred baseball myself), and having the freedom to choose between the two is nice. How long did you play baseball? And did you continue playing baseball through middle school, through high school? Did you have to switch to softball? COULD you have played baseball if you wanted to at a higher level than Little League (without a legal fight, that is)?
2) You mention “equal access” in the Army, and the armed forces have certainly evolved over time to be more egalitarian when it comes to women. But could you have chosen a combat position at the time you were in service?
3) What sacrifices did you have to make either for your career or your family to balance everything? What sacrifices did your husband have to make to accommodate your choices? Usually sacrifices have to be made at SOME level, though often we label those sacrifices “choices” or “hard decisions”. I tend to think that the decision between family and career doesn’t have to be an either/or choice, but it really depends heavily on what you’re looking to have in your life. But I also think that the sacrifices that are made still tend to affect women more than men in the majority of families (another evolving situation, I have to say).
I guess what I’m getting at is that you seem to have made the most of the opportunities that you have had, and I find that commendable. However, I also think that you tend to proceed from the specific (your life, your opportunities, your choices) to the general (every woman’s life, every woman’s opportunities, every woman’s choices), and that doesn’t necessarily hold true: just because something worked for you and your life situation doesn’t mean every woman has the same chances. I have difficulty accepting that the fight for women’s equality is over; women are still seen, in too many cases, as somewhat less than equal (or at least less than equivalent in important ways) to men — with commensurate fewer opportunities — in far too many circumstances. Things have been changing, ARE changing, but there is still plenty of room for improvement. Part of that improvement comes from making people aware that these inequities still exist … and one way to make people more aware is to march.
Thank you for your time.
(I apologize for the fake email below. I wasn’t looking to engage in discussion, only point out a few things for thought in a respectful manner)