I'm The 18-, Now 19-, Year-Old Female That Will Never Be A Modern*-Day Feminist

I'm The 18-, Now 19-, Year-Old Female That Will Never Be A Modern*-Day Feminist

I would still rather be caught dead than calling myself a modern-day feminist.

480
views

I'm a 19-year-old female and I will never be a feminist.

Correction: Modern day feminist.*

Is that better? For the hundreds of "feminists," acting as misogynists through their phone screens as they stare at Facebook to bash this article.

Some of the feminists that commented on "I'm an 18-Year-Old Female And I Will Never Be A Feminist" said the following:

"Hahaha this article is trash. Maybe you should educate yourself instead of writing articles that clearly show you have no idea what you're talking about." β€” Adriana C.
"Hilarious that literally a child is trying to explain to grown women who she doesn't need feminism. Ok boo, you're welcome for all the privilege you enjoy because of it tho!! πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚" #soignorant β€” Mary C.
"AAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Oh, lord. Save me from 18 year olds who have it all figured out. Thanks for dropping your knowledge bombs on us, kid. Hilarious." β€” Amber B.
"Her opinion proves that she's less educated, and her age provides her the arrogance to denigrate feminism while benefiting from the efforts of feminists who came before her." β€” Amber B.
"GET EDUCATED. πŸ‘ŽπŸΌπŸ‘ŽπŸΌπŸ‘ŽπŸΌπŸ‘ŽπŸΌπŸ‘ŽπŸΌπŸ‘ŽπŸΌπŸ‘ŽπŸΌπŸ‘ŽπŸΌπŸ‘ŽπŸΌπŸ‘ŽπŸΌπŸ‘ŽπŸΌ" β€” Lizzie B.

OK, fine. My ignorance must be showing. Let me convince you otherwise.

Let's start with Susan B. Anthony. After her teaching career, her dedication to woman's suffrage was just getting started. She began going to temperance rallies, but she was not allowed to voice her opinion because she was a woman. For those of you that don't know, temperance is abstinence from alcoholic beverages. Due to her not being able to speak at these meetings, she began to travel and essentially speak for women that couldn't speak for themselves. She spoke on things like slavery and petitioned for women to be able to own their own property. She ended her career with a bang and convinced the University of Rochester to admit women.

The women's rights movement technically began in 1848, when the first gathering was held in mid-July in New York. The organizers of this event were Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott. Approximately 100 people attended this event where Stanton announced the "Declaration of Sentiments, Grievances, and Resolutions."

During the 19th century, women were expected to do nothing but raise their children and enable their husbands to be healthy and happy so they could do all the things that women weren't allowed to do. Work for women was very limited and if they were married they were not allowed to control their own wages. Chances are, most middle-class women had no way to make money outside of their home.

Tunneling back to temperance, women wanted to be able to protect their families as a whole from husbands that preferred to spend a majority of their money drinking. In order to do that, they had to be able to vote. There was a massive group of people that wanted the prohibition of alcohol to take place, and women were the face of the movement. When women realized how much power they had outside of the home, thanks to alcohol abuse, health issues, and the societal issues that alcoholism caused, they started pushing for the right to own property, divorce their husbands, have them arrested for beatings, etc.

With that being said, first-wave feminism (1848) is something we as women truly needed. No human should ever be cooped up in a house with no way to expand their lives. That's something most people refuse to do to pets nowadays. Nonetheless, I'm saying some women were treated as equals to dogs before the first wave of feminism came through.

The second wave (1960-1990) was primarily based on the Equal Rights Movement. Some people claim that the feminists of this time period were getting "increasingly more radical."

The third wave of feminism (the mid-1990s) is less political and more so about women physically, and women's personal narratives. Although, third-wave feminists still advocate for equal pay, equal rights, and other things first and second-wavers were primarily focused on.

This is the most uneducated and blatantly ignorant article I've ever read. Your privilege and hatred towards women is on clear display. -Erin L.

Erin L. on "I'm An 18-Year-Old Female And I Will Never Be A Feminist"

So yes, any human being with two feet and a heartbeat should agree with first-, second-, and third-wave feminism as it is written in the books. But that isn't what college-based feminism is about. That isn't what I see on a daily basis while being surrounded by 18-30 year old's. Original feminism isn't even remotely comparable to the protests we see live on television, the internet and in person. What feminism used to be, is not what feminism is now.

You may say, "Oh, those aren't feminists." Then why do they parade around with flags that say feminism? Why do they (whoever they are) go to events like Women's Marches with inappropriate signs that say "Wet the pussy," "My pussy bites back," "No boy's dick is important enough to change any part of my identity," "Fuck you, orange Hitler," and "Bitches get shit done."

These women may do this because it draws attention from the media, I get that. I understand that these marches become part of movements that could potentially help women who are in need.

But let me ask you this... would you let your 6-year-old son or daughter flip through playboy magazines? Or would you want them to see half-naked women holding signs painted to resemble chopped up male genitals, marching around screaming curse words in hopes of getting their point across to the world? What if their teacher at school was watching the news about a radical feminism march, and your child came home and asked specific questions about it.

Maybe you wouldn't be, but I would be outraged.

These women protest and march in public places. People all over the surrounding areas see it. Anyone with a phone or laptop that has internet can see it. The point is, everyone including our children can see this (sometimes non-peaceful) protest going on.

Maybe some of you, as feminists, can tell me where this group of women resides. They call themselves feminists. They are abusively radical. So where is the line drawn? Where is the line drawn in between men and women? Where do the double standards end?

I've said it before and I will say it again.

"I support women who work hard and have goals and ambition... not girls who hate men and stomp around with no shirts on to piss off the public. Feminism has developed into a polluted teaching that young men and women are plunging into." β€” from "I'm An 18-Year-Old Female and I Will Never Be A Feminist"

I will not support this wave of feminism. I am uninterested in raising a protest sign instead of working on my personal goals and pursuing my life dreams. I refuse to call myself a feminist because modern-day feminism is slowly turning into poorly disguised misandry, and I see it first hand.

"Real feminism has nothing to do with hating men, it's about equality among genders." β€” Jennifer D.

Jennifer, you are completely right. Real feminism has not a single thing to do with hating men... but that is exactly what feminism is turning into, and "real" feminists are getting a bad wrap for it. Take a look at the real world and what these massive groups of self-proclaimed feminists are doing.

For the most part, "fourth-wave feminism" can be cracked up as women who want the same exact opportunities as men. They want, for example, (in some cases) the same exact pay even if they aren't qualified, and it almost seems as if they want to be the superior gender.

Science has proven that men and women are built dissimilarly.

"The genetics of sex differences in brain and behavior," Frontiers in neuroendocrinology say's that there are multiple differences between male and female that contribute to sex-specific illnesses and disorders. A study completed by the authors of this article claim that men and women have differences in biological phenotypes and psychological traits. They say that even though they are similar (men and women) "have consistent differences that have important implications for each sex."

On average men have 20 times the levels of testosterone compared to women, so why is it such an inconvenience that men rule some of the more physical labor jobs? Testosterone is what helps build muscle mass, so if you work the same (heavy labor) job as a man, and you get paid less because you as a woman are doing less work, what is the problem?

Men and women are made to do different jobs and tasks because in some ways they are unlike one another. I'm not saying that a woman can't do a "man's job," if she wants to, but why not rule the realm of things we are good at?

"She is 18, how many jobs have you had? You have no idea what it is like to be underpaid for doing the same job as a man.... Look at our Congress, the CEOs of companies, presidents of universities and tell me we are equally represented. If you think those numbers are fair you will never reach your full potential." β€” Debbie W.

For the record, I work a "man's job." I work on the pipeline with crews of 10-20 men making $1,500 a week. I bust my butt to outwork them, and I make sure I get paid the same because we are completing the same tasks. I catch hell for being a woman and doing this job, but that is OK. There are multiple men in this field of work that are stronger and truthfully better at their job than I am. This is all because as a strong woman, I'm okay with being overrepresented in a field of work as long as the work gets done. If I do less work, I expect to get paid less. If I do more work, I expect to get paid more. That goes for any job anywhere. Whether I am a cashier at McDonald's or I'm working next to 10 men, this concept applies.

But there are some things that a majority of women cannot/do not care to do, and there are a massive amount of things men cannot/do not care to do. Therefore...

"We must raise our children to do what they are best at rather than trying to do something they are incapable of just to prove an irrelevant point.

"Women must stand up for what they believe in and be strong in their shoes, while not getting so caught up in what your modern day feminist says she thinks is right." β€” from "I'm An 18-Year-Old Female And I Will Never Be A Feminist"

At the end of the day, fourth-wave feminism is giving true feminism a bad reputation, and the women that are not actively involved and knowledgable in feminism do not realize it. Rather than respectively voicing opinions and pushing for feasible matters, the fourth wavers are flipping feminism upside down and using meaningless tactics to push their personal agendas. That is why I do not consider myself a feminist, and I will continue to push through life and do things my way β€” because modern-day feminism will not get me as far as I can get myself.


Popular Right Now

I'm A Woman And You Can't Convince Me Breastfeeding In Public Is OK In 2019

Sorry, not sorry.

57990
views

Lately, I have seen so many people going off on social media about how people shouldn't be upset with mothers breastfeeding in public. You know what? I disagree.

There's a huge difference between being modest while breastfeeding and just being straight up careless, trashy and disrespectful to those around you. Why don't you try popping out a boob without a baby attached to it and see how long it takes for you to get arrested for public indecency? Strange how that works, right?

So many people talking about it bring up the point of how we shouldn't "sexualize" breastfeeding and seeing a woman's breasts while doing so. Actually, all of these people are missing the point. It's not sexual, it's just purely immodest and disrespectful.

If you see a girl in a shirt cut too low, you call her a slut. If you see a celebrity post a nude photo, you call them immodest and a terrible role model. What makes you think that pulling out a breast in the middle of public is different, regardless of what you're doing with it?

If I'm eating in a restaurant, I would be disgusted if the person at the table next to me had their bare feet out while they were eating. It's just not appropriate. Neither is pulling out your breast for the entire general public to see.

Nobody asked you to put a blanket over your kid's head to feed them. Nobody asked you to go feed them in a dirty bathroom. But you don't need to basically be topless to feed your kid. Growing up, I watched my mom feed my younger siblings in public. She never shied away from it, but the way she did it was always tasteful and never drew attention. She would cover herself up while doing it. She would make sure that nothing inappropriate could be seen. She was lowkey about it.

Mindblowing, right? Wait, you can actually breastfeed in public and not have to show everyone what you're doing? What a revolutionary idea!

There is nothing wrong with feeding your baby. It's something you need to do, it's a part of life. But there is definitely something wrong with thinking it's fine to expose yourself to the entire world while doing it. Nobody wants to see it. Nobody cares if you're feeding your kid. Nobody cares if you're trying to make some sort of weird "feminist" statement by showing them your boobs.

Cover up. Be modest. Be mindful. Be respectful. Don't want to see my boobs? Good, I don't want to see yours either. Hard to believe, I know.

Related Content

Connect with a generation
of new voices.

We are students, thinkers, influencers, and communities sharing our ideas with the world. Join our platform to create and discover content that actually matters to you.

Learn more Start Creating

Taking Your Husband's Last Name Perpetuates Patriarchal Ideals

It's time to leave some social practices in the past. Women are not considered male property in America, and our structural traditions should reflect that.

23
views

Just because something is tradition, does not mean it is the most effective solution.

For the majority of marriages around the world, it is considered customary for a wife to relinquish her maiden name, and take on the last name of her husband. For many of us, we take this for granted without a second thought. It's what we do, right? People do hyphenate their names after marriage after all, but very few men actually decide to take their bride's last name. "A man taking his wife's name β€” remains incredibly rare: In a recent study of 877 heterosexual married men, fewer than 3% took their wife's name when they got married."

It's thought the tradition of masculine name inheritance is biblical, although this isn't a fully supported theory:

"The tradition of a wife taking her husband's last name at marriage is not found in the Bible. In Bible times, most people did not even have last names. Women were often identified by where they lived (e.g., Mary Magdalene, Luke 8:2), by their children (e.g., Mary the mother of James and Joseph, Matthew 27:56), or by their husband (e.g., Mary the wife of Clopas, John 19:25)."

The important thing to notice here is that although it was not standard for a wife to become Mrs.Jesus instead of Mary Magdelene. It was still customary to refer to a woman in terms of her relationship with a man (either her Father or Husband). She was not considered an independent being, and the semantics of her name reflects that.

This doesn't sit well with me.

Let's take a moment to question this tradition.

All traditions should be scrutinized and questioned or else they become obsolete in the ever-changing socio-cultural tide.

Why is it male names are only passed on? Essentially, the verbal female line is obliterated in favor of unity under a male surname. This makes sense in a way: a singular family name helps bring everyone together as a unit. The use of the male name over the female name represents male ownership over both women and the family. It unbalanced gender roles in their very structure.

"the matter of a wife taking a husband's surname didn't surface in English common law until the ninth century, when lawmakers began to consider the legalities surrounding personhood, families, and marriage. Thusly (as they would say), the doctrine of coverture emerged – and women were thereafter considered "one" with their husbands and therefore required to assume the husband's surname as their own.
Under the concept of coverture, which literally means "covered by," women had no independent legal identity apart from their spouse. Actually, this "coverage" began upon the birth of a female baby – who was given her father's surname – and could only change upon the marriage of that female, at which point her name was automatically changed to that of her new husband." --Stephanie Reid Law

My mother always told me she never changed our names back to her maiden name after the divorce because she wanted to purport us as a family. In my opinion, a family with an absent father has no obligation to keep his name, as it had no obligation to receive it in the first place.

It may not seem like much as it is just technicalities, but technicalities govern the structure in which we present and define ourselves.

I do not wish to be defined by a patriarchal tradition even if it is as simple in a name. Think about it. A name is not as simple as it seems. A name becomes an identity. A name shapes our understanding of ourselves; if the tradition of male names being passed down continues every family will unwittingly submit to the standards of the patriarchy.

This being said, there is nothing inherently wrong with taking your spouse's name if that feels right to you and has been discussed freely between partners. Sometimes, your partner's last name may be the coolest name in the book and works perfectly syntactically. Sometimes, you may love your partner to death but his last name is Curtle, Assinger, or β€” god forbid β€” Smith. Today, we have a choice to keep our names, and as women, we should consider it instead of blindly accepting a name in the name of tradition.

There is a power and a peace that comes from sharing a name, sharing a goal. There are also restrictions and depersonalizing undertones to the tradition as well. Where does the "single woman's" identity go once they are bound to another? The single male identity doesn't change as their name remains untouched by the union.

Why not take your bride's last name? Would it feel emasculating because everybody else is doing the opposite? Why don't more couples hyphenate their names? Are we content with tradition even if it's based on the debasement and slavery of an entire gender?

"'Tis but thy name that is my enemy; Thou art thyself though, not a Montague. What's Montague? it is nor hand, nor foot, Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part Belonging to a man. O! be some other name: What's in a name? that which we call a rose By any other name would smell as sweet; So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call'd, Retain that dear perfection which he owes. Without that title. Romeo, doff thy name; And for that name, which is no part of thee, Take all myself." β€” "Romeo And Juliet," Shakespeare.

Unifying under one name as a family is a type of empowerment, but it also requires the sacrifice of one name. Typically the female name. This being said, keeping or taking back our names is another, higher, form of empowerment.

Related Content

Facebook Comments