I'm An American Woman That Should Be Enough

I'm An American Woman That Should Be Enough

I shouldn't have to define myself due to society's actions.
6
views

No, this is not a post bashing Feminist, nor is it a post destroying those that aren't. This is an article regarding the world in which we're currently living in.

A Women's March had taken place on January 21, 2017. This march led to numerous articles being written, some for and some against. A post titled "You Are Not Equal. I'm Sorry" was one of these said posts as a response to another woman's article describing her feelings of being equal to men.

Now, I fully support the Women's March and all that we as a whole are trying to overcome; however, I don't agree with this article that was written. It starts off by stating that the women before us "did not have better things to do than march and protest and rally." I am honored to be a woman. One born into these freedoms because of women such as Rosa Parks and Margaret Sanger. They were able to accomplish amazing milestones for our gender and for that I will always be thankful. What I'm not okay with is women that find it okay to discourage those which didn't walk.

No, I did not attend the Women's March, but this doesn't make me "wrapped up in my delusion of equality." What it makes me is a woman. A woman getting paid the same amount of money as men in the same line of work as me. I do not "sit on a pedestal and type," nor do I feel privileged or entitled.

I will always support women that march for our rights, but what I won't support is those that abuse their rights. Those with signs stating "My P*ssy Bites Back" and diminishing those which didn't walk.

We've been given the freedom of speech as a whole and we've taken that to extremes. Believing it's okay to hold up signs and posters with the words "A Vagina Brought You Into This World, A Vagina Will Vote You Out." These signs completely degrade us. Discussing our reproductive organs because it's okay for women to use that language, but not a man.

Together, we are women. All of us deal with "cat-calling" and "justifying our behavior." The women who marched are not the only ones which share these issues. Today alone, I had to zip up my jacket and keep my head down as a man had his eyes on everything except my face. I know this isn't right, but I also know I alone cannot stop it.

If we want equality, we have to realize that we objectify men the same way they objectify us. I understand we are not fully equal, but I feel our nation is more equal that it was before.

I am a woman and I am proud, but I'm not proud of some of our women with this mindset. The mindset that if we don't protest and rally for our gender, then we are not worthy. I am an American woman and this should be enough. I shouldn't have to label myself any further to please my own gender. We are one unit, whether we choose to honor it or not. We must respect one another's beliefs before we can ever gain respect from our male party.

These issues are nothing new for us.

An Inauguration took place Friday, January 20, 2017. The Women's March took place that Saturday. Where were you Thursday, January 19? Where were you two weeks ago, two months ago, two years ago? These are the same issues we've been dealing with for decades now. Are you marching for the rights of women or are you marching for a personal opinion against a man who is now our President?

Cover Image Credit: The Suffolk Voice

Popular Right Now

'As A Woman,' I Don't Need To Fit Your Preconceived Political Assumptions About Women

I refuse to be categorized and I refuse to be defined by others. Yes, I am a woman, but I am so much more.

73869
views

It is quite possible to say that the United States has never seen such a time of divisiveness, partisanship, and extreme animosity of those on different sides of the political spectrum. Social media sites such as Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter are saturated with posts of political opinions and are matched with comments that express not only disagreement but too often, words of hatred. Many who cannot understand others' political beliefs rarely even respect them.

As a female, Republican, college student, I feel I receive the most confusion from others regarding my political opinions. Whenever I post or write something supporting a conservative or expressing my right-leaning beliefs and I see a comment has been left, I almost always know what words their comment will begin with. Or in conversation, if I make my beliefs known and someone begins to respond, I can practically hear the words before they leave their mouth.

"As a woman…"

This initial phrase is often followed by a question, generally surrounding how I could publicly support a Republican candidate or maintain conservative beliefs. "As a woman, how can you support Donald Trump?" or "As a woman, how can you support pro-life policies?" and, my personal favorite, "As a woman, how did you not want Hillary for president?"

Although I understand their sentiment, I cannot respect it. Yes, being a woman is a part of who I am, but it in no way determines who I am. My sex has not and will not adjudicate my goals, my passions, or my work. It will not influence the way in which I think or the way in which I express those thoughts. Further, your mention of my sex as the primary logic for condemning such expressions will not change my adherence to defending what I share. Nor should it.

To conduct your questioning of my politics by inferring that my sex should influence my ideology is not only offensive, it's sexist.

It disregards my other qualifications and renders them worthless. It disregards my work as a student of political science. It disregards my hours of research dedicated to writing about politics. It disregards my creativity as an author and my knowledge of the subjects I choose to discuss. It disregards the fundamental human right I possess to form my own opinion and my Constitutional right to express that opinion freely with others. And most notably, it disregards that I am an individual. An individual capable of forming my own opinions and being brave enough to share those with the world at the risk of receiving backlash and criticism. All I ask is for respect of that bravery and respect for my qualifications.

Words are powerful. They can be used to inspire, unite, and revolutionize. Yet, they can be abused, and too comfortably are. Opening a dialogue of political debate by confining me to my gender restricts the productivity of that debate from the start. Those simple but potent words overlook my identity and label me as a stereotype destined to fit into a mold. They indicate that in our debate, you cannot look past my sex. That you will not be receptive to what I have to say if it doesn't fit into what I should be saying, "as a woman."

That is the issue with politics today. The media and our politicians, those who are meant to encourage and protect democracy, divide us into these stereotypes. We are too often told that because we are female, because we are young adults, because we are a minority, because we are middle-aged males without college degrees, that we are meant to vote and to feel one way, and any other way is misguided. Before a conversation has begun, we are divided against our will. Too many of us fail to inform ourselves of the issues and construct opinions that are entirely our own, unencumbered by what the mainstream tells us we are meant to believe.

We, as a people, have become limited to these classifications. Are we not more than a demographic?

As a student of political science, seeking to enter a workforce dominated by men, yes, I am a woman, but foremost I am a scholar, I am a leader, and I am autonomous. I refuse to be categorized and I refuse to be defined by others. Yes, I am a woman, but I am so much more.

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

Money IS Speech

Surprise! The left is being dishonest, again...

17
views

The use of money in politics, especially in elections, is an issue sure to stir debate. This topic first came to political prominence during the Supreme Court case Citizens United v. FEC (2010), in which the Supreme Court boldly upheld a constitutional right allowing corporations and Unions to donate to political campaigns without restriction. This case followed the Buckley v. Valeo (1976) decision, which came to the conclusion that limits on election spending, specifically found in the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1976, were unconstitutional. Both decisions, in my opinion, were decided in an ethical and moral manner, despite what fear-mongering conspiracy theorists on the left may want you to believe. For example, Cenk Uygur of The Young Turks, in a 2011 video titled 'Survey: Massive Lobbyist Power After Citizens United,' is on record lying about the former case, Citizens United.

He first insinuates that lobbyists are now blackmailing United States Senators by threatening to donate to political rivals; though he provides no evidence. He then suggests that this type of blackmail has lead Senators to strike deals with these lobbyists, in the form of a quid pro quo. Not only is his evidence scant, and at times misleading, he is also defaming the characters of seemingly innocent public officials. These types of conspiracies degrade the trust we must possess with our Representatives, which has lead to an unfathomable amount of people calling for an abdication of the first amendment, as it applies to speech in politics. To illustrate, according to a New York Times poll conducted on May 23, 2015, 84% of respondents believed that money has "too much" of a role in political campaigns today.

According to the same survey, 77% of respondents also believed that the amount of money a person can legally donate to a political campaign should be "limited." But, the only possible way to limit the amount of money an individual can use in a political campaign, is to infringe upon the first amendment, which allows speech of all kinds, no matter the amount of speech used or the identity of the speaker. Also, proponents of this idea have yet to define what "limit" means in this context. This, of course, does not matter to the radical anarchist. They are content with letting the government decide whose speech is worth protecting, and whose is not.

This, in my opinion, is a slippery slope not worth traversing down. Therefore, we are left with two options: amending the first amendment, thus setting a dangerous precedent for other amendments in the Bill of Rights, or accepting and allowing speech of all kinds, even speech we disagree with. In my opinion, the latter option is the most ethical. Western Civilization rests upon the idea that everyone can contribute to the national good; yes, even people who have accumulated more money throughout their lives, or those who have been born into wealth.

Therefore, allowing debate, mostly through political advertisements, 'get out the vote' efforts, and general campaign spending, can only strengthen and help educate our society. But, unfortunately, trendy Senators like Bernie Sanders, who has garnered the support of millions of young Americans, has coaxed his supporters into believing the former supposition. This fact alone is not problematic, in fact, disagreement of all sorts is healthy in a Democracy, no matter the ramifications that such policy implementations will be sure to have. It is the process by which he coaxes them that is problematic. Bernie, along with much of the leadership on the left, demonizes those who hold contrary views.

This has created an enormous amount of polarization among politicians, but, more importantly, among ordinary citizens as well. This type of rhetoric spouted all too often by the Democratic leadership, specifically on this controversial issue, has created a cesspool in American politics. If left unchecked, the Democratic leadership will continue to pull our country apart. It is, therefore, our duty as citizens to stand up to the now mainstream radical-left, and reject their plea to uproot our country's values.

Related Content

Facebook Comments