We should all be feminists, Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie

By Ana Isabel

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hg3umXU_qWc

 

I selected this video because I find it very interesting speech. Invites reflection on how we see the world, about the prejudices we have even some that are hidden but dormant activated in the most unexpected moment. Also at him I feel there is hope, there are people like that in this case contribute their grain of sand, seeking solutions is not only a criticism of the world. In particular I picked him because it gives a real insight into the current situation of African people, especially women, what is "politically correct" to society. Could you comment many details of this powerful speech, such as the linchpin education and the role of parents, but as I say let the person reading this text and ventures to watch the video to analyze it, to think that draw their own conclusions and analysis.

"Gender is not an easy conversation for both men and women, talking about gender, sometimes finds an almost immediate resistance. (...) That's the problem. Many men do not actively think about gender and gender realize and that's part of the problem of gender. Men say that everything is fine now. And many men do nothing to change it. "

Add that it is a matter of men and women, more people, each and every affects us and each of us and we have to do something, to do our bit, because if we focus on blame never finds solutions. Why not join forces to achieve real change? "If I change the world changes" BK

Virginia Woolf’s contribution to Literature

Was Virginia a feminist? The brilliant writer had many indications of a depressed life. She was unsatisfied with the way things were. Her strength, however, allowed her to continue to write and to participate in social life until her suicide. Her talent and dreams helped women to aspire making significant contributions to Literature, as well as to contribute in other fields. So, yes. Virginia Woolf was a feminist and not just because she contributed to women’s cause, she contributed for culture in general, and by doing so, extended the number of female writers with relevant work.

Virginia reunited and participated in many women’s meetings, in which her friends would talk about society values and discuss gender issues. By participating critically and commenting about society, Virginia influenced women to engage and to participate in the process of comprehending social matters and, by doing so, she also contributed to abandon the traditional expectations of the female gender.

She would analyze the role of women in her novels and portray them in several contexts, trying to break the common sense of female characters in Literature. Virginia was one of the many women who tried to improve her gender’s condition, not by manifesting or doing what we call today “street activism”, but by studying and trying to contribute to universal culture.

The notion that by manifesting on the streets one many effectively contribute to a change in society is simply absurd. People have values that can only be changed by a different comprehension of society and culture, in general. It is not a ranging mass screaming words of order and demanding action that will contribute to political changes or to anything besides getting attention for the desperation that takes hold, to gather money or to interrupt traffic. Those reasons aren’t good enough and damage the image of feminism worldwide.

Great theorists and philosophers, like Virginia, didn’t try to change the word because they simply knew that by making significant contributions to culture, political matters would change, asrepeatedly affirmed by Olavo de Carvalho.

In the same way, on 1964,Hannah Arendt affirmed for the “Zur Person” TV showthat her only function as an academic was to understand things. She surely knew what she was talking about. Heidegger’s favorite student has opened a way for other women in Philosophy and changed our perception about many events which are difficult to interpret nowadays.

Women need to be more like Virginia Woolf and seek to comprehend and discuss the problems of society in a way that matters. Only with a lucid analysis of gender issues women’s representation in society, especially in the Middle East, will change. It is not enough to blame men or the society in general, women need to stop feeling like victims and start by entering Literature, Sciences and other fields. Let’s be more like Virginia!

Gabriela Isa Rosendo Vieira Campos

"Oh hai. I is Feminist. I can has Equality?"

This past week has been pretty interesting online: from discovering the dichotomy among feminists, to laughing my head off at Buzzfeed’s new list of funnies for internet feminists. Over the last week, I found a lot of women online insinuating that Karvachauth was anti-feminist. And that got me thinking. Are we becoming crazily antagonistic to men, ignoring the actual notion of equality that underlies true feminism?

Ayuh, dis sounds about right! 

My understanding of feminism – (this may or may not be substantiated by academic theory, and I claim no expertise on my part to assert that my idea of feminism is the absolute truth) - is that it is a promoter of equality.  Not absolute equality or the warped notion that a man = woman = man = woman. But rather, equality warts and all. Equality among equals, equality of respect and value, and equality of worth.

To my mind, feminism is about seeking the empowerment of women, and by extension, of men. To my mind, empowerment is truly attained when a human being is sovereign over their mind and body, and the attainment of the state of understanding and acceptance that every individual’s mind and body is theirs only, and not for another to pass judgment on or impose upon unreasonable restraints, encroachments and demands.

With that in place, it does not disturb me that there are women and girls who choose to veil themselves in different parts of the world of their own volition. With that in place, it does not disturb me that there are women who choose to fast for their husbands’ longevity from dawn until the moon appears in the night sky.

Why? Because each of these women makes the choices they actively believe in, and endorse. And in doing so, they are entirely free and liberated. She made the choice, and she must (and will) deal with the consequences. Why brand her a scion of all things anti-feminist, when she is simply doing something of her own volition, something no one compels her to do, something she does because she wants to?

The trouble creeps in when these things are imposed. Imposed veiling, imposed rituals, imposed obligations, imposed rules that a woman must be subservient to a man. For when there is an imposition, there is an encroachment of individuality. When there is an encroachment of individuality, there is an erosion of empowerment. When there is an erosion of empowerment, there is an absolute disregard for identity. And when identity is disregarded, as a natural corollary, dominance prevails.

Being a feminist is the one part of my identity that I am happiest about. But that does not mean I hate men, or

Oh hai. I is Feminist. 

that I do not believe in giving men the respect that is due to them. For me, feminism is not about denouncing everything by reading a sexist overtone into it when there is and should be none. For me, feminism is not about blindly parroting that “the woman is always right”. For me, feminism is not about taking down men and all things masculine.

For me, feminism is about celebrating the differences that men and women bring to the table. It is about not just recognising those differences, but complementing them with each of our own contributions. Men and women are both valuable to society: one can’t survive without the other, and the entire human race will crumble in seconds if one is wiped out while the other remains. There is something that intricately links the survival of society and the acceptance of this truth.

For me, feminism is about loving all the men as much as the women in my life for making it what it is. 

Telling you that I am a feminist feels great. It feels like a mug of steaming coffee early in the morning. Warm, fuzzy and home-like.

Yep. Totally.

Demystifying feminism

            Feminism consists in the idea that women are equal to men, thus having the same rights and responsibilities as them, with no special treatments. Material justice is achieved with equality in opportunities and rewards and it is only based on meritocracy.

 Formal justice is, therefore, necessary to show that women are capable of succeeding without any special treatment whatsoever: gender should not matter in any circumstance. That is what feminism is all about: equality, meritocracy, and same opportunities for all. Feminism doesn’t seek to portray women as victims, but as strong individuals who can perform tasks on the same level as men.

There is, however, a new wave of feminism that is very harmful for women. It occurs in countries where women’s rights are violated in a more silent manner: domestic violence, prejudices in everyday life, different payments. This feminist movement is a villain to the real feminism, because it attracts negative attention from the civil society: it chocks and attacks moral values.

The feminist wave that risks all the conquests of women is dominated by moral relativism, in which, they say, no woman is subjected to the oppressing values of society. According to it, women can dress as they wish (with few clothes), sleep with whom or with how many men they agree to: the more, the better. Let’s not forget about attacking religious groups through the invasion of churches and other locals. Kissing semi-dressed is also a “tactic” of these groups: unfortunately, everything is ok for them.

That reminds me of a much known case in Civil Law, in which a night club in France had a special entertainment: dwarf tossing. The club was acting according to the required legal specifications for the establishment, but they were allegedly violating the dignity of dwarfs by treating them as a mere object for the amusement of others. The dwarfs agreed with the (unique) entertainment, since they found it to be fun and financially rewarding. The case went to France’s higher administrative court: Le Conseil d'État.

After a series of considerations, the dwarfs were prohibited to practice such an activity. Human dignity had to prevail over the benefits of exploiting the economic activity and, more importantly, over unrestricted freedom.   

So, if human dignity has such an importance in the acts of normal life, how come some “feminists” are acting against it by portraying themselves as “sluts” (The SlutWalk), or by fighting against family values (there are marches where the sole purpose is to defy the traditional family)? Feminism is not AT ALL about that!! Feminism is about equality of rights.

Let’s not misrepresent feminism and subvert its main goal, which is not adolescent rebellion or frivolity. Feminism is a constant movement towards more dignity for women: more education, equal rights and so forth. Let’s not fight against its own notions while searching for the inexplicable! We want more dignity, not unrestricted freedom!

Gabriela Isa Rosendo Vieira Campos

Feminism and empowerment: from “what” to “why”

There are so many articles in this blog, which touch upon the large variety of topics, connected with feminism, suffering women and female empowerment. The interesting thing is that all of them answer such questions as “what”, “when”, “who” but almost none of them answer the most important question “why”.  Few weeks ago, I watched a video from TED-talks, named “How great leaders inspire actions”, on which Simon Sinek shares his knowledge about starting all great deals not from the question “what” but “why”. Surely, all of authors/writers/translators/editors know why they are involved in the issue of feminism; moreover, they may have own specific motivations except common global one. But I know that simple readers are not always acquainted with the primary goals which the creators of the blog/project have. They can see the cover but not the kernel, and it can stop them from bringing online-received ideas to life.

When people ask my opinion about various situations which include gender issue, I always answer that I am a person who supports the idea of gender equality. From this position, feminism is something that is not needed to be examined. However, the history of human society’s development illustrates a lot of cases when women are suppressed and considered to be the lower living creature than a man. It happens not because religious books, prophets or gurus tell that women should be treated in a bad way; it mostly happens because people are used to misinterpret the teachings in order to subject somebody to their will. Therefore, as for me, feminism appears as a way of resistance. It resists those personalities who think that they have all rights to manipulate, offend women or treat them as non-humans. 

That is how I found an explanation for myself why I support the idea of women empowerment and want others to realize how topical this issue is. It should not be a process which leads to making women more significant than men but a process which is going to create a stable basis for women’s existence. It means that every female personality would feel confidence in her current and future safety and also potentialities for own realization in the sphere she wants. So, we should view this empowerment as something that lifts those women that live in developing countries on the level of equality with males. While believing into this idea as a required condition of welfare and happiness of both women and men in developing and developed countries, we will undoubtedly make gradual steps to the mutual respect and understanding. 

By Polina Nezdiikovska, Ukraine

The Right to Be a Woman

I never really understood why feminism existed. In my earlier years, that was because I was considerably ignorant on the subject. I grasped the fact that women have never been socially, economically, politically, or anything-ly equal to men, but I just didn't understand why that was true. We're all just people; I couldn't wrap my head around why anatomical differences have engendered so many contentions and inequities. I still can't, although now I am more educated on the subject.
I went to a very progressive middle and elementary school, an environment in which we had weekly lectures and activities about racial equality and LGBTQ rights (this was before the umbrella term trans* was created), but I don't recall ever discussing women's issues. When I began reading Rookie Mag -- where nearly everyone on the staff is either a self-proclaimed feminist, a women's rights supporter, or something in between -- was around when I started to understand what feminism actually means. I had always dismissed it as some sort of extreme movement that involved misandry, bra burning, and public protests, like the time Eric and Donna go to a feminist demonstration in an episode of That '70s Show. That was about the extent of my knowledge.
I had never bothered to further enlighten myself because we are taught that feminism is something negative, and the subject was so foreign to me that I didn't even want to get involved. As I entered deeper into the trenches of my adolescence, I went around thinking that if someone looked at me lecherously or made an unwelcome sexual comment that it was my fault. I had led them on, in some way. So I stopped wearing V-neck T-shirts and never thought about it. Even at my equal-rights-for-everybody-even-though-we-only-talk-about-certain-groups-of-people-because-they're-minorities-and-women-aren't school we were taught, "Don't get raped," never "Don't rape." That never seemed out of place to me. It's extremely stifling and maddening to live in a world that objectifies women to such a degree that we don't even notice it anymore; that's how large a part of our society it has become. Or, I guess, always has been, for millennia. I only recently realized that as a teenage girl I was being affected by misogyny, disrespect, and degradation just by simply existing.
The fashion industry is one of the main propellants of the rigid concepts of femininity and womanhood that are held so highly in our culture. For decades, even centuries, women have been expected to either be a perfect combination of elegance, sexual appeal, and vulnerability, or urged to act more like men. Even with revolutionary members of the media popping up everywhere -- Lena Dunham, Tavi Gevinson, Miranda July -- women are only being more forcibly squished into these molds. We all already know that the supermodel-skinny standards are a major part of what's dragging us, meaning females, down. That topic deserves an entire article in and of itself, but it's not all that the fashion world is contributing to this huge dilemma. It's the clothing itself. It's a topic that I've written about before, without really knowing what I was saying. Taking a tip from the boys, menswear for women, things of that ilk. That concept has taken a turn for the worst.
While reading the Man Repeller a few months ago, Leandra Medine mentioned that in order to embody "swag," one must look like a male sixth grader: messy cropped hair, boyish clothing, baseball caps, the whole deal. I admire and respect Leandra immensely, but I felt that she had almost betrayed her fellow ladies in this post through words like: "achieving 'cool' is wholly about how well a girl can emulate a prepubescent boy." My immediate response to her story was a big, bolded, upper-cased WHY? I understand that this could potentially be misconstrued as me being ridiculously sensitive, but hear me out. Here's what I'm seeing. Looking cool now entails dressing like guys. That would be fine, if the same had ever been true for the opposite sex. When has it ever been considered trendy for a man to wear a dress, or heels, or another garment of clothing generally associated with women? Approximately never, except for in the 17th century, when almost everybody in the aristocracy wore heels. And Marc Jacobs's pink polo dress that he wore to the opening of his museum exhibition in Paris last year doesn't count. Marc Jacobs is not a valid representation of the general male population.
I don't personally feel the need to wear anything characteristically feminine in order to feel good about myself or how I am presenting myself to the world. That probably stems from the fact that I grew up completely unaware of how these injustices applied to me. Do my androgynous tendencies -- short hair, near exclusion of pink in my wardrobe, very little makeup, unshaved legs -- imply that I am actively aspiring to look like a teenage boy? Not in the least bit. I like my loose jeans as much as I like my shift dresses. I cut my hair short because I hate feeling weighted down by masses of dead cells on my head. I don't wear pink because it makes me feel like a sickly amalgamation of an infant and cotton candy. I don't wear a lot of makeup, if any at all, partly because I hate having to worry about taking it off at night, partly because I prefer to present myself in my most natural form. I stopped shaving my legs because I have much better things to be doing with my time. I dress the way I want to because I like the way my clothing looks.
One of the greatest misconceptions about people interested in fashion and clothing is that they care too much about their appearance. It takes a significant amount of indifference towards other people and their judgements to walk outside into a world where everyone feels entitled to share their opinions on every subject, whether they be valuable or completely uncalled for. That translates directly into the issue about women's rights. People make comments, assumptions, and evaluations on women's semblance all the time, thinking we crave their approval, that we strive for their acceptance. In reality, nothing could be further from the truth.
Some women definitely seek that sort of confirmation, but that often is a result of insecurity or lack of self-confidence. That isn't to say that ladies that choose to ignore others' criticisms on their looks are not insecure, nor is it to say that women who attire themselves in a more sexualized manner are doing so for the benefit of those around them. This may somewhat of a mantra for feminists, and hopefully eventually for every person: we are not trying to look a certain way for you, whoever you may be. I don't know who gave the general populace the power to decide who is a "slut," or at least looks like one, and who is not, but they should feel pretty crappy right about now because they are painfully fallacious. I don't think that word should even exist; I don't believe that promiscuity is so terrible as long as no one is hurt, either emotionally or physically, in the process. A woman has a right to use her body how she wants just as much as a man does. I've always wondered why nearly every rape story I've heard or read about involves a male rapist. What it is about penises that makes men think they can just stick them everywhere? I have a supposition that it has less to do with biology and more to do with social hierarchy. It boils down to the fact that women are simply not considered equal to men.
When we ask ourselves where this inequality stems from, it's easy to say that way back in the Paleolithic and Neolithic Eras the men were the ones that hunted and the women tended to the children. The latter's fatal infirmity was their inherent femaleness: the menstruation and subsequent complications, the decreased ability to maintain dense muscle mass, et cetera. Men saw themselves as superior because they could go out and spear a buffalo for the whole clan and not have to worry about doubling over in pain from cramps or what have you. Sure, women have their weaknesses, but men don't? They absolutely do. The number one argument that I feel neutralizes everything is that women can have babies, and men can't. In theory, that should give us immense power, but it doesn't. Instead, guys just went ahead and took the liberty of impregnating women without their consent. I know it's completely inarticulate, but my instinctual response to that is: what the hell. I've never been pregnant before but I have taken freshman biology and I know plenty of people that have bore children, and it sounds like having a small person growing inside of you doesn't feel so fantastic. Forcing that on someone who has not asked for it is one of the most heinous crimes I can think of. Perhaps that's one reason why we don't see a lot of female rapists: we're at a higher risk of suffering the consequences of having non-assented sex both physically and socially.
As a high school student and teenager, my future is like a massive, daunting, multi-colored cloud that looms ahead of me at all times. I have high hopes for that cloud. I want to be able to pursue a career in something I enjoy and not have to be concerned about whether my male occupationally equivalent colleague is getting more perks or has a higher salary purely because of my physical constitution. People's intellectual capabilities are purely a result of how much work they put into cultivating their garden, to cite Voltaire. In other words, my brain and all it can do and create is a product of my own labor, not genetic chance.
I often think back to the time in my life when I had no idea what sort of unjustified prejudice I was in danger of facing because of my chromosomal makeup. I was ignorant and had been brainwashed by the patriarchal society we live in that, as a female, it was my duty to protect myself from harm but to simultaneously exude femininity. That only works if you're the only person you're ever around. There's no way to control what other people perceive as suggestive or girly (not that the two are synonymous in any way), thus it is impossible to satisfy everybody's personal requirements. If that's the case, then I don't see why I should bother trying to live up to the world's expectations for me as a woman. I would much rather strive to please others on the basis of what is expected of me as a human being. That's what we all are. Male, female, non-cisgender, somewhere in between, we are all just people. What baffles me is why we can't treat each other as equally as the universe intended us to be. If we were supposed to have hierarchal distinctions within our race, some of us would be born with five extra retractable limbs and X-ray vision. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I highly doubt that anyone possesses those abilities.

Feminism is not about hatred or anger or misandry. It is not negative. Feminists are not intrinsically evil, nor are they lesbian by default, nor do they wish to purge the Earth of all non-women. "Male feminists" shouldn't have to be a term that distinguishes men that promote equity from those that don't. All of this is about equality and freedom and love. It isn't up to us to decide our anatomical structure, but we can most definitely choose to act in particular ways despite our natural differences. The power rests entirely in our hands to change, if not reverse, the undeniable misogyny of the world we live in. Once people can stop defining each other by their gender, appearance, ethnicity, or any other uncontrollable quality of ours, and begin to appraise one another based on the substance of our thoughts and merit of our deeds, we'll be on the right track.

Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/odelia-kaly/gender-equality_b_3365689.html

Cuba - Centennial of Feminist Movement - Need More Rights & Visibility

 

CUBA - CENTENNIAL OF FEMINIST MOVEMENT - NEED MORE RIGHTS, LESS VIOLENCE, MORE VISIBILITY

 

Most women in Cuba are unaware of the struggle it took to gain recognition of women’s rights. Credit: Jorge Luis Baños/IPS

By Ivet González

HAVANA, Nov 28 2012 (IPS) - There are no purple billboards on city streets, and no public service announcements on television to mark the date. But many different voices in Cuba remember that this year marks the centennial of the birth of the local feminist movement, a platform for fighting for equality and against gender-based violence.

“On this 100th anniversary, we need to paint the island purple,” historian Julio César González Pagés told IPS, referring to the colour that symbolises feminism around the world.

Cuba does not have any self-described feminist organisations at this time, even though the feminist current of thought has its followers here and is studied in universities. The anniversary “is passing without much glory,” lamented González Pagés, who invited everyone to pay tribute to the Cuban women who stood up to fight for their rights in 1912, as well as those who have continued their legacy.

It was in November of 1912 that the Partido Popular Feminista (Feminist Popular Party) was born. And in December the Sufragistas Cubanas (Cuban Suffragists) and the Nacional Feminista (Feminist National) parties were founded, marking the start of a political movement that was aimed first and foremost at winning the vote for women. And other women’s rights associations continued to emerge.

The movement persevered until winning most of its demands, such as the 1917 parental rights law and the 1918 divorce law, which made Cuba the first Latin American country to legalise divorce. However, the right to vote was not fully exercised until 1934.

“Ideas about women’s emancipation had existed in the country since long before,” said González Pagés, coordinator of the Ibero-American Masculinity Network. “But they became more visible in 1912, when women came together in feminist organisations.”

“When we appropriate that philosophy, we can fight for equality and against gender-based violence,” the activist said this month during a series of concerts that are being held in eight provinces as part of a prevention campaign.

Between January and March of this year, González Pagés and singer Rochy Ameneiro led a tour through 11 Cuban provinces in an effort to fight violence in music. The tour, which was called “All Women Against the Current,” included concerts, workshops for art students, and visits to places that are important in the history of Cuban women.

Many Cuban feminists applauded the creation in July of a national network for connecting the efforts of people and institutions for gender equality. The idea came up during a talk sponsored by the Mirta Aguirre Department of Gender and Communication at the José Martí International Institute of Journalism.

In separate efforts throughout the year, various organisations, universities, media outlets, blogs and others have discussed the feminist movement in Cuba, which went into decline after 1939. In response to the debates over this date, writer Teresa Díaz Canals called for a moment of “collective reflection.”

“We have to come to an agreement and clarify that the history of women is not just the history of feminists,” she said in an interview with IPS. “We cannot toss out our legacy to the ‘mute ones,’ our mothers,” she said. For her, many people continue to confront machismo “quietly, without making any declaration of faith or winning any battles.”

National oblivion has thicker layers, which writer Inés María Martiatu tears apart as a way of vindicating the struggle of black women in Cuba.

“Ignorance about Afro-feminism in Cuba reduces the history of the movement to a certain era, and emphasises the leadership of middle- and upper-class white women,” she told IPS.

“When black and poor women are excluded or minimised, that history is incomplete,” said Martiatu, who is the co-author, along with Daysi Rubiera, of the compilation Afrocubanas: historia, pensamientos y prácticas culturales (Afro-Cuban Women: History, Ideas and Cultural Practices), published in 2011. The conditions they live in and their demands have been different, she said.

And other voices highlight the struggle of lesbians for their rights.

To fight against that oblivion, historian and researcher Raquel Vinat de la Mata has devoted many years of her life to highlighting the role of women in the 19th century. “It is painful that we still do not have a book about women’s history,” she lamented, holding an unpublished book about the biographies of outstanding Cuban women.

“The lack of information about the Cuban women’s movement and its actions has really hurt us,” she said. “People tend to think that we were just given all of our rights, and that is why many women do not do more to defend the ones they have,” said Vinat de la Mata, who said she has observed “a resurgence of machismo” in society today.

Cuban women earn the same wages as men, have access to free abortion on demand, and enjoy paid maternity leave and shared paternity, among other benefits. At the end of 2011, women held 43.3 percent of seats in parliament and 36.7 percent of leadership posts, and made up 61 percent of university students.

However, women workers face a double workday, given that they shoulder most domestic work, and they are a minority in jobs with high economic remuneration and decision-making power. And inequalities include the persistence of gender-based violence, although no statistics exist to reflect its magnitude.

After the decline of the first wave of feminism, which was described as liberal, the struggle slumped until it reappeared as part of the leftist guerrilla forces that won the 1959 revolution.

Vinat de la Mata recalls those years “very fondly,” when she was one of the anonymous protagonists of the “revolution within a revolution.”

She was referring to the emancipation of women within the socialist transformations that began at the time. In 1960, various organisations in the country merged to form the Federation of Cuban Women, the only legal group representing women in Cuba today.

Through the Federation, women have increased their participation in the public sphere, for example. In 1993, the Asociación de Mujeres Comunicadoras (Association of Women in Communication), Magín, was created, to work for gender awareness in the media. But it never received the official authorisation it requested, and was shut down in 1996.

“Feminist awareness should not be based solely on an organisation, but on each one of us,” Vinat de la Mata said. “It has cost those of us who are feminists today a lot of work to open the way,” she said, recalling the stigma that was associated with the term “feminist” until the 1980s, when studies on women and gender emerged in Cuba.

http://www.ipsnews.net/2012/11/feminists-want-to-paint-cuba-purple/

Not All Feminists Have Hairy Armpits

Although this post won’t focus solely on the aesthetics of feminists, it was feminist imagery that inspired it. In the UK there is currently an ongoing campaign which asks Dominic Monaghan to remove page 3 models from The Sun newspaper. For those who are not aware, page 3 models are attractive women who pose semi-naked on page 3 (obviously) of the sun newspaper. The idea behind the campaign is to prevent the normalisation of women as objects, thus preventing sexual assault and rape prevalence.

The campaign has attracted somewhat mixed reviews, with groups of both men and women supporting and condemning it. Today, I logged onto my Facebook to see a post from a female friend blasting the campaign, suggesting we hold a breast fondling day to counteract it. Part of her post included ‘feminists with hairy armpits need to shut up’. It makes no difference to me whether women--be they feminist or not--have hairy armpits. What irked me was this idea that all of us feminists are bitter, grotesque whinge-bags who are jealous of others who want to get their breasts out.

It isn’t solely the aesthetic presumptions that annoy me here. What annoys me is that feminist is a dirty word, and that we are all seen as women who are verbose with no good reason. That is not true. First of all, some of the world’s most beautiful women are feminists. Natalie Portman, Angelina Jolie, Oprah Winfrey...I needn’t go on. That aside, do our looks matter? We do actually have a purpose, and our roles across feminist networks don’t revolve around winding up misogynists for the sake of it.

I consider myself to be a feminist, and I am sure the bloggers of Delta Women do too--both male and female. I place a lot of focus on reproductive and sexual health; I want women to be able to take charge of their birth, not suffer from maternal mortality, empower themselves with contraceptives, and have the right to say who has sex with them, how, and when. From the rape victims of the DRC, to the women too scared to carry condoms in their purse here in the UK for fear of being labeled a ‘slut’, I want to ensure they are able to take charge of their bodies and their health. In addition to this, I want women to be entitled to the same sexual and reproductive rights as men. That means reducing the prevalence of FGM, and ensuring that childbirth and pregnancy are taken seriously in the medical field. On the somewhat more contentious side of things, I want abortion to be legalised; I want women to have the right to choose, no matter where they are in the world.

I have worked in places where the value of a woman’s life is second to that of her male counterparts, and what people don’t realise is that women’s equality means a better way of life for all. Women are caregivers, workers, and they can influence people politically. If a woman is healthy, her children will be well cared for and her family will be supported emotionally and financially.

What I am trying to get at here is that as a feminist, I am not someone who wants to make life boring, or annoy people by ruining their fun. Unfortunately, this is the image that is predicted by those who either do not understand what feminism is about and those who would rather we do not have equal rights.

A Critical Assessment of Feminist Equality Why Men and Women will never be Equal (but should keep trying anyway)

            Although feminists will probably come to burn down my house for writing this post, I think this is an important issue to discuss about. However, instead of giving facts regarding the various issues of inequality that may or may not be fixed, I would like to frame this argument completely in terms of critical theory, showing that although men and women may never be truly equal in all experiences, this does not deny that we should continue to fight for equal rights.

            Critical theory is a school of thought that stresses the examination and critique of society and culture, identifying the flaws in current society compared to a perceived ideal. Although these critiques are not created necessarily to improve society but merely identify the flaws endemic within, critical theory essentially attempts to identify inequalities and injustices within a system. Taken in the context of feminism, critical theory would imply that not only are there current injustices and inequalities within the system between men and women but that there will always be inequalities no matter how much society improves toward the feminist ideal for equality.

            Thus, if we follow a critical theory perspective for feminine equality, we will learn that no matter how hard we try and no matter how hard we work to improve gender equality, there will always be flaws in the resulting society that will prevent true equality among the sexes. This can range from a variety of issues such as paternity leave that will inevitably favor single men over women and married men in the work place given the fact that companies would not need to provided paid paternity leave for single men, that due to innate biological differences between men and women, there will always be differences that prevent men and women from experiencing true equality in society.

            This is a pretty dark picture to paint given the fact that what this article is essentially saying is that no matter how hard we try to improve society to promote equality, it will never be truly perfect and thus, men and women will never experience true equality. This may result in us asking then what is the point, if we will never reach a point in time when both men and women will be truly equal then why continue to fight for equality. Should we instead try to outline some basic rights that men and women want to achieve and after achieving those goals, remain satisfied with our achievements and move onto other injustices in society? Even if we choose to accept this frame of mind, society will then need to determine what targets they need to achieve for an “acceptable” level of equality which would be undermined by the fact that not only will there be differing opinions of “acceptable” equality but that critical theory will strike again, critical theorists identifying the flaws in society that show that we failed to meet these targets.

            Given the difficulties of achieving equality and the inevitability of never achieving equality according to critical theorists, many supporters of equality may question why they should continue fighting. I would like to support this argument with a simple log graph.

            This is a simple log x graph which I would like to use to depict the progression of gender equality, thus showing why despite the inevitability of equality we should keep fighting. For this graph let us assume that the x-axis is the time while the y-axis represents the level of equality between men and women, 1 being the point where men and women are completely equal while the line defines the current level of equality between men and women. According to this log graph, no matter how large x becomes, the line will never reach, let alone pass 1. Similar to the critical theorist’s argument, no matter how much time passes, the line will never reach 1.

            However, as seen with the log graph, assuming people continue to work toward gender equality, gender equality increases over time and gets closer toward 1. Thus, as long as people continue to promote gender equality, the line representing the level of equality approaches its goal. As shown in the graph, the rate of growth decreases over time which means that the gains made in gender equality from women’s suffrage in the late 19^th Century will always outweigh the gains made in modern times from issues such as equal incomes for corresponding jobs. However, as shown with the graph, although the fight for equality may never end, the fight will always bring improvements in equality over time. Thus, although critical theorists may be correct in that no matter how hard we try to achieve equality we never will, their theory does not deny the fact that as long as we continue to attempt to improve gender equality, we will make gains as a society toward gender equality.

            Critical theory is not the bane of gender equality because it outlines the flaws all current and future societies. On the contrary, critical theory is necessary for social improvement since critical theory identifies the flaws and thus the improvements that need to be made to improve society beyond its current framework. Thus, it is true that under critical theory, no matter how hard we try, we will never achieve gender equality. However, critical theory allows us to identify the flaws that result in gender inequality and thus, the longer we work on gender equality, the more gains we make to achieve a more equal and fair society.