Is Choice a Paradox or a Pandora's Box?

I watched a Ted Talk with my husband the other day by a sociology professor, Barry Schwartz, that advocated a notion that was pretty contrary to my beliefs. It addressed the idea that the conception that maximized freedom creates maximized happiness is incorrect. He further postulates that obviously some degree of freedom of choice makes us happier, but too much freedom paralyzes us,  and raises our expectations only to leave us disappointed with the outcomes of our choices.

Some of his examples seem to make a little bit of sense. But the man doesn't give many examples of important life choices. Instead he focuses on products in grocery stores, and pairs of jeans, and even brings up the idea that the big fish can't say to the little fish, "Hey little fish, the world is wide open to you, and you can be anything you want to be," because the only way for that to be possible would be for the fish bowl to shatter, thus paralyzing the fish and leaving it for dead. Ok...are we supposed to be the fish in this example? If so, is he seriously saying we'd be happier to just be content with having no power to change our situations?And if we tried it would be a fatal decision? Seems like it.

I think Schwartz is obviously shortsighted.  The power to direct your own life, while riddled with risks and setbacks, is infinitely more capable of giving us happiness than just learning to be content with the limited options available to us. Having high expectations doesn't necessitate having unreasonable ones, or not being capable of finding happiness despite the episodes of disappointment and depression we may face. This man's conception of happiness is shallow, and devoid of the capacity to learn from pain, or to find strength and direction in personal agency and responsibility despite the guilt that is also possible. He also ignores the fact that having setbacks with our choices will invariably lead to making better choices.

He's written a book called The Paradox of Choice. I don't think choice presents a paradox, I think it presents a Pandora's box. The good and the bad. The more choices we get, the more virtuous or reprehensible we are capable of becoming. I guess perhaps more misery is possible, but certainly more happiness as well.

I'd hate to imagine the applications this book could invite. Would we simply have limits to the varieties of products we see in the grocery store, or will we be teaching our children that sometimes we should just learn to be happy swimming in our puny fishbowls? I can tell you, while my beta fish looks pretty oblivious, he certainly doesn't look happy!

But seriously, this talk seems completely anti-feminist to me. And rather than defiantly resisting the status quo (as Schwartz may think he's doing), he's provided justifications to limit people's choices. In a world where many choices are already a privilege, this is a dangerous idea. I think it's ironic and upsetting that this could ever be a solution to improve the well-being of others.

Watch it, and tell me what you think.

Wise Words from Walt Whitman

Couldn't have said it better!

The Role of Women and Motherhood

This entry focuses on a personal attempt to more fully reconcile aspects of my feminism and my religion, as sometimes they don't clearly see eye-to-eye.

In my last blog post, I discussed how being nice is not the same as being virtuous, and how taken to an extreme, it can disable our authentic selves. To be clear, niceness in that context was not about kindness, it was about vain and pretentious politeness for it's own sake. Sometimes rejecting niceness, even in the name of authenticity, may raise a few eyebrows, lead to misunderstandings, or as a classmate said, it may make a woman seem bitchy. So be it.

For the first time in that post, I was able to share a quote that sings to my soul. I'll share it again!

"Why so hard?" the kitchen coal once said to the diamond. "After all, are we not close kin?"
Why so soft? O my brothers, thus I ask you: are you not after all my brothers?
Why so soft, so pliant and yielding? Why is there so much denial, self-denial, in your hearts? So little destiny in your eyes?
And if you do not want to be destinies and inexorable ones, how can you one day triumph with me?
And if your hardness does not wish to flash and cut through, how can you one day create with me?
For all creators are hard. And it must seem blessedness to you to impress your hand on millennia as on wax.
Blessedness to write on the will of millennia as on bronze -- harder than bronze, nobler than bronze. Only the noblest is altogether hard.
This new tablet, O my brothers, I place over you: Become hard!

I have hesitated before to share it with others because I haven't wanted to seem misguided or disrespectful in contradicting the soft and tender role of womanhood that my religion has encouraged me to cherish. That hesitation betrays my true self. The truth is, I unequivocally feel the need to define my own role in life, but I still find it difficult because I feel like I'm expected to follow a divinely given role instead. Specifically, I have a few issues with The Family: A Proclamation to the World. I feel it is inspired, and serves families well, but I feel that confining myself to the role it outlines for me as a woman limits my Individual Worth. I feel it pronounces my role for eternity on me like the life occupations are pronounced in stories like Anthem and The Giver. Granted, "Nurturer" is a far nobler calling than "Street Sweeper," I still feel it is somewhat arbitrary. My spirit tells me to that my role is not written. It is mine to discover and to create.

Similarly, I also do not overwhelmingly desire motherhood in the way I feel I'm supposed to. Again, this is a noble role, and I have yet to discover and determine how noble it can be, and how fulfilling, but that is not my point. My point is that it seems that motherhood is appointed as the "be all, end all" role and joy for all women, despite their individualism. That idea certainly seems to diminish the role of women who are unable to have children, women who don't desire to, women who are single or past child-bearing years, women who have fewer children than others, women who aren't able to spend as much time with their children, or women who struggle in finding happiness in motherhood.

But part of my confusion with the supreme role of motherhood is that being a mother, in the literal sense, requires the biological capacity to bear children, a biology that is common among all organisms which populate the world with living things. So, what distinguishes the nobility and divinity of motherhood in women from the biology and sociology of it seen in all animals? And why aren't these distinctions of motherhood given greater emphasis than motherhood itself? Furthermore, why are the divine non-biological aspects of motherhood primarily suitable for women rather than men? And why does fatherhood not seem to be emphasized as greatly as motherhood?

I don't really know the answer to these questions and concerns. However, my readings from Paula Gunn Allen this week about Indigenous Feminism has comforted me and helped me feel that being a mother can go beyond child bearing/rearing and being nurturing. The readings focus on Native American culture, and I find it particularly interesting that it was matriarchal rather than patriarchal. Women were the heads of families, and rituals, and were primarily the leaders in Native American societies. Women were also the deities in their creation myths.

From Gunn, I read that creation began with Thought Woman, who was responsible for directing the rest of creation. She first brought to life two twin sisters. She did not bear them in the biological sense, but she sang over a bundle of materials, which organized and gave the women form and vitality. The text claims, "Central to Keres theology is the basic idea of Creatrix as She Who Thinks rather than She Who Bears, of women as creation thinker and female thought as origin of material and nonmaterial reality. In this epistemology, the perception of female power as confined to maternity is a limit on the power inherent in femininity."

Further, Gunn discusses that being a mother is considered one of the highest honors and offices among Native American culture. She states, "But its value signifies something other than the kind of sentimental respect for motherhood that is reflected in American's Mother's Day observations. It is ritually powerful, a condition of being that confers the highest adeptship on whoever bears the title. So central to ritual activities is it in Indian cultures that men are honored by the name mother." She further claims that, "A strong attitude integrally connects the power of Original Thinking or Creation Thinking to the power of mothering. That power is not so much the power to give birth, as we have noted, but the power to make, to create, to transform. Ritual, as noted elsewhere, means transforming something from one state or condition to another, and that ability is inherent in the action of mothering. It is the ability that is sought and treasured by adepts, and it is the ability that male seekers devote years of study and discipline to acquire. Without it, no practice of the sacred is possible..."  

For American Indians, mothering was about utilizing the power of creation. For women, bearing and rearing children was a sacred path of motherhood. But it was also a sacred path of motherhood to build and sustain communities by hunting for food, leading rituals, healing the sick, and enabling spiritual communication.

Likewise, as women in the LDS church, we take great honor in more than our children and our care-taking responsibilities. We take honor in our education, skills, passions, relationships, health, and hobbies. I feel that in learning to recognize and utilize our powers to create something, anything worthwhile, we will find our sacred role and strength as women, and as children of God.

For myself, whenever I hear the joys and role of motherhood mentioned and feel left out, I will think on Native American culture, and a more grand and inclusive meaning for the word mother. I will think on Thought Woman, and her power to create even through song. I will focus on my talents and my abilities to transform myself and the world, making life better and more beautiful. I will ponder on my role in creation. I will be my own Creatrix.

Shine On You Crazy Diamond

A few years ago, at the start of a new school year, one of my roommates asked me what my greatest pet peeve was, regarding roommates. I immediately told her, "Passive-aggressive notes." I explained that I've had roommates who, rather than discussing their issues openly or privately with other roommates, would detail their annoyances on the whiteboard for everyone to see. Usually, these notes would contain positive and friendly words and phrases, while conveying massive irritation at the same time. One example went something like this:

Someone keeps turning up the thermostat. This costs us lots of money! So that we all can benefit and save money, please keep it down to 65 degrees. Thanks! :)

That "someone" was me. For all I know, though, there could have been more roommates turning up the thermostat. Anyway, to solve the problem, I offered to pay more than my share of the utilities so that it wouldn't cost extra for my roommates, and I would still be comfortable with the temperature in the apartment. Win-Win, right? Well, the next thing I knew, there was duct tape covering the knob on the thermostat (which, of course, was set at 65). I didn't see a smiley face this time, though.

These notes were especially irritating to me if they resulted in a series of written responses on the whiteboard, which played out to be some kind of bizarre fight without any physical interaction. You'd have to see it to believe how ridiculous it was.

I've often wondered how this behavior of passive-aggressive notes and whiteboard fights became appropriate. After some time, I think I get it. I think the problem with passive-aggressiveness is that many of the people we know, especially women, try too hard to be nice. They try to be nice, even when they are fuming with rage. Couple that with a disinclination to ever seem contentious and an inexperience with confrontation, and you get bottled up anger, that blows up pretty bizarrely. So, what's the solution?

Don't be so nice!

Several months ago, I read a book called Only When I Laugh, by Elouise Bell. Elouise is a former BYU professor of English. I purchased her book after seeing her give a speech in Salt Lake after being honored with an award (for being an awesome Mormon Feminist...or something like that). I was impressed by her wisdom, optimism, and attitude, and felt that she would be a great role model for how I wish my feminism to fuel my faith. Heck, I even named one of my hens after her :)

Back to her book, though. I particularly liked her chapter, "When Nice Ain't So Nice." I'll be quoting it a lot. In it, she begins by saying that niceness can mask the truth, and can even be dangerous. Often times, con artists, child molesters, and wife beaters appear nice and friendly to their neighbors and community, even so much that people rush to their defense, despite the testimonies of their victims. The fact is, niceness is commonly mistaken for virtuousness.

She relates that while C.S. Lewis believed courage to be the one virtue that protects all other virtues, she believed niceness to corrupt all other virtues. She claims, "Niceness edits the truth, dilutes loyalty, makes a caricature of patriotism. It hobbles Justice, short-circuits Honor, and counterfeits Mercy, Compassion, and Love." She further states, " Nice flies under false colors, wants the reputation of the gentle dove without the wisdom of the wise serpent. It is the Great Imposter, having none of the power of Virtue but seeking the influence thereof. Nice is neither kind nor compassionate, neither good nor full of good cheer, neither hot nor cold. But being puffed up in its own vanity, it is considerably more dangerous than luke-warmth."

Considering the damage niceness can do to our virtues, we might imagine that where it is encouraged and given over-emphasis, there will be negative results. In discussing a dominatly authoritative parenting style, where children are expected to be obedient and submissive without question, Elouise Bell explains what psychologist Alice Miller terms the "poisonous pedagogy." "The 'poisonous pedagogy' teaches children, in other words, to be 'nice.' It demands that children not resist the status quo, not take any direct action against whatever injustices are going down. Thus, it indirectly but inevitably encourages covert action, manipulation, passive-aggression, duplicity, and denial."

Likewise, Bell believes that niceness can do damage to our very souls, if we let it replace our authentic virtues and sense of Self. She compares the journey of self-discovery we each go through and the impending threat of niceness this way:

Imagine a mother, a Queen if you like, who awakens from the sleep that follows childbirth to discover that her child has been abducted, carried away. At first there are some signs of the child - a cry down a long corridor, a blanket woven for the baby and discovered on the lawn, perhaps a scent of baby's breath on the night air. These eventually stop. Time passes. The mother searches night and day. And every now and then she hears from the child - a lisping voice over the telephone line, garbled with static; torn parts of a hand-written note; sometimes even a little gift, sent with love. And the mother continues to hunt for the child, to follow clues, and to send the child, by whatever means - on the phone in the fleeting moments permitted, by thought transference, by prayer - all the love and support she can muster, as the search continues. 

Now imagine that, in the midst of these labors, the mother is repeatedly beset by concerned people - most prominently the Queen Mother and her consort - who urge her to break off her search, who try to press a different child on her, insisting that this one is much "nicer" than her own, scolding her, saying she is selfish, willful, possibly even crazy to go on with her search. If the opposition is persistent, the Queen may eventually come to believe she is crazy, to doubt that there ever was such a child, to cease following the clues, to grow deaf to the voice on the other end of the phone. To give up the search. Devotees of the cult of niceness abandon the True Self and promote the False Self, the self that psychologist John Bradshaw describes this way: "You pretend a lot. You gauge your behavior by how it looks - by the image you believe you're making, You wear a mask, play a rigid role, and hide your emotions. You say you're fine when you're hurt or sad. You say you're not angry when you are." 

I've come to a lot of hard realizations lately in my journey to uncover who I really am, and what I want, independent of the world around me. Some of these realizations have come as a surprise. Through all of it, I know that the worst thing I can do with my life is to hide my reality, or dismiss it as being insignificant, or crazy. In many ways, I'm becoming more comfortable to show myself to the world. It may be a cliche' to say, "This above all: to thine own self be true," but Shakespeare nailed it!  


It's difficult to be advised that, as a woman, I should always seek to be nice, soft, and feminine. For the most part, I don't feel that that is who I am (or who I want to be). Personally, I've always felt much more compelled by Friedrich Nietzche's call to reject niceness and "become hard": 

"Why so hard?" the kitchen coal once said to the diamond. "After all, are we not close kin?"
Why so soft? O my brothers, thus I ask you: are you not after all my brothers?
Why so soft, so pliant and yielding? Why is there so much denial, self-denial, in your hearts? So little destiny in your eyes?
And if you do not want to be destinies and inexorable ones, how can you one day triumph with me?
And if your hardness does not wish to flash and cut through, how can you one day create with me?
For all creators are hard. And it must seem blessedness to you to impress your hand on millennia as on wax.
Blessedness to write on the will of millennia as on bronze -- harder than bronze, nobler than bronze. Only the noblest is altogether hard.
This new tablet, O my brothers, I place over you: Become hard!

Sexist Jokes

Back when I was a freshman in college, I had two good friends (males) that found it funny to say, "Make me a sandwich, wench!" I knew that they were my friends, and didn't think I was a wench. And I knew they didn't expect me to make them a sandwich, so I never really said anything back. I just assumed they were goofing off, and, well, whatever. Then one day, my roommate was with me when they called me "wench," and she forcefully responded, "Don't you dare call her that!" It wasn't until that moment that I truly realized that despite the fact that they weren't serious, it was definitely rude and disrespectful behavior, and it hurt my feelings. I was certainly glad that my roommate wouldn't stand for it. And I wish that I hadn't allowed it either.

Fast forward. Just recently, a friend of mine shared a photo with me that his friend had posted on facebook. He then asked me whether I was offended by it, or if I found it humorous somehow. What do you think?

Let's just say, I found it offensive. I'm sure that the manufacturers simply felt this was funny, and so did the person who posted it. But I have to wonder not only why people feel comfortable making jokes at women's expense, but why any respectable company would be bold enough to publicly do so. I remarked that there would never be a racist joke about who picked the cotton for the clothing, because of course, no one would find that funny. It would be blatantly offensive! So why does society so readily allow sexist jokes to go unchallenged?

This laundry tag reminded me of a speech that Hillary Clinton gave in which she was heckled by a man who shouted, "Iron my shirt!"

I'm so glad that she didn't just ignore the comment. It's not okay to marginalize women, or to play the part of the chauvinist for laughs. Not only should we resist participating in these jokes and comments, we should stand up against them. I'm discovering that developing more courage through the beginnings of my feminist journey isn't easy. Even in my adulthood, with all I've learned, it's still hard to stand up to the bullies I encounter. A couple months ago, I stood up for a friend of mine at a get-together, and found myself crying after being made fun of and questioned as to why I was upset. I wish I were stronger. I wish that I could stand up for others with more power and authority, and without tears. For now, it only matters to me that I have the courage to do it at all, in whatever capacity I have. It's a step in the direction I know I need to go.  

The 30% Solution

Last week, I listened to a guest speaker from Rwanda talk about the history of women's social and political influence on the country over the years. Today, it is the leading country in the world for female representation in government. Interestingly, before the 1980s, however, Rwandan women could not even go out in public. Nor could they even speak in the presence of men. The transformation of women's social standing in Rwanda is simply astounding! But how did it happen?

Unfortunately, the answer to this question largely has a tragic history. In 1994, a massive genocide occurred in Rwanda against the Tutsi people. This genocide was, in fact, orchestrated by the government. Military leaders were ordered to publicly rape and murder women. Even children were murdered. Citizens were ordered to kill their own neighbors. Within a few months, 1/5 of the nation had been wiped out.

The violence that occurred throughout the genocide was largely sexual in nature, in that it was rare for any female survivors to not have been raped. It was not unusual for someone to see a woman raped several times in one day, and do nothing about it. It is also not a surprise that most of the women who survived the killings were infected with HIV.

Due to this tragedy, Rwanda has gained a much greater sensitivity for oppression due to ethnicity and gender. The politics of Rwanda has also undergone serious reform. In 2003, Rwanda instituted a provision that at least 30% of their parliament needed to be women. This decision was rooted in the deliberations of the UN Conference held in Beijing in 1995. The deliberation for women's rights went beyond addressing personal liberties, it focused on the need to involve women in worldwide democracy and economic development. Speakers did not focus on the discrimination that women faced, or how to reconcile past injustices. The focus was on the strength that women could offer to make the world better.

In her book, Women Lead the Way, Linda Tarr-Whelan describes women as the number one untapped resource in the world. I believe that to be an appropriate description, considering that proposal after proposal for reforms are made in politics and business, but utilizing the unique strengths of women is rarely offered as a solution. In Beijing, the UN offered what is commonly referred to as The 30% Solution. In essence, to experience chance that represents and values the perspective of women, we need women in the highest positions of leadership. Women need to make decisions too. They determined that the critical amount of representation of women required to create a catalyst for change was 30%.

The impact of the Beijing Conference has been tremendous, and nations around the globe began adopting The 30% Solution. Today, at least 23 countries meet or exceed the 30% goal, and 101 others have created reforms in their constitutions and laws to enable progress towards it. As I stated earlier, Rwanda is the leader in female representation, with 56% women in parliament, and 1/3 women in the cabinet. Other leading nations for female representation are Sweden, Cuba, Finland, Argentina, the Netherlands, Denmark, Angola, Costa Rica, Spain, and Norway. In addition, the following countries have elected a female president or prime minister: the Philippines, New Zealand, Senegal, Finland, Indonesia, Peru, Mozambique, Germany, Ukraine, Chile, Switzerland, Liberia, South Korea, Jamaica, Argentina, Iceland, Panama, and Latvia.

How does the United States compare? Well, in 1996, the US ranked forty-second in female representation. Since then, we are falling further and further behind. Even more shocking to me, was the fact that Afghanistan ranks twenty-eighth, and Iraq ranks thirty-fifth. Tarr-Whelan reveals, "The U.S. government under President George W. Bush also promoted change by adopting hard targets for women in office--but only outside U.S. borders." It's strange that the U.S. would require Afghanistan and Iraq to create quotas for women in office, and yet ignore adopting such polices at home. It is pretty shocking to me that the United States of America, founded on liberty and the pursuit of happiness, is so far behind.  And they are complacent about it! I hear statistics rattle off all the time about how much the U.S. is falling behind in the education "race," and believe me, there is plenty of shame for it. But there is practically no recognition or shame for the ways we are failing to further women's rights to participate in making decisions for our country.

Several decades have passed since Eleanor Roosevelt made this observation: "Too often the great decisions are originated and given form in bodies made up wholly of men or so completely dominated by them that whatever of special value women have to offer is shunted aside without expression." Today, it hasn't changed much:

I hope it doesn't take a massive genocide like it did in Rwanda for people to realize that without female representation in our government, women will have no voice and no influence on the destiny of our country and our world.

The Man-Hater Stereotype and an Inclusive Look at Feminism

Many people are turned off and even antagonistic towards feminism because of the conception that feminists are man-haters. Well, maybe some of them are, but most of them are not. Historically, however, men have been painted as villains throughout feminist theory. I'll share a little bit of that (referencing bell hooks from her work, Feminist Theory From Margin to Center), but realize that the feminism that encouraged viewing men as the enemy was, and where it persists, is significantly shortsighted. I wish to share a different conception of feminism with you than the one you may imagine when you think of feminism, one which is fully inclusive of men as well as women, and one in which a positive goal is in store for all.

First, some history. One popular book from the era of second wave feminism in the 60s that you may have heard of, The Feminine Mystique, created a huge response among feminist-thinkers. It was written to address what the author, Betty Friedan, termed, "the problem that has no name" among American women. The problem, of course, being the discrimination, exploitation, and oppression that women faced in our society. In essence, she gave a name to the fear, repressed anger, depression, and anxiety that women knew, but could not confidently pinpoint.

Her solution was for women to, essentially, be like men. She advised women to seize the same opportunities that allow men their freedom and happiness in the world by having a career, and investing themselves outside of the home. The goal, as seen by Friedan, and many feminist theorists, was simply for women to become socially and politically equal with men.

However, critical analysis of The Feminine Mystique reveals that the audience it addressed was clearly very selective. Specifically, it was written for white, middle-class, dissatisfied, married women . It suited their situation well, and provided a much-needed discourse and movement for these women. However, it excluded many women, and men, from the feminist ideology of equity. For instance, consider the middle-class, white homemakers who decided to find a career and purpose outside of the home that would bring them a greater sense of satisfaction. Now what about the women who would take over their tasks of caregiver and housekeeper once they began focusing on their careers?

The oppression and exploitation that faced other women on the grounds of their class and race was ignored, and even, at times, sacrificed for the good of the feminist middle-class. bell hooks remarks, "They were ultimately more concerned with obtaining an equal share in class privilege than with the struggle to eliminate sexism and sexual oppression." Today, feminism has come a long way in addressing the viewpoints and needs of women across the globe regarding issues that go far beyond gender. But at this time the feminist movement gained strength focusing simply on the problem of gender inequity between middle-class men and women. These women wanted the same opportunities and rewards offered to men. The best way to achieve that seemed to be for women to compete with men for the same positions, success, and respect.

However, fostering competition with men in the search for freedom from male domination, understandably, did not lead to a harmonious revolutionary movement. Ironically, in many ways, the very movement for women's liberation is the subject of enormous oppression. Competitive attitudes have fostered an endless battle of the sexes, where women's gain is somehow perceived by some as men's loss. Unfortunately, in competing with men and dealing with male oppression, feminists designated all men "the enemy." As a result, another viewpoint that obviously went ignored by feminists was the oppressed male. "They were not eager to call attention to the fact that men do not share a common social status, that patriarchy does not negate the existence of class and race privilege or exploitation, that all men do not benefit equally from sexism." Men who suffered due to discrimination  and oppression based on class and race struggled too, and could hardly imagine themselves as having male privilege. Furthermore, the women who knew and sympathized with these men could not see them as "the enemy" that feminism portrayed all men to be.

Addressing these shortcomings by feminists, bell hooks says, "They were ultimately more concerned with obtaining an equal share in class privilege than with the struggle to eliminate sexism and sexist oppression." She further remarks,

The insistence on a concentrated focus on individualism, on the primary of self, deemed 'liberatory' by women's liberationists, was not a visionary, radical concept of freedom. It did provide individual solutions for women, however. It was the same idea of independence perpetuated by the imperalist patriarchal state which equates independence with narcissism, and lack of concern with triumph over others. In this way, women active in feminist movement were simply inverting the dominant ideology of the culture--they were not attacking it. 

 With that in mind, it's no wonder that feminists were often competitive, aggressive, and demanding. They were mirroring the way that men achieve economic independence and social success, because they wanted to be an equal part of what is largely a world forged by men in power. As a result, women have opportunities that are open to them through education and employment that were simply unheard of before the feminist movement. All criticism aside, this has been an amazing and awe-inspiring goal and achievement (with still many more steps ahead!). The potential for feminist achievement is extraordinary. Though today I feel it helpful to explore some critical aspects of feminism to understand the resistance and persecution it faces, I feel discouraged that the influence of criticism holds us back from exploring and advocating worthwhile causes.

Perhaps one problem in finding a focus on the cause, and not the criticism, is that as feminism has been explored from various perspectives, the goals and definitions of feminism seem to shift and refocus. It is difficult to know exactly what feminism stands for, and what it takes to be a feminist. Understanding the need to introduce a simple and inclusive view of feminism, bell hooks suggests that a good definition for feminism, rather than the movement for women to achieve equality with men, would be the movement to eradicate sexual exploitation and oppression. The former encourages viewing men and women separately, if not antagonistically. It also assumes that women must do the work alone, and that men do not struggle to achieve equity as well. The latter definition focuses on what the problem is, and how to fix it, and not on the identity of a victim and oppressor. It opens the way for harmonious discourse and solutions to be reached by everyone in the name of feminism. It creates the impression of a positive political movement for the globe (as it should be), rather than the personal pursuit of dealing with women's issues with men, in which it is often perceived and marginalized to be.

Feminists who hate men, in reality, are few and far between. However, as is understandable in considering oppression and exploitation, it should be expected that many men are at fault. There are going to be negative responses addressed at men for this behavior. But it is not all men. Men can be oppressed too. Women can be the oppressors. Men will oppress other men, as well as women. Women will oppress other women, as well as men. Gender is not the only or primary cause of oppression, but in many ways, it is the most pervasive. It doesn't require overtly hurtful or abusive actions to oppress others. Many times, we are not even conscious of the way we oppress others, as much of our actions are socialized behaviors. But socialization does not dismiss the responsibility we have to examine and change the hurtful things we think, say, and do. If you have been hesitant to fully support feminism, or if you support it but want to expand your focus and commitment, I urge you to look at feminism in this light, and see what the end of all oppression has to offer you and the rest of the world.