Is This What Female Empowerment Is Really About?

October 3rd, 2021 | AR

At one time in our history, women were not allowed to vote, work certain jobs, or perform certain tasks. Today, the reality of women's rights is much different. The focus of female empowerment movements has changed considerably from what it was just a short half-decade ago. The focus began to shift to abortion and gender gaps in the late part of the 1970s and has since become singularly fixated on these subjects, as well as more menial and trivial subjects like “man spreading” and “aggressive eye contact”. Men have become the focus of angst and resentment, while feminists have begun to demand acceptance into male dominated positions based merely on their status as women. It has become increasingly clear that feminist movements have devolved into petty and ridiculous franchises, due to the lack of real and measurable oppression against women in our society.

As women have gained more rights, wealthy feminist organizations have been forced into self-preservation. They have been encouraged to manufacture new controversies to stay afloat and to remain relevant in the 21st Century. Many international organizations have wisely and rightfully shifted their focus to truly oppressed and developing nations, but some have targetted Western culture and found profitable avenues to achieve greater wealth through manufactured controversy.

Western nations have achieved historic levels of equality for women, but for many feminists, it is not enough. They have pressed and pushed themselves into a petty domain that encourages division among the sexes, poor health among women and the outright, harmful excommunication of men and young boys for being boys.


The Acceptance Of Obesity And Poor Health

In England, the advertisement of skinny and extremely fit women was banned in 2015 by the country's Advertising Standards Authority. In a well documented case, Urban Outfitters was forced to remove an advertisement containing the image of a thin woman with an unacceptable thigh gap. Following an anonymous complaint, the advertising agency released a statement.

“We consider that the model was very thin, and noted, in particular, that there was a significant gap between the model's thighs, and that her thighs and knees were a similar width,” the agency said.

As we have seen with the new advertising strategies at Victoria Secret and Old Navy, obesity and poor health are acceptable on the other end of the playing field, while underweight and overly fit body imagery, from the other side of the field, is less acceptable.


(article continues after ads)

Inside all of this insanity is contained two very harmful new precedents. Firstly, there is a very open and disgusting new form of discrimination against underweight, very fit and thin women. Secondly, there is an acceptance and encouragement aimed at overweight and possibly obese body imagery. This inclusive measure has, in fact, shown itself to be discriminatory and harmful in nature. From a cultural perspective, it promotes further discrimination and poor health among young women.

Underweight, or extremely fit young women can no longer be portrayed, as they are, in media or advertising. Overweight and generally unhealthy women will be prioritized to encourage “acceptance”, while women with possible eating disorders will be ostracized and erased from our cultural subconsciousness. Very fit or skinny women, who have chosen their own body image by their own volition, will be condemned and their lifestyles will be deemed undesirable. In many cases, their lifestyles and choices will be deemed offensive and intolerable by the powers that be.

To the sensible people among us, none of this appears reasonable. That could be because it isn't.

The reasonable among us can accept that women should be allowed to choose their own body image, without reverting to forms of mandated discrimination. Women should be free to choose and maintain their health how they wish. They should not be shamed for being skinny, or for being overweight. Women of all sizes and variations should be shown on television and in advertisements. Propagandizing one kind of image and lifestyle is not, nor ever has been, the answer to female empowerment.


Destroying Men For Being Men

Many on the feminist fringe will argue that men have criticized and discriminated against women for being women. Indeed, through a large part of history, that has been true. For a long time, men have defined what it means to be female, but that has quickly become the past. Many men will try to do it today, but that is when true feminism has a purpose.

Only women can define what it means to be a woman. Only women should be in control of their destinies, and their fate should never be decided by men, or by their biological nature as women. However, if this is to remain true on one side, it will need to remain true on the other.

Being separate but equal is not a real thing. One cannot be separate, but still considered equal to their colleagues and counterparts. If one rule applies to how women should be treated and viewed, an identical rule must be applied to how men are treated and viewed. Only a man can decide what it means to be a man. His fate should not fall into the hands of rabid feminists with an agenda.

Increasingly so, men have been attacked and ostracized for being themselves. Whether it be his beer drinking, sports watching behaviours, or his flirty glare at a woman on the subway, many of his traits and behaviours have been deemed intolerable. On the other hand, many feminists will complain that chivalry is dead.

When a man can no longer flirt with, look at, compliment or admire a woman for her looks or personality, chivalry has only one place left to go: the grave.

"Western nations have achieved historic levels of equality for women, but for many feminists, it is not enough."

In recent decades, male suicides and depression have risen dramatically. Scientific studies are still underway, but preliminary results show higher levels of social isolation, rejection and shame as common culprits. As more normal male behaviours and instincts are deemed inappropriate, these factors will only continue to expand and multiply. When simple smiles and looks on a subway are called “creepy” and abusive by radicalized young females, men cannot be expected to feel anything other than guilty and isolated.

As women's instincts and desires are becoming more commonly acceptable, men's instincts and desires are viewed with greater levels of repulsion.

Masculinity has been called toxic without much distinction. Indeed, certain forms of masculinity are very toxic, but the radical fringes of modern feminism do not seem to have much use for differentiating between the toxic forms and the healthy forms. Today, assertiveness and ambition among men has fallen under the label. Taking it on the chin and expressing strength is now toxic, along with asserting one's position when in a position of authority. Aggressively working to climb a corporate ladder, or aggressively pursuing one's goals in the workplace, are often considered toxic masculinity.

Being an old fashioned man and bread-winning patriarch is too toxic for modern feminism and has been deemed unacceptable. The common male instinct to protect and provide is no longer tolerable and has, thus, been expunged from society's moral fabric. Unless, of course, a feminist needs protection and provisions from a man at any given moment. In which case, she will accept it—but only until it ceases to be convenient.

Modern feminism has attempted to castrate the modern male in order to level the playing field. Men can no longer pursue their career goals aggressively and assertively, but women can. Men can no longer be the proud heads of the family who provide and protect, but women can. Men are more frequently made to feel guilt and shame when they attempt any of these sexist and unacceptable endeavours. Such acts of toxic masculinity have been deemed criminal.

Moreover, men can no longer court women without feeling hesitant and guilty. They have been stripped of their abilities to feel pride and confidence in their efforts to pursue romantic relationships with women. Smiles, excessive stares, flirty compliments and innocent touches can land any man in hot water, leaving many of them choosing to forego the entire process of courtship all together.

This new culture has proven harmful to women as well.

Studies have shown a spike in loneliness across all genders. Men have experienced a higher increase than women, but women, too, have begun experiencing higher levels of loneliness. A decrease in courtship efforts among men will, inevitably, have an effect on the mental health of women. As more and more men refrain from what was commonly considered normal behaviour, more and more women will find themselves with fewer romantic options.


Killing Unborn Children

At the centre of modern female empowerment is the right to kill an unborn child. Despite the several choices faced by a woman before pregnancy, it is said that anything less than the right to kill an unborn child is an infringement of a woman's right to choose. This is abundantly clear in the rhetoric of nearly every Western feminist.

The epitome of feminism in the Western world is the right of any woman to kill an unborn child, willy-nilly, whenever she feels the prospects of motherhood are too heavy a burden. As the single most fundamental tenet of modern feminism, abortion is the most egregious of them all. The normalization of the practice has defined modern feminism and made it one of the most insufferable movements in Western civilization.

The very fact that female empowerment hinges on whether a woman can abort a fetus is remarkable. The idea that a woman can only be free and empowered if she has the right to terminate a pregnancy shows how far feminism has fallen since the days of universal suffrage. No more are the days when women had real, true rights to defend—rights that did not involve ending the lives of their unborn children.

In short, modern feminism has made itself about killing unborn children and very little else.

Astonishing is the fact that, when a series of poor choices leads to an unwanted pregnancy (with the exception or rape), those who oppose the act of abortion are called oppressors. Those who defend a woman's right to make several choices that could have prevented an unwanted pregnancy are immediately called fascists when they stand up to defend the life of an unborn child.

Under the guise of “reproductive rights”, the act of killing an unborn child has been watered down with disarming language and trivialized notions of children being nothing but clumps of cells. As we all do, according to the universe, we clumps of cells begin somewhere. That somewhere is inside our mothers' wombs, where we are given the opportunity to grow into living, breathing, feeling and loving clumps of cells. This process of life goes through a series of other choices before becoming reality. The very fact that the process of terminating a human life is the single defining tenet of modern feminism is disgusting, especially because an abortion is the last choice within a series of other choices that could have been made.

A society that allows such practices to become normal and virtuous must be questioned. A group of people who do not bat an eye, or give second consideration, to the act of killing an unborn child must be re-labelled. Those who consider these actions virtuous and free must take a good, long look in the mirror.

How can this single issue truly be what female empowerment is about?

© 2021 Poletical