if nothing else has stuck from that one women’s history class (dates? what dates?! what happened when?!?), i’ve at least taken away with me a more refined definition of what feminism should be. both a movement to reach the “seperate but equal” plateau as well as a women supporting women society…ultimately to live in a world where women can choose what they want to do (whatever that would be but with obvious regards for the intent to harm) and not be harrassed for their choices.
so ferchrissakes, why should a woman taking her husband’s last name make her any less of a feminist? just because she chooses to commit her love and relationship in a more traditional manner she’s now devoid of “true” feminist principles? pssh. whatevs. you know the one redeeming quality of that extremely lame movie mona lisa smile? that the julia stiles character totally flummoxed julia robert’s teacher person by choosing marriage over school and career. she’s not any less intelligent than before simply because she values family first. nothing wrong with that. what irked me about julia robert’s seemingly oh-so-strong feminist person is that she pretty much rejected stiles’ character after learning of her family over career choice. forcing your ideas (be it religion or feminism) onto someone, particularly when it’s obvious that the said someone is well-versed in their own character, is not intelligent feminism. neither is rejecting the other person because of their choices (made in complete consideration of their personal circumstance i might add!) being supportive of feminist principles. i’m not a fan of drawing strict lines around a supposedly progressive civil rights movement. the very definition of “civil rights” precludes limitations on an individual’s choices. what else are we fighting for then dammit?! duh! so that we can do what we wish without societal censure and legal ramifications…that inherent freedoms clause thing in the constitution…remember that?! it’s stuff like this that leaves a smear on what should be a move forward for society. why people often immediately have militant images of the angry woman feminist. i find myself walking back over and over again to the “men and women can so be equally lame” concept. always posited negatively (yieah that’s right, i’m an angry-at-society person) but, put simply, seperate but equal.
now i’m off to put the ff7 soundtrack on repeat to wash the bad icky taste of incompassionate militants outta my brain.