What The Fourth Wave Of Feminism Should Look Like, by Donna Carol Voss.
Hillary Clinton, champion of women, won 57 percent of women voters in New York’s primary; Donald Trump, demeaner of women, won 59 percent. … How can feminism ever show its face again?
So presumably the future of feminism shouldn’t look like Hillary Clinton.
Rather than retiring its tap shoes, feminism screeches forward, ever less powerful, ever less relevant. Feminism has devolved from an aspirational vision of equality to a perpetually childlike and peevish state. Women are first and foremost victims of the patriarchy, and don’t you ever forget it. What would a Hillary Clinton acceptance speech be without a rousing “once and for all, let’s guarantee equal pay for women”? Or a rallying cry to fight the evil men intent on “restricting a woman’s right to make her own health-care decisions”? …
Clinton is the ultimate fruit of the feminist movement, and if feminism were alive and well, she would be riding high on the support of female voters. But she isn’t. Women don’t like her. We, the beneficiaries of feminist gains, evaluate her character and accomplishments before we do her sex, and she comes up painfully short.
Yep, feminism could adopt a new stance.
We were given only one acceptable formula—pro-choice viewpoint; few children, if any; education and career before marriage, or even instead of marriage—and shamed into thinking there was something wrong with us if we preferred a husband and children to a childless career.
Men were the enemy, and life was a competition between the sexes for limited resources, in which women promoted the assertive, masterful, powerful aspects of our nature to win. Feminism came to mean the absence of femininity, and we lost that pleasing-to-both-sexes aspect of our interrelatedness.
Current feminism may well be a dead-end. Demographics is destiny.