I’m approaching this subject from a personal perspective, because when it comes to feminism, I’m an inexperienced woman.

Call me a product of the modern era, a person who witnesses and enjoys the fruits of the upheaval of the sixties and seventies. Racial prejudice towards blacks isn’t a controversy to me because I don’t see blacks as being different from whites or browns. (I have an olive complexion, black hair and dark eyes - I’m what you’d call a “minority.") I don’t see men as a majority as sexist and chauvinist. As a kid and a teenager I was oblivious to these issues because they never directly affected life as I knew it, and even today, I don’t see why a person’s gender, ethnicity, skin color or sexual orientation has anything to do with how society should think an individual should be treated.

The reason I asked Hugo questions about feminism was and is that I’m a woman who’s curious about the movement behind women’s rights. I’ve been studying feminist poetry in one of my classes and that added fuel to the fire, so I approached a blogger who regularly tackles feminist issues at his website, is very knowledgable about current women’s concerns, and identifies himself as a feminist. I figured those factors were enough to establish his authority on the subject.

In Hugo’s response, he discusses abortion, choice, and solidarity. Well, abortion first: I’m pro-life and always have been. “Fetus” is the same word as “unborn child” to me. The only exception I make is in the case where a woman has an ectopic pregnancy. I don’t see pro-choice supporters as being misleading, but I do question their motives behind their support. What do they see as being more important – a woman’s independence to make life-changing choices or an unborn child’s right to live? Who is more important – the potential mother or the unborn child? Why? Is the priority of one life over another meaningful in any way to pro-choice supporters?

I agree with Hugo that the modern feminist movement seems to identify itself by being pro-choice. Until now, that’s how I viewed most feminists: they were pro-choice, and they were usually angry about something. Also, criticizing feminism and feminists for the issues and ideals they choose to support seems to be a huge taboo in this country. I’m serious – I’ve seen other feminists, bloggers and non-bloggers, immediately castigate their critics, call them nasty names, the whole works, for no other reason than they disagree with feminist reasoning and rhetoric. Why is that?

This leads me to choice, and I have more questions than opinions about this. Hugo put it eloquently:

And as a feminist, I believe the whole notion of “choice” to be problematic. One only can “choose” from a limited selection of choices made available at any one time. Choices and desires are very different things, and feminists know this. The choice between an abortion and raising a child on one’s own in poverty and shame is not a happy one. Most young women who “choose” abortion might choose differently if our society were willing to provide young mothers with sufficient emotional and financial support so that they were not forced to choose between their babies and their futures. (And many of these young women might choose differently if the father of the child were willing to “step up” and be present for his new family emotionally, financially, and physically.) The choice between cosmetic surgery and being accepted as beautiful is not a happy one either – what most women really desire is to be loved and affirmed and wanted as they are. Radical diets, surgery, and hyper-sexualization are strategies of desperation rather than choices rooted in genuine desire. (Italic emphasis mine. –R.)

Can a woman buck the system by choosing a path that’s not even among the available choices? Take the young, unwed mother, for instance, who chooses to keep rather than abort her baby. Has society changed its outlook on babies born out of wedlock? Do unwed mothers still feel the stigma of disapproval from their families and the rest of the community? On a related tangent, do young women today take the choice of abstinence seriously, knowing it’s available and accepted? Having sex before marriage and the practice of casual sex are norms these days, but are they requirements necessary for a woman to be accepted as a normal member of society?

When it comes to feeling beautiful, I’ll tell you this much: personally, I don’t care about what others think about my looks. I make sure that I have good hygiene everyday (primping for this tomboy use to take twenty to thirty minutes – now it takes about forty-five minutes to an hour!). I’ll admit that when it comes to clothes, I don’t want underlines to show in the back of my pants, and I want my outfits to be color-coordinated; otherwise, I don’t dress like I’m going to a wedding when I’m really going to the mall. Do I desire to look good? Heck yeah! Do I desire to look good on the basis of how others will judge me for how I look? NO. I’ll also admit that I have conformed in some ways to how society wants an ordinary woman to dress, but that’s different from dressing to look and feel good as an individual. In my opinion, a woman anxious to look better when she already looks good has security issues and problems with self-confidence. What is sad is that she insists that the way she sees herself should equal the way society views an ideal woman.

And finally, solidarity. When it comes to women’s rights and equality, I do believe that women should support movements that advocate better treatment of women who don’t enjoy the same freedoms we have in the West. Combatting sexual slave trafficking in the States and other countries, for example, is one cause that should receive more attention if it isn’t getting it already.

I also question extreme Muslim views that dictate morals in countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran. Usually, I wonder what the Koran really says about a woman’s place in society versus the clerics who impose ridiculous laws that forbid women from working and dressing a certain way when they’re not home.

Along the same lines, I’ve clashed with Christians who insist that women shouldn’t be pastors or teachers because of a Pauline mandate. I don’t disparage or willfully ignore what Paul has to say about the matter of women’s involvement in the church, but I wonder if his teachings have been correctly applied to modern church life. On the other side of the coin, I don’t believe Christian women should cause discord in their congregations because they have gender issues with how the elders define leadership positions. I believe that a woman who’s been called by God to be a pastor or teacher should fulfill that calling, but only in a church where the elders confirm her, by the leading of the Holy Spirit, to that position. The last time I checked, the Kingdom of God is not, I repeat, not, a democracy!

Hugo did a great job answering my questions, and it’s led me to spend a great deal of thought and time on modern feminism. I still don’t see myself as a feminist, and I still have more questions. My curiousity about feminism has achieved a couple things, however: it’s given me a chance to reflect on how I view things as a woman. More importantly, it’s made me appreciate womanhood a little more. If you ask me, that’s always a good thing.