Recently I came across an article entitled “Why I’m Not a Feminist, And That Is Okay” from the Western Kentucky University chapter. At first I thought the title seemed a little contentious but alright overall. A warm, cozy header photo of the author with who I think is her mother and grandmother led me to believe that the article would be a tribute to the women that came before her or something. I didn’t know what to expect, but I liked what I saw and gave it a shot. As I read the article, however, the smile I started with gradually turned sour.

Normally I take things like grammar errors and misplaced commas with a grain of salt as long as the content makes sense. Most reasonable people can look past little errors here and there and still enjoy an article. I wish the mistakes in this case were that simple. There are more unsubstantiated claims than the average Fox News segment and more holes in her logic than the ground at Camp Green Lake (that’s a lot, for those who haven’t seen or read Holes for whatever reason). Freedom of speech is still alive and well, and since I respect the author’s right to produce the article, she’s going to have to respect mine while I criticize it.

The author opens with her stance on modern feminism - “the fourth wave” as she points out - and how her worldview doesn’t line up with contemporary activists. She contends that her views and values are more closely related to the earlier waves of feminism. I can respect that. Unfortunately she goes on to reinforce the notion that women are women should submit (yes, submit) to their husbands and that God made women to be more fragile than men. That’s where she lost me.

You have the right to believe any religion you want in this country. I fully support that. But the early feminists she claims to align with wanted nothing to do with the points she’s trying to make. Sojourner Truth, one of the earliest American feminists and abolitionists, fought her whole life to prove that women can and should do more than cook and clean. In an excerpt from her famous speech “Ain’t I a Woman?”, Truth denounces the preachers who cited the Bible as evidence for women remaining subservient, saying:

“[Preacher] says women can't have as much rights as men, 'cause Christ wasn't a woman! Where did your Christ come from? From God and a woman! Man had nothing to do with Him. If [Eve] was strong enough to turn the world upside down all alone, these women together ought to be able to turn it back, and get it right side up again!”

Of course it’s okay to want to stay at home and take care of your children. Obviously no one is going to give you trouble for liking to cook. That needed no defense. But the author needs to understand that first-wave and second-wave feminists worked tirelessly to give women the freedom to do something more meaningful and productive with their lives. Also if she’s recently gone to work or voted at all in the last election, she has women like Sojourner Truth to thank.


She asks her readers “why are women considered the more domestic and nurturing ones” as well. If she’s expecting an answer, it’s because of a little thing called “the Cult of Domesticity” and the fact that historically wealthy men were expected to contribute little to nothing when it came to raising a child. Many of these men were in powerful positions, and thus a lot of their decisions became social norms. That idea is often used against women who choose not to be stay-at-home moms even today.

No, that's not okay.

The author goes on to say that men are and should be the unquestioned, unchallenged heads of household in America. Women are to submit to their husbands, even though that “God made [women] as fragile beings. But He also made [them] as strong beings.” See also: “Don’t Break and Shatter My Priceless Glass Vase Even Though I Also Use It to Hammer Nails and Cut Diamonds.”

I’m sorry, but what?! You’re either fragile or you’re strong. That’s it. If you’re strong, you most likely aren’t all that fragile. And if you’re fragile, you’re probably not very strong. That's R&A 101. Given the author’s attitudes, she seems to be in the pro-fragile, pro-submission camp. Again, these are not things that first and second-wave feminists fought for. The current household income in the United States is roughly $51,000. Most Americans don't have the luxury of opting out of work while their partner supports them. Maybe don’t submit to anybody because you’re a free-thinking human being with autonomy over their body? Maybe relationships should place equal partnership and trust above arbitrary, outdated power dynamics instead? Just a few ideas. I don’t want to get too radical here.

All jokes aside, I’m trying to understand her frustration. I’m trying to cling onto shreds of content that are factual and accurate so it leaves an overall positive impression. But that’s not going to happen. The author has every right to be as religious as she wants, and I am not at all attacking her for her spiritual beliefs. But poorly-researched theological arguments like hers absolutely cannot replace science and history in these debates. When discussing movements and policies with tangible, real-world implications, we as a society need to use provable, repeatable methods and solid data to reach a real solution. Other badly written Odyssey articles are not credible sources, either. It’s sad that it needs to be said at this point.

The author clearly does not agree with the first or second wave feminists she claims to support. In addition she outright says “I don’t want what these feminists are fighting for” in regards to the fourth-wave movement, which promotes things like digital activism, comprehensive LGBT rights and inclusion, body positivity, and anti-misandry (anti-“man hating”). That leaves us with three possible conclusions. Either the author supports these things in reality and is actually a feminist, has no idea what feminism actually is and is speaking from a place of complete ignorance, or truly believes in her heart that the 1800’s were the good ol’ days for women in America.

I don’t know what she is if she’s not a feminist, but the author is definitely not informed. And that is not okay.