A couple of weeks ago, an Odyssey writer at Western Kentucky University published an article titled, "I Am Not a Feminist, And That Is OK."

Going into reading the article, I was expecting to read something like "I don't like the word feminist, I prefer the term 'humanist'" or something like that, perhaps something sarcastic, a form of satire. I did not expect to read such an ignorantly written article that attempts to convince me that this girl knows what feminism is and is choosing to believe something opposite.

I'd like to tell her: you ARE a feminist, albeit an ignorant and misguided one. She claims in the beginning of her article that she "know[s] what you're talking about; [she] just [doesn't] agree." The rest of the article proves the opposite of this. She has literally no idea what the conversation surrounding feminism is about. I've read and reread what she's written, trying to see her logic and attempting to understand (because I am a feminist and I don't want to infringe on another person's right to think whatever they want.) But I just cannot let this go. I have to take this opportunity as a feminist to educate whomever might stumble across it.

If you haven't read the article, that's fine, I'm about to go through it line by line.

The author says "I'm all for equal pay." Good, that's awesome. That's what one aspect of feminism is fighting for. Solid.

Then, "And if this were the early to mid-twentieth century, I would be a feminist." Umm, OK. That's still good, recognizing the women that came before you and what they fought for. Where are you going with this?

"But this is no longer the first wave feminism. We are currently in what is called the fourth wave of feminism." Yeah...and?

"I don’t want the things that these feminists are fighting for. And further explaining it won’t change my mind."

Ooh. Haha,OK, I see the problem.

You don't see what feminism can do immediately for you, right now. You don't see the progress that still has to be made. You see one brand of feminism, most likely the "young pretty white girl feminism that is loud and angry because we have the opportunity to be loud and angry because the only time we have been oppressed is because of our gender" feminism.

I totally get not wanting to identify with that brand of feminism, because really, that's not what feminism is. The universal feminism is one of intersectionality and inclusion. It is about recognizing that your experiences as a woman (or man) are not the only experiences of women and men. It is about wanting to help other members of the human race escape the confines of their gender, whether these be abstract chains related to the wage gap, or literal rusted chains on the ankles of ten year old girls sold as sex slaves all over the world.

It's not that you don't "want" the things these feminists are fighting for. It's that you don't see an immediate need or advantage for you. Feminism is about thinking beyond yourself, kind of like how Jesus asks us to help our neighbor, to love one another as He has loved us. I'm not a feminist just because it benefits me, but because it will benefit other people too, and ease their lives and their hearts, bring them comfort, ensure them safety, deliver happiness, hope, and love. In a way, you could think of being a feminist as your Christian duty. Jesus was a feminist after all.

Make sense? Try and stay with me, readers, we're still going.

The author then goes on to pose the question, "Why are women considered the more domestic and nurturing ones?”I'm assuming this is a question she's heard angry feminists use to make a point that I'm also assuming she missed.

She answers this question with two more questions: "Why do you think women give birth? How could you not be nurturing after carrying a child inside of you for nine months?"

OK I see your point. Because the woman carries the baby, she forms a primal bond with the unborn child and that bond is maintained when the baby is born. So, in some twisted logic that doesn't take actual human beings and the randomness and craziness of life into account, this should make the woman the primary caregiver. Got it, I see where you're at.

Let me ask you some questions now. What about the children whose mothers die in labor, or early in their childhood? What about the women who aren't financially stable, or even emotionally stable, to care for a child? What about the men who want to take care of their child, who want to nurture them and help them grow? Are you taking anything into account except for the generic, perfect, fairy tale life in which a baby has a mother and a father who are stable in every aspect?

I agree that there is a bond between mother and child that is formed most likely because she spends nine months carrying this alien parasite inside of her stomach, and so does early African American feminist Anna Julia Cooper, who wrote in her 1892 book "A Voice from the South," "The position of woman in society determines the vital elements of its regeneration and progress. Now that this is so on a priori grounds all must admit. And this not because woman is better or stronger or wiser than man, but from the nature of the case, because it is she who must first form the man by directing the earliest impulses of his character."

Do you see what she did there? She acknowledged that it is (typically) the woman who cares for the children and nurtures them and shapes who they are. What she also says, here and in the rest of her writing, is that a woman needs to be equal to man in order for the race (and because she was one super smart lady she's talking simultaneously about the black race and the human race) to continue. Reproduction cannot happen without the woman, but because the woman is the primary caregiver of the children (again, typically), she must be educated and enlightened and free in order to impart this wisdom and understanding to her children.

See that? What a neat idea.

When feminists ask this question, "Why do we have to be the nurturing ones?" it's not to discourage women from having a relationship with their baby. In fact, it's a statement to benefit men as well. We often place men in the role of "provider" as opposed to "caregiver," which we'll talk about later. Toxic masculinity is an issue that can sometimes stunt the development of a relationship between a father and his children. Society tells them to withhold their love and emotions, because it is unmanly and those are feminine characteristics. Men should be taking care of their kids. They should be cleaning the house. They should be cooking dinner. What feminists are saying is that it doesn't all have to be the woman and that men can start to come into their own a little bit more as well. The responsibilities should be split, somewhat evenly, instead of one person being slated to one stereotype or the other.

But wait! There's more!

"And it is completely OK to choose to stay home and be a mother because that is the hardest job in the world. It is OK to like cooking. It is OK to take care of your husband and children. It is OK to want your boyfriend to ask for your father’s blessing before proposing to you. It is OK to take his last name."

Yes! Finally! So you are a feminist is what you're saying, right? The beginning was just a weak attempt at satire or something? It's OK, you'll execute it better next time. But hell yeah, here are some great examples of feminist ideals! Feminism is fighting for your right to choose this lifestyle. It's not that we don't want these things, it's that we don't want to be told that that is our only option. It's totally okay to like and want all of those things, or just some of those things, or none of those things. That's another tenet of feminism, your right to choose. Good work, this looks redeemable now.

"Feminists wouldn’t have you believe these things."

Wait...what? I, a self-proclaimed feminist, deemed feminazi by society, just said that those are things that feminists believe. What kind of feminists have you been talking to? I still had hope at this point, but you crushed it.

Again, all of those ideas are perfectly acceptable. I'm a feminist and I want to be a mother and raise my children to be good, kind, strong, loving people. I'm a feminist and I like cooking and baking, even for, shockingly enough, my boyfriend; it's satisfying to take care of him in that way! I'm a feminist and...wait, I personally don't want my boyfriend to ask for my father's blessing. But that's just me. If that's what you want, then go for it! It's for you, not for me. I'm a feminist and I will take my husband's last name.

That. Is. What. Feminism. Is.

Respecting a person's right to choose how they want to live their life, not telling them how you think they should live it.

I know, I know: "But you're telling this girl she should be a feminist. You're a hypocrite." No. I'm telling this girl why she's wrong and attempting to educate her. She can choose to live in ignorance if she wishes, I'm not her babysitter.

I'm going to keep going, though, because feminists always keep going when there is more work to be done (hence why we didn't stop with just getting the right to vote).

"But listen carefully when I say that you are not called to submit to any man but your husband. You don’t submit to your boss. You don’t submit to your boyfriend. You don’t submit to your brother. You don’t submit to any man that you are not married to."

Where is this even coming from? This is so ludicrous it could almost be mistaken for satire...almost. First of all, you're completely ignoring lesbians. That's a whole other issue. It's not all just about heterosexual relationships, the intersectionality of feminism includes those women who are lesbian and transgender; it includes everyone, really.

Also, aren't you contradicting yourself with what you said earlier? If you want your boyfriend to ask your father's permission to marry you, then aren't you submitting yourself to your father? Look, I love my dad, we have a great relationship and I pride myself on being a lot like him. But he doesn't own me. Yeah, I'm his daughter and he has clothed me and fed me and sheltered me for 19 years, but a person cannot own another person. That, my friends, is called slavery. I don't want my boyfriend to ask my father's permission because I am not my father's to give away, I am not an object to be loaned out. And I will not "submit" to my husband, as if I am his servant. I will love him, respect him, and trust him, but I refuse to submit. As acclaimed black feminist writer Marita Bonner said, when writing about the simple things a girl should want in this world, "And of course, a husband you can look up to without looking down on yourself."

A healthy relationship is built on mutual love and respect, not one partner "submitting" to the other.

I will not give up who I am to satisfy my husband's ego. And I'm lucky enough that I found a man whose ego and masculinity is not threatened by my wanting to live a free and full life, by me having opinions, by me paying for dates, by me driving. He doesn't expect me to "submit" to him, and if he did, we wouldn't be together. We each respect that the other is a whole complete person, and I would not ask him to give up what makes him him, and he would not ask me to give up what makes me me.

"And women are not lower than men. I will agree with feminists on that."

OK, here's some common ground. Thanks, I too don't think that women are lower than men.

"But I do believe that the man is the head of the household. The man is to be the provider, protector, and leader of his family."

Not only are you insulting women here, but you're insulting men by perpetuating this idea of toxic masculinity! First of all, what if a husband/father isn't in the picture, and a woman is raising her family alone? She literally has to be the breadwinner in that situation, for her and her family's survival. Even if there is a man in the picture, she can still make her way in this world and earn a living and (get this, this is the crazy part) make more money than him.

"That is a lot of pressure. And I don’t understand why feminists want to take it on. Why would you want that?"

IF IT IS A LOT OF PRESSURE THEN WHY ARE YOU PRESSURING A MAN INTO THAT SITUATION?

Some guys just aren't about that, and that's cool too. Stick with me here, sometimes this throws people off, but feminism is for men too.

We tell men that they should look and act a certain way or they're "like a girl." By saying "like a girl," we're inherently saying that being a girl is equal to being bad, weaker, lesser. As much as we all love that classic scene in "The Sandlot" where Ham tells Phillips, "You play ball like a girl!" it has made me more and more uncomfortable as I've gotten older. We expect men to be tall, muscular, athletic. Some men aren't, and because society idolizes this kind of "ideal masculinity," they feel weak because of it, and this affects their self esteem, confidence, and could lead to things such as depression and anxiety. One guy I know is super into art, and people ask him if he's gay because of it, also perpetuating a notion that homosexuality is inherently bad as well. Another friend of mine said that he felt he couldn't live up to "The Male Role" because he stopped playing sports to pursue other interests, interests that apparently did not satisfy society's idea of masculinity. We're feeding into these stereotypes and ideals that not every person can satisfy, and breeding more problems than we have the capacity to fix. Sometimes men don't realize that feminism is trying to help them too, to allow them to be more freely themselves and not be criticized for it.

I want to provide, protect, and lead my family because, as you so accurately mentioned before, I carried those kids inside my body for 9 months and I don't want this cruel world to screw them up! It's my duty, as a wife and a mother, to provide for the family I brought into this world and make sure that they are safe. It is a mother's instinct. You know those nature documentaries, how they follow the mama bear and her cubs but not papa bear? The bears survive and Mama Bear is a badass that will rip apart any predator that tries to hurt her babies. She catches the fish, and teaches them how to, too. She finds shelter, and keeps it safe. She is the primary caregiver and the primary defense. I can do that too, and I will. I'll be Badass Mama Bear and my husband will be Badass Papa Bear because we are a team and teams that work together win championships.

"God did make women as fragile beings. But He also made us as strong beings."

Learning moment: this is what a blatant contradiction looks like.

"And while you are in your period of singleness, it is OK to be independent. But when you get married, you don’t have to be. And that is thought of as a bad thing, when really, it is a gift. It is a weight lifted to have a husband you can lean on."

You are absolutely right. You can give up your independence when you're married. Or you can keep it. It is up to you. You don't have to be one or the other. Again, I just want to reiterate that feminism is about fighting for your choice in the matter, not being slated to a subservient role in the most important relationship you will ever cultivate with another human being. It's not thought of as a bad thing for a woman to be dependent on her husband. It is thought of as a bad thing for a husband to restrict his wife from living her life and forcing her to be solely dependent on him. Hell yeah I'm going to lean on my husband in our marriage. Life's a bitch! But he can lean on me, too. I want him to. Like I said, we're a team. He'll be my rock and I'll be his. What the true gift is in marriage is being able to be completely 100% oneself with your partner, and to not give away a part of your soul in order to make room for the other person, or to reach too high to attain what society has demanded your role be, if perhaps that role doesn't fit you.

"I am not a feminist, and that is OK. I do not want the power that men are assumed to have, and that is OK. I want to be a mom who takes care of her children and doesn’t miss out on their lives. And that is OK."

Hey listen, maybe men don't want the power they are assumed to have either, and that is OK. Maybe men want to be dads who take care of their kids and don't miss out on their lives, and that is OK. And yeah, you're right, it's OK for you to want those things. You can be a feminist and a stay at home mom, the two are not mutually exclusive. But to say you're not a feminist just because you're making a choice to not be radical about it, is disheartening. I can't say it enough that feminism is about giving you that choice. I'm sad and disappointed that you don't recognize that, and it breaks my heart that the women that came before us worked so hard to get our gender to where it is today but people refuse to truly thank them. How are you even concluding this piece?

"It is OK to believe in traditionalist values. It is OK to believe in God and what He has taught us."

Those are the last two lines of the article. The last one has nothing to do with what you've been talking about.

I'm a Catholic, my faith is integral to who I am as a person and how I live my life. I believe in God and I love Him. And He wants me to be a feminist because the feminist message is about love and inclusion, same as His.

I am so incredibly sorry that your education lacked a comprehensive overview of what feminism is. But you shouldn't be choosing ignorance like you are. I'm begging you, all of you, to do the research and to educate yourselves.

The thing you think is feminism that you claim to hate so much, is actually probably "radical feminism." There is a "radical" everything, even radical Christianity. But we don't let the Ku Klux Klan taint our ideas of Christianity, just like we shouldn't let ISIS taint our ideas of Islam, and just like we shouldn't let the radical feminists who hate men (fun fact: that's called misandry, not feminism) taint our ideas about equality and feminism.

It's OK to make choices that are different from mine. But no, I'm sorry, it's not OK to not be a feminist and to disregard everything feminism is doing for you, including affording you the right to make the choice to stay at home with your kids. This goes for men and women both.

One day I'm going to have a daughter. I want her to grow up safely and happily. But if people continue to laugh at feminism, to perpetuate rape culture, to say that women should be satisfied with the roles they have been slated to, my little girl isn't going to live in a safe and happy world.

One day I'm going to have a son. I want him to grow up safely and happily. But if people continue to laugh at feminism, to shrug off behavior by saying "boys will be boys," to deny men the rights to pursue their passions comfortably, my little boy isn't going to live in a safe and happy world.

Think about your future children, your future grandchildren. Are you sincerely OK with having them live in a world where they can't even walk down the street without fear of getting sexually assaulted? Are you okay with them hiding their passions, their life from you? Are you okay with watching their smiles fade as they realize the system is rigged against them just because of their gender?

If you don't think feminism can do anything for you, and you refuse to widen your perspective to include those across the globe, think of the future and the legacy you will leave your children. It's not just the wage gap or electing a female president; it's safety, it's love, it's life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Feminism is for everyone.