Not long ago, one of my guy friends complained that women “have too many issues with themselves and how they look.” One of my female friends argued that men aren’t as emotional as we are. I call poppycock on both of these ideas. It’s a stereotype that women have more self-esteem issues and are more emotional than men. Women’s image and self-esteem issues tend to be at the forefront because of how intensely women are objectified and sexually exploited, particularly in the media. Additionally, the desire to meet resulting, unreasonable beauty standards sometimes leads to extreme behaviors, like eating disorders. Women are viewed as more “sensitive” and likely to cry and openly discuss their feelings, so it’s assumed their driven by emotions and more fragile. The truth is that men struggle with self-esteem as well and are equally emotional; it just shows up in a different way.

 In American culture, a man must be attractive, have sexual prowess or a large penis, strength and substantial income (comes from the paradigm that men are the “providers”) to have “value.” Should a man fail to meet any of these expectations, he feels less than or is criticized. We won’t talk about this candidly because men are supposed be invincible and can’t possibly have a shaky self-concept, which brings me to emotions. Again, men are expected to be pillars of constant strength, therefore the only emotion socially acceptable for them to express is anger. By the way, anger IS an emotion. If a woman bawls her eyes out, she’s weak and “emotional,” but if a man punches a hole in the wall, he’s just angry. What a contradictory double standard. Anyhow, being limited to anger leads to covert, sometimes passive-aggressive expression, like withdrawal or avoidance. Being controlling, possessive, jealous or manipulative, cheating to meet needs or having resentment from a bruised ego are all examples of emotionally-motivated behavior. Thoughts and feelings aren’t sexist and don’t discriminate.

By C. Dyer, contributing writer
Note: This article is in response to a piece written by J.Says, entitled "Women's Rights: More Than Just Abortion."

According to many early feminists, abortion reflects not female empowerment, but a society in which being male is still the ideal. Rather than appreciating things that are uniquely female and powerful, like the ability to bear a child, society asserts that women must become like men in form and function to receive respect. Men still find social advancement easier than women who want to be mothers. This reality was reflected in President Obama's statement that Roe v. Wade allowed "our daughters [to] have the same rights, freedoms, and opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams." Abortion has done no more to resolve the problems of sexism than heavy makeup does to resolve racism. Financial success is still revered more than motherhood, as though moving up in the corporate world were more important than shaping the next generation.

"When we consider that women are treated as property, it is degrading for women to treat their children as property, to be disposed of as they see fit."-feminist Elizabeth Cady Stanton (1873)

The concept of children as property is an ancient idea we never fully abandoned. Child abuse first gained national attention in the late 1800's. The ownership of one's children was considered so personal and private, there wasn't even an institution for the prevention of child abuse. In fact, the first prosecuted child abuse case in the U.S. was brought by the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. In many ways, we continue this tradition today. Many liberal Democrats would consider it cruel to shoot a cat or dog that inconveniences them, but would accept a woman's right to abort for the same reason. 

Two of the major questions in the abortion argument are "when does life begin to matter?" and "how far do abortion rights extend?" Catholics and other religious groups might contend that value begins at conception. Some atheists and pro-choice advocates believe it matters when the entity develops a self-concept. Both ideas are difficult to prove. Because of this, scientists choose different measures. Recently, many states have outlawed abortions occurring after 22 weeks because of ample scientific evidence that a fetus of that age can feel and react to pain. Even the federal government was willing to recognize some limits on abortion by upholding a partial-birth abortion ban. Most people, regardless of political affiliation, would concede that abortions past the point of viability are unethical. A layer of tissue is the only difference between an infant born a month early and an 8 month old fetus. To allow the abortion of an 8 month fetus would make opposition to infanticide seem hypocritical. The question of viability has been used by some to extend the abortion argument to young infants. There was a recent article in the Journal of Medical Ethics entitled "After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?" The authors received death-threats for their publication, but it raises some valid points. It argues that parents should have the option to "abort" their infant if they discover disabilities that medical exams didn't show. Many of the arguments for or against adoption in such a case would still hold true.

According to statistics, most sexual assaults go unreported for a bevy of reasons (including feelings of shame, fear and intimidation). For victims who indeed report the crimes against them, many experience what is often described in media and research articles as “re-victimization” by their social world (ex. judgment, disrespect) and the legal system (ex. police mistreatment, perpetrators being given short sentences, defense lawyers using sexual history to imply consensual sex); as if the physical and emotional trauma of the event weren’t enough. Adding on to the offenses and failures of the legal system is the mishandling of “rape kits.” A routine part of assault investigation, a rape kit is an intrusive, but necessary, physical examination of the victim to collect DNA. One examination can take up to 6 hours to complete. Analyzation of the rape kit can help identify the perpetrator; identification is particularly easy if the assailant has other documented crimes. Across the country, however, many kits go untested. The city of Detroit made news for its high rate of backlogs when prosecutor Kym Worthy launched the 400 Project to help raise testing funds. Testing costs can range from $1200 to $1500; many crime labs and law enforcement entities purport that they don’t have the resources or access to advanced technology to run the tests in a timely, efficient manner. Some sociological studies imply that gender politics and a nonchalant attitude about sexual violence influence a passive response from law enforcement. 

There are complicated consequences when kits are neglected. If a kit is analyzed beyond the “statute of limitations” (the time frame in which you can prosecute someone for a crime) the assailant cannot be charged, regardless of the fact that the victim had nothing to do with the testing delay. In some cases, perpetrators go on to attack countless other victims undetected. According to EndTheBacklog.org, rape has the low arrest rate of just 24%. Visit EndTheBacklog.org to learn more about this issue and what you can do as a citizen to combat it. Also available on the site is resource information for victims. To read more about Detroit’s fight and other advocacy/fund programs, click here.

Or at least some of the reasons, anyway.

Pop-star Jordin Sparks (American Idol 6, “Sparkle”) made it public that she was taking a vow of chastity and waiting until marriage to have sex, but in an interview earlier this year, the singer seemed to have a change of heart, saying:  "I don't wear it [purity ring] exactly everyday anymore, but I always have something there. When I was 13, my mom spoke to me about purity and waiting for marriage…at the time I was like, 'Sure that's great,' but I can't say what's gonna happen a couple of months from now. People grow." It looks like Sparks may be joining the club of starlets (ex. Britney Spears) who took a pledge of abstinence in youth and later made a different choice. There are a number of different reasons why abstinence pledges are reneged on, but 2 factors are age and motivation for the pledge.

Across the country, religious (many faiths discourage pre-marital sex; it’s viewed as a sin) and some school-based organizations have abstinence programs in which pre-teens and teenagers take formal oaths to remain chaste until marriage and/or don a symbolic ‘purity ring.’ It’s my personal theory that teenagers, especially in this day and age, are too young and immature to take such a vow. 1st, teenagers, individuals who are completely supported by others and viewed as children by the law, should not be having sex either way, but that’s a different conversation. 2nd, you set a young person up for failure when you ask them to make a decision that’s going to affect their adult life. At 13, 14 or 15, you’re being asked to make a decision that will affect you when you’re 23, 24 or 25? That’s unreasonable.  That’s partially why so many college students have difficulty choosing or sticking with an academic major. At 18, you’re making a career decision for the REST OF YOUR LIFE? Considering that most high school students don’t have any in-depth preliminary help discovering what career fields might be of interest to them and what’s required to successfully attain employment, making that choice at 18 seems particularly ridiculous.  There’s nothing wrong with explaining the benefits of abstinence to young people or promoting the concept, but encouraging them to make a public declaration that they may be shamed internally or externally for breaking later may be the wrong approach.

One’s motive for chastity is a strong predictor of whether or not that person succeeds in keeping their pants on. Growing up in a fairly conservative Christian environment, I noticed the people who had additional reasons besides religion for waiting until marriage to have sex were the most successful in abstaining. In anything, most people need a strong interest or personal motivation to succeed. Motives affect effort and focus. Not doing something simply because an authority (in this case, God) told you not to is simply not good enough, principally when it doesn’t appear that there’s immediate consequences for disobeying the authority. For me, I don’t like the idea of multiple people being able to say they’ve had sex with me and they know what it looks like, smells like and tastes like. You can’t get any more intimate with a person than sex; I’m sharing and revealing a very personal side of myself. It isn’t just a way to a great orgasm; it’s a spiritual bonding act. Therefore, I’m keeping my cookies in the cookie jar until I get married. If you’re not good enough to marry, you’re not good enough to have my body. God could send me a burning bush (a reference from the story of Moses in the old testament of the bible) saying I could have pre-marital sex tomorrow and I would still wait. That’s just me.

While I’m on the subject of youth, Christianity and chastity, in some communities of faith, teens are almost taught to not even think about or discuss sex until marriage. You can’t effectively curb or control your sexual desires if you don’t understand what your triggers and weaknesses are. If one is sexually suppressed, they’ll likely struggle to handle being confronted with sex or a tempting situation. There are healthy, productive and safe ways to explore, discuss and learn about your sexual energy WITHOUT having sex. Youth ministers need to create an atmosphere for honest and open dialogue if they expect their horny teen parishioners to keep their “V-cards.”

As for Jordin Sparks…it’s always disappointing when a public figure decides (or in this case, contemplates) to renounce a chastity vow because I feel it feeds the notion and stereotype that abstinence promises are ones to be broken or are impossible to keep. When she mentioned her initial reaction to chastity at 13 and compared it to now with “people grow,” it implied that abstinence is like Trix cereal: it’s for kids and when you mature and “grow,” you don’t do it. This is going to sound harsh, but let’s be real- unless you have a new set of religious views or found your reasons for choosing abstinence shallow, deciding to have sex in your 20’s after being ‘pro-purity’ for 10 years (so pro-purity she brought attention to herself by saying on national television at the 2008 MTV Video Music Awards: “It's not bad to wear a promise ring…because not everybody –guy or girl– wants to be a slut.") is not the result of “growth” or a philosophical epiphany, it’s because you want to have sex. Assuming Sparks’ new “revelation” comes as she’s been dating singer Jason Derulo since late last year, I shake my head at the thought that all it took was for her to be sprung on a guy to dump a long-held belief.

When opposing homosexuality, some in the Christian faith use rather extreme and contemptuous tactics. Use of these tactics have resulted in a deep, ferocious social divide, violence, a negative stigmatization of Christians and the spread of stereotypes about the LGBT community (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgender). For some of those who believe that homosexuality is a sin denounced by God, they think they’re supposed to angrily attack the concept, when the bible teaches of no such approach. The following article was written by Lasheena Allgood, contributing writer.

There are a lot of opinions and beliefs that are colliding in today’s society. As a true Christian, you want to be able to stand up for what you believe the Bible says in order to please God and show His love to the world. Some have success at living this out, while others display a self-righteous judgment, often accompanied by ignorance.  Jesus gave us two things to live by: love God and love your neighbor as yourself (Mark 12:30-32). In Paul’s 2nd letter to Timothy, he instructs us to “Keep reminding God’s people of these things…Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value and only ruins those who listen. Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth. Avoid godless chatter, because those who indulge in it will become more and more ungodly (2 Timothy 2:14-16)”.

We find ourselves “boldly” standing for what we “heard” is right, when we haven’t studied what the Bible has to say on a topic, nor have we studied how to approach people. We waste a lot of time arguing. 2 Timothy 2:23-25 reads, “Don’t have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels. And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome, but must be kind to everyone and able to teach, not resentful. Opponents must be gently instructed, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth…”

A lot of people think that showing love and compassion towards someone with another sexual preference would mean that they’re compromising their own personal beliefs on the issue and agreeing with the person. There is a big difference between compromise and peaceful tolerance. As the passage in 2 Timothy illustrated, you can let a person know in a loving manner when you believe something is wrong without saying you agree with them. Before you confront someone on ANY issue, check your motives. Check your heart. Are you talking to them with the proverbial “picket sign” of judgment waving at their heads, or are you taking time to understand their plight? You should always try to gain understanding of a person’s heart and seek to confront them with God’s love and compassion in mind. If this is an issue you believe will truly put their lives in danger, it would be wrong not to tell them about it. However, confronting them in any sort of judgmental tone without truly seeking that person’s benefit makes your words and actions fruitless and those of a bigot. What is the purpose of standing in opposition to another’s actions or life without your desire to truly help them? It’s a necessary thing to take a stand for what you believe is right. However, the next time you wish to take that stand and confront someone, remember what God has told us about how to approach people with the correct words and motives. God will do the rest.-L.A.

J.Says on the topic: I think part of the reason why some respond so aggressively, and sometimes violently, to homosexuals or homosexuality is because of their own personal disgust, fear or misunderstanding of the concept, NOT because of their faith. In some cases, faith is a tool used to justify behavior versus being the cause of it. Some could be atheists tomorrow and they would STILL behave the same way. Underneath all that doctrine and preaching is a deep hatred for homosexuals that is completely independent of faith and God. What angers me is that they won’t own up to that; spewing their hatred in the name of God and using Him as a scapegoat. Even if you believe it to be true that God does not condone homosexuality, it doesn’t require spiteful comments, harassment, humiliation and violence.

Nowhere in the Bible does God or Jesus designate violence and abhorrence as the proper way to handle those believed to be “sinful.” If it’s really about faith, the focus would be on the religion as a whole and what God can offer an individual. A picket sign would read “Here’s what this faith can do for you” versus “God hates you and doesn’t want you here.” Isn’t the goal to bring people to the faith? Those who act in hatred are defeating their own so-called “purpose.” I was once told that I shouldn’t be friends with those who are LGBT because I am a Christian. How am I supposed to bring others to the faith and show my “Christ-like example” if I’m not acquainted with them? I don’t know where some in the religion get the idea that we can profoundly reach people at an arms-length distance. Besides, Christian or not, I’m going to be friends with ANYONE I find things in common with that will treat me well and deliver as a peer.

On the subject of gay marriage & Christianity, I’m a firm believer in separation of church and state. This country is religiously diverse and to design laws based on ANY faith would alienate, disregard and disrespect those outside of said religion. Additionally, I think we have to be careful about what socially we allow the government to deem illegal. Not long ago, interracial marriage was illegal. If we give our legislators that kind of power, anyone they consider socially inappropriate, for any reason, could be at their feet. *drops the mic*

The plot of the E.L. James bestseller book '50 Shades of Grey' reinforces harmful stereotypes to men and women.

“Dear John…don’t you think nineteen’s too young to be played by your dark, twisted games when I loved you so, I should've known.”-Taylor Swift (Dear John)

Country star Taylor Swift reportedly wrote these lyrics in reference to her failed relationship with singer John Mayer, who is 12 years her senior. Yes, Taylor, 19 is too young; at least in my opinion anyhow. I’ve never thought it was a good idea that young people (particularly those with “teen” at the end of their age) date others who are significantly older. At 18 or 19, most are still developing an identity as they reconcile the familiar and what they’ve been taught with the vastly different world outside of their parental and cultural bubble and draw new conclusions. The lessons that come out of this important period of new independence, growth and self-nurturing can be stunted when dating a much older person as the youth is debatably going from one set of parental figures to another. Instead of their new worldview being shaped by individual experience, it’s shaped by this older adult who doubles as a partner and role model. The younger person eagerly soaks up their older mate’s ideals and life theories with infatuation and intrigue. Profoundly impacting the development of the younger person (purposely or not), the older mate has almost designed the perfect partner for themselves. If the younger person fails to assimilate to the older mate’s liking or starts to deviate, the relationship will likely end. For this reason or any other bevy of causes (ex. the age difference becoming more apparent, the younger person feeling smothered), if the relationship dissolves, the younger person is the one usually most affected and damaged.

“I don't need somebody to complete me; I complete myself, nobody's got to belong to somebody else…my heart is my possession, I'll be my own reflection…I'm one not half of two”- Jessica Simpson (I Belong to Me). Simpson released this song after divorcing fellow pop-star Nick Lachey, who was 7 years her senior. She began dating Lachey at age 19.

Having been so emotionally enmeshed, the younger person may feel lost or like they’ve lost their sense of self after a split, asking “who am I now that I’m not their boyfriend/girlfriend?” Not having had the proper time and space for self-growth, they now have to begin this process later and a little bit broken. 

The loss of an older partner can be multi-layered, complicated grief as there’s a loss of both a pseudo-mentor/parental figure and lover. It can bring on deep, emotional stress that could’ve been avoided. Considering all of this, it makes you question the behavior or motives of those who date considerably younger. Do they purposely seek out young blood to have someone to mold or influence? Do they have maturity issues? One especially has to wonder when their younger love interest appears to be already fragile. My eyebrows were raised when it surfaced that actor Wilmer Valderrama, then 31, and Disney darling Demi Lovato, 19, were dating shortly after her release from rehab (Lovato struggles with an eating disorder, self-injury and bipolar disorder). I thought “What on earth? As if she needs anything else that would require emotional energy or commitment.” Valderrama also dated a teen Lindsay Lohan; the pair was 6 years apart. DJ Samantha Ronson dated Lohan despite her being 9 years younger and troubled. I definitely questioned Valderrama and Ronson’s rationales (their respective relationships with Lovato and Lohan both ended).

Recently circulated on the net was a letter that actress Phylicia Rashad purportedly wrote to her 21 year old self. Rashad wrote: “Romantic involvement distracts you and can blind you to what’s really in front of you…you don’t even know yourself yet…put yourself, and your growth and development first. There are long-term repercussions to what you’re doing now.” To think, that’s the perspective Rashad wishes she had at 21, much less at 18 or 19. Will all younglings who date older men and women be in for the stifling fate I’ve just described? No; there are always exceptions to the rule. However, they’re considered ‘exceptions’ for a reason: their rarity in occurrence.  

Everyone complains about their dating life and their lack of viable options, but the people that have it the hardest, I believe, are bisexual men. Some gay men turn them down because of the stereotype that bisexual people cannot be monogamous. Heterosexual women reject them for a bevy a reasons that all go back to sexual orientation bias and gender paradigms. It angers me how prejudiced people are towards these men, especially considering the root of their conceptions. Here are the most common reasons I’ve read (and heard) from straight women as to why they won’t date a bisexual man.

"The fact that the man has been with another man at any point is gross." 
This statement clearly points to sexual orientation bias. The usual precursor to this sentence is “I don’t have a problem with gay people but…” or “That’s fine for them, but for me…” Why else would you find it “gross” if you honestly don’t have a problem with homosexuality?  What’s “gross” about same-sex interaction? Is it the anal sex aspect? For those women who say "yes," I highly doubt they ask every man they date if he has ever had anal sex with another woman. The cooties they’re so afraid of double for the men who have anal and vaginal intercourse with a female partner, which many have. Some come out of one cave, go in another, and back again. I find the “gross” argument especially irritating if it’s coming from a woman who’s engaged in casual sex, has had multiple sexual partners, or dates a man who’s had multiple sexual partners. It’s not gross that the man you’re dating has stuck his gun in multiple holsters, or that you’ve been stuck a couple of thousand times yourself, but a bisexual man is gross simply because he’s been with another man? Oh, ok. That’s not contradictory at all.

"I like a ‘manly man.’ A guy is a less of a man to me if he’s been with another dude."
Cue traditional gender ideals and more orientation bias. It’s been a long held-belief that all gay and bisexual men are effeminate (which isn’t true) and that same-sex interaction is somehow less masculine. Gender ideals come into play as masculinity is partially defined by a commanding presence and sexual prowess/domination. In heterosexual relationships, the man is expected to have a dominant role, while the woman is subordinate. In heterosexual sex, women are automatically in a submissive position as they biologically cannot penetrate and can only be penetrated. Considering those factors, if a man is ever penetrated or allows himself to be, the attitude is that he has taken on a submissive, lesser position and is more like a woman. This attitude is part of the reason why male sexual abuse victims rarely report incidents, particularly if the perpetrator is also male. These victims are made to feel that they are now weak, less-than and automatically homosexual, which is undesirable. Orientation bias is in play as a man’s value is reduced just because of same-sex relations.

""It’s bad enough to have to watch other women; I don’t want to have to watch men too. There’s too much competition when dating a bisexual man."
Your competition rate is the same. Logically, you’re thinking if you date a straight man, you only have to watch half the room, but imagine if most of the room was female. It’s just like if your man worked at an office with mostly women. Whether your man is straight or bisexual, anyone at anytime can vie for him. It doesn’t matter how many men or women are attracted to him. What matters is if he gives into them or not. If he wants to cheat, he’s going to cheat, no matter who you think you’re watching. The likelihood of someone being unfaithful does not increase or decrease based on sexual orientation. Furthermore, you shouldn’t have to “compete” to keep your man’s loyalty in general.

"I’m afraid I’ll get HIV or AIDS."
No matter who you have sex with, you need to be using protection and getting tested regularly. You can contract HIV, AIDS or any other sexually transmitted disease (STD) from ANYONE. Bisexual men are NOT more likely to carry the illness than heterosexual men. That is a MYTH.

"I’m afraid I won’t be able to satisfy a bisexual man in the bedroom."
Bisexual men enjoy sex with women; that’s why they’re bisexual. No need to worry about those who prefer sex with men, because they’re not going to date you. If you’re concerned about his itch for dick, there’s always dildos, strap-ons and other sexual toys. There’s also dating bisexual men who primarily prefer women sexually. In any case, it’s important to have an open and honest conversation with your partner about desires and concerns. You might find that you won’t have any problems at all. On another, semi-related note, it seems that straight men are a lot less concerned about satisfying their bisexual female mates, than women are about bisexual male mates. That’s likely because of gender politics too. Women are born and raised in a culture that fosters insecurity and low confidence, but that’s a different topic for another day.

The PLUSES of dating a bisexual man.
Believe it or not, there are some.

Sexual flexibility.
For the women who like a balance of control in the bedroom or little adventure, a bisexual man might be up their alley. Because of their varied sexual preference with gender, bisexual men have an easier time sharing control and are more open to trying to new things.
Equality.
Due to the amount of gender politics and issues that affect a bisexual man’s dating life, these men are sometimes more sensitive to and understanding of the plight of women and gender-based double standards. Those who seek out a more egalitarian dating or home life might benefit from having a bisexual man as a partner.

Think twice before you turn down a man who offers everything you’re looking for just because he’s bisexual. Analyze why you are reluctant to date a bisexual man. Are those reasons inherently and unfairly prejudiced? The mistreatment and dismissal of bisexual men has led some to conceal their orientation from female partners. Not to condone the dishonesty, because I don’t, but I understand why they would consider it.

In the middle of a conversation, my friend says “you think women are more important than men.” I replied “That’s not true. What makes you say that?” and she responded “I don’t know. I just think you do.” I couldn’t help but think she felt that way because I’m a self-proclaimed feminist. My assumption was later on confirmed. Later on that day, I was reading an article about women who want to jump on the female empowerment bandwagon, but are hesitant because of the negative stigmas and notions surrounding the word “feminist.” Guess I have to write another stigma-busting article.

Game-changing movements are always met with countering adversity because they challenge long-held beliefs and seek to change our way of life. When the feminist movement of the 1960’s started (1960s-1990s is considered the 2nd major wave of the movement), both men and women were uncomfortable with it because feminism protested traditional gender ideals and a relational dynamic they had been used to. Some men felt threatened; women wondered if it wasn’t lady like or improper to step out of the mold placed upon them. Combine uncertainty, fear and traditionalism and you have anger. Many ferociously opposed feminism, claiming that it would be the downfall of our society (because without gender discrimination, we'd surely fall apart) and its supporters were misguided and classless. Feminism was the Grinch that stole gender Christmas. A bevy of other inimical conceptualizations were attached and fast forward to 2012, "feminism" or "feminist" is STILL kind of a bad word. There are multiple false stereotypes about the movement, but here are the main ones that grind my gears. 

Feminists are lesbian baby-killers.
Feminists are often assumed to be lesbians for a number of reasons; chiefly the movement's centralization on women and the belief that feminists are misandrist (misandry: the hated of men and boys) and anti-marriage (both beliefs are false; I'll get to those later). There are many feminist lesbians, but not all lesbians are feminist and vice versa. As a matter of fact, several of the movement’s key figures (such as Gloria Steinem) are heterosexual. Lesbian and women's issues can sometimes overlap, as sexism is a contributor to prejudice against lesbians.

The accusation that feminists are 'baby-killers' stems from the movement's role in supporting the availability of contraception and legalization of abortion. Some view abortion as a moral issue and wonder why it would be considered a gender issue. Obviously, pregnancy and abortion are a part of women’s health concerns and any legislation governing such is worth analyzing, as gender-bias or lack of sensitivity or awareness of the female experience may impact voting. Additionally, conservative or traditional views regarding women and child birth may be an influence. Abortion legalization support doesn’t mean feminists believe abortion should be used as a form of birth control or that women should approach it causally. Legalization is backed because feminists believe women should have the right to choose what happens with their bodies. Furthermore, it’s important to note that not all feminists support abortion legalization. During the 1970’s, there was a pro-life feminist group called Feminists for Life.

Feminists are against marriage and childbirth.
I addressed this myth in a previous article last year. In short, feminists are against the idea that’s it’s a woman’s DUTY to marry and procreate. Feminists are against the idea of a woman’s value being measured by her marital or childbearing status. Feminists are against women being treated like subordinates or property if they do indeed get married. Yes, some feminists are against marriage and others have chosen to remain unmarried, but that, again, isn’t everyone and the movement as a whole isn’t about being anti-nuptial.

Feminism is about eliminating and/or degrading men.
This is hands-down the biggest misconception about feminism, in my opinion. It makes NO SENSE to try to combat prejudice with prejudice. Feminism isn’t about hating, eliminating or devaluing men. It’s about pursuing equality for women and fighting gender-based injustice. We aren’t saying we’re more important than men; we’re saying we’re equally important.  A few of my male friends feel that feminism is about “reducing the power of men.” Why is it a problem if women feel empowered or just as powerful as you? It doesn’t make a man any less strong, powerful or awesome for woman to be strong, powerful and awesome. Also, there may be only a few, but male feminists do exist.  Any man can actively support causes for women.

Feminists are angry and bitter.
Passionate and outspoken, yes. And yeah, people being prejudiced against us based on our gender makes us a little angry. Wouldn’t prejudice against you make you angry? 

Feminism is useless and unimportant.
Women’s history should seriously be included in grade-school curriculum. I feel many of today’s women and men have no idea how far we’ve come in terms of gender quality. For example, until the Equal Credit Opportunity Act of 1974, women couldn’t apply for a credit card unless their father or husband was a co-signer. My parents were in high school then. My parents are older than that act. Until 1978, it was completely legal to deny a woman employment or fire her if she was pregnant. 1980 was the first time that Equal Employment Opportunity Commission established concrete regulations against sexual harassment in workplace. All of these institutional changes were a result of efforts made by the feminist movement. Privileges we take for granted that we haven’t had for long. Thanks to the feminist movement, women have the right to vote in political elections, establishments can now be prosecuted for gender-discrimination, a number of domestic and sexual abuse centers exist, marital rape laws are in place, women have the same access to education as men, employment classifieds are no longer divided by gender and the list goes on and on. Many of the freedoms and opportunities women enjoy today were provided for by feminists, and the movement is not a thing of the past as sexism is still alive and well.