We sometimes treat “feminism” as a taboo word, especially in today’s political environment. Although the term has historically referred to equal rights for all sexes, today, some often weaponize the term against women, accusing them of being “too woke” or “too conservative.”
However, feminism’s real purpose should be to give women choices. Simply put, feminism should not deny women the right to be wives or mothers, even if those roles have been traditionally prescribed; instead, feminism should guarantee a woman the freedom to choose her own future. In recent years, some women desiring to take on their own jobs and possess financial freedom have seen housewives as a threat. For example, created on February 20, 2018, a LinkedIn post by Emma Johnson—founder of Dads at School, a company that encourages fathers to participate in their children’s elementary schools—argued that “stay-at-home moms hurt gender equality.”
Many historians separate US feminist movements into four waves: the first movement, in the 1850s–1920s, focused largely on women’s suffrage (voting rights), the right to own property, and other methods of achieving formal legal equality, while the second wave in the 1960s–1980s focused on reproductive rights, financial independence, and protection against domestic violence. The third, in the 1990s, focused on the intersectionality of race, sexual orientation, and other identity factors with gender, and the fourth wave, in the 2010s, sought to critique and redefine ideas of gender itself.
However, some people define feminism as respecting only career-focused choices for women; as a result, women online can face severe criticism due to their focus on family. Nara Smith, a 24-year-old mother of four and a content creator, received hate for her “tradwife” aesthetic, an example of the victimization that “traditional” women often face. However, an important aspect of her life is that she does not fit traditional “housewife” standards because her net worth is an estimated six million dollars, earned through her social media. In comparison, the net worth of her husband, a model, is an estimated one million dollars. Clearly, Smith is the main provider for their household, but she has made the choice to be a stay-at-home mom while maintaining her social media presence. This role is itself an achievement for feminism, as Smith makes her own choices around both her career and her children. Another woman who faced controversy over her career is Hannah Neeleman, a Juilliard-trained ballerina who was criticized by social media users for her choice to move to a farm in Utah to raise a family. Many speculated that she was coerced into sacrificing a very promising ballet career. However, since relocating, she started a meat business on her family farm, and reports suggest that her business, when paired with her social media presence, has valued her at 70 million dollars.
These two women are feminists by definition, making their own career and family-based choices while generating their own revenue. On the other end of the spectrum, there exist other women who don’t want to have families and prefer to focus solely on their careers. Neither side’s online presence should imply hatred for the other, and no one should force anyone else to follow strict lifestyles. Debates can be held, but arguing that women should only be allowed one lifestyle is by definition anti-feminist. Lynne Marks, a writer for the critical gender studies journal Atlantis, argued: “Most feminists have seen the only solution for mothers’ economic vulnerability as being decent paid work and adequate daycare. This ignores the real desires of some women to remain home with young children, alienating many mothers from feminism and failing to provide useful analysis to support those mothers on social assistance now being forced into the workforce by the welfare ‘reforms’ of neo-liberal governments.”
Life goals differ from woman to woman, and feminism allows for this range of preferences to be reflected across the world. A 2012 Pew Research Center study found that American women are divided on the topic of what is ideal for mothers: 32% of women said full-time work is ideal for mothers, 47% said part-time work is ideal, and 20% said not working for pay is ideal. This split demonstrates that women don’t all want the same thing, and the values of feminism should reflect those variations. Because feminism is meant to be a fight for women, it is anti-feminist to fight against women’s choices in the home and in the workforce. All people should have the right to choose their own life trajectory, whatever they believe will make them happy and fulfilled, and feminism is the outlet for women to secure this right.