The New York Times published an opinion article in which the writer argues that women can be mothers and professional powerhouses, just not at the same time. I would agree with her but then she throws this little gem in there:

And, for that, we can blame feminism — a movement that, while liberating women to follow their dreams, devalued marriage and the familial and societal benefits of homemaking and encouraged self-indulgence.

She also says, “the present feminist climate pressures women to work. We should question why so many of us are working — single and married women alike. Is it because we bought the feminist lie that we don’t need a husband? Is it because we want to prove to the world that we are worth something? Or is it to live in a ritzy neighborhood and drive an Audi Q7?”

So that’s it, I’m putting my foot down and I’m initiating a new feminist movement. I get it—for a while, feminists were very “anti-marriage” and all that nonsense, but in 2012 can women still not make up her own mind? No one is saying you don’t need a husband, or that you’re only worth something if you work … so come on! Just knock it off!

That’s why I like Zelda Lily’s tagline of “Feminism in a Bra.” You don’t have to be an extremist, because most feminists are not terrorists. Yes, there was a time where things were really bad for women, and there are still areas that need significant improvement today. Yes, we were treated as second-class citizens, worse than cattle at times, but those times have changed and I feel like the feminist movement has changed along with it. But those who weren’t with the movement for some reason think we’re in the process of still fighting the same fight that started in the 60’s.

NO. We are modern feminists, and I’ve stated many times in many articles that being a mother, let alone a full-time one, is the hardest job I could ever imagine. So while these women are pointing the finger at feminists, saying they are attacking them for their decisions, do they not realize that they are pointing three fingers back at themselves?

Look, I think this new feminist movement that I am going to start is going to have this at its core:

1. Do what makes you happy as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone else.

Alright, ladies … who’s with me?

You Might Also Like ...

• UK Student Argues That Feminism Doesn’t Exist At University

Amanda Seyfried is staring in a biopic of Linda Lovelace of ‘Deep Throat’ fame. I recently read an article that took issue with the newly-released movie poster. In it, the writer stated:

Amanda Seyfried, who plays Boreman/Lovelace, is shown in a traditionally alluring pose with her head angled at the camera, eyes come-hithery, a hint of cleavage, and her red lace bra strap and lace shawl falling off her bare shoulder. Light bounces off her brunette tangle, as if her halo slipped. Most egregiously, given the subject matter of “Deep Throat,” her plump pink lips are parted, though mercifully not in an “O.” The tagline “X marks the legend” is not reassuring.

It is your basic sexist movie ad, and there are have been far worse, but surely in this day and age a movie about the experiences of such a brutalized woman as Boreman daren’t suggest it can be sexy and amusing?

Well, it’s a movie about porn, so a sexy pose would be relevant to the topic, right? Furthermore, the sentence, “about the experiences of such a brutalized woman as Boreman daren’t suggest it can be be sexy and amusing,” I would have to answer this question with a resounding “No, it can’t be.” Of course a story about the horrors that Susan Boreman/Linda Lovelace endured can’t be portrayed as sexy or amusing. Gosh, what are we, barbarians?

This is not an empowering porn story, nor is it porn girl makes good. This is a story about a woman who gave so much power to men that she allowed them to run her life. The backstory is that while Susan Boreman was recovering from a car accident at her parents’ home, she met Chuck Traynor. Traynor convinced Boreman to move to New York and get into porn where she became known as Linda Lovelace. Susan, now Linda, started out performing in short “loop” films, did a bestiality film, and eventually did the porn film ‘Deep Throat’, which coined her as a bona fide porn actress.

The reason she’s famous is that Deep Throat went mainstream, even receiving a review in the New York Times. She’s also famed for performing the title act, having a fully shaved pubic area, and engaging in anal sex—all of which was very rare and taboo in porn at the time. She eventually left porn after producer/choreographer David Winters convinced her to, and once again, another man made her decisions for her. She eventually joined the feminist “anti-porn” movement, which wasn’t all that surprising, ultimately, considering the issues she’d had.

Lovelace had a history of drug abuse and was clearly used and abused by men. The synopsis for the film, “LOVELACE” is as follows:

Story of Linda Lovelace, who is used and abused by the porn industry at the behest of her coercive husband, before taking control of her life.

But I would argue that every woman who entered porn in the 70’s was used and abused by the industry. Porn was not pro-women until recently. I’d say, within the last decade or so, porn has become an industry that is run by women and controlled by women. The bottom line? If you’re looking to tell a feminist story, don’t tell one about a 1970’s porn star who clearly needed help that she was not given, and if you are going to tell that story, kindly remind the audience that this girl is not a feminist icon and should not be perceived as such … even in a movie poster.

You Might Also Like ...

• Follow-Up: Scott Adams Thinks He’s Jonathan Swift

You know, in the past I’ve been accused of being obsessed with celebrity women—when they look like normal people. To that, I always respond “duh.” Of course I am! These women are made to look superhuman with the help of makeup and the artists that apply it, and at the end of the day, when all of the paint and primer is washed away, what do you end up with? Someone … well, refreshingly normal in many cases.

Whenever someone says to me “So and so is so hot” I always say, “Yeah, just see her without makeup.” Then I promptly send a picture of said person looking completely normal and not impossibly gorgeous, because, of course, I’ve already trolled them this way.

I do this because I sometimes feel like less of an attractive woman because I don’t contour my makeup. (I know, right?) I don’t know how to expertly apply my eyeliner, I don’t use the “right” foundation. Pores are visible. You know. So to see these women looking normal and to know that if I had the $8,000 to spend on myself like Jennifer Anniston does (yeah, that’s right she spends $8,000 A MONTH to look natural), I could probably look pretty amazing, too.

In a nutshell, though, does that mean that makeup is anti-feminist? Does a young girl who thinks her nose is too wide so she applies streaks of foundation two shades to dark down the sides of her nose, because she read in some magazine that that helps reduce the appearance of a wide nose, have Covergirl to blame for her insecurity? Are magazines and makeup and the idolization of painted up models to blame for women hating themselves? I vote no on both counts; I say it’s women who don’t spend countless hours on the internet searching for “celebrities without makeup” who are creating their own problems.

Like my co-worker said to me with regard to these very celebrities: “They’re just people,” this is so true. They’re people who have access to better makeup and people who can do a better job at applying it than me and you. Combined. Makeup is an art form and sometimes art makes people feel uncomfortable and inferior, and when that happens to you, I suggest you hop on Google and throw that term in the image search bar. Or just become a writer for a feminist website and write 439 words on how you’re not a bad person because it makes you feel better to see the world’s most beautiful women looking normal without makeup. Just stay away from Halle Berry, Beyonce, and Kate Middleton … those brats are beautiful all the time.

You Might Also Like ...

• Controversial Advertisements: Dove Soap Edition

I written several times about how catty feminism can be, and sadly I am proved right yet again. Democratic strategist Hilary Rosen recently said that Ann Romney has “never worked a day in her life” and, therefore, can’t understand the struggles of most women. First, what a bunch of manure. Second? I don’t think Rosen has spent any time with Romney or as an at-home mother, so she can’t really weigh in on this topic.

The reason this quote bothers me is it landed Rosen in an article in which the writer states, “I know her (Rosen) slightly — we are both frequent panelists on PBS’ all-female public affairs program, “To the Contrary” — and she’s a perfectly nice woman. But she’s also a hard-core feminist — and that’s the problem.” No, the problem isn’t that she’s a “hard-core feminist,” it’s that people perceive a personal opinion from a woman to be a blanket statement of feminism.

I recently watched Angelina Jolie, who is a mother of six, on 60 Minutes. She was asked which she liked better—making a film or being at home, and Jolie said “I prefer being at home with my children” when the interviewer said, “Many parents would kill to be out making a movie,” to which Jolie responded, “Well of course, it’s easier.” That’s right—making a major motion picture in which you have the weight of a 120 million dollar budget hanging over your head is easier than raising kids.

Where did this myth come from that being a stay-at-home mom is an easy job? First of all, kids are time-sucks. They are demanding, selfish, self-centered, all-consuming jam-handed CEOs. Say what you will, but kids rule the roost. You sleep when they sleep, you eat when they want you to eat and if you do not give them their way, watch them rain down the holy terror of tears and temper tantrums (which is a lot like some editors and CEOs I’ve worked for, hmm …). You also never get rid of them: I know two people in their 30’s that just moved back into their parents’ house. This is a lifetime job. I still call my mother (who was not a stay-at-home mom) to ruin her day because I’m in a bad mood … shameful, I know, but whatever, right? That’s my job as a kid and her role as my mother. I always call to apologize, but the fact is she is the Joan Harris to my Sterling Cooper Draper Pryce (that’s a Mad Men reference for all of you who have lives and don’t spend your days living through your TV) remains. For some reason my mother will always be the person that has all the answers, despite the fact that she lives 2,000 miles away and has never worked in the industry which I’m currently in.

Stay at home moms are amazing. The patience it takes to spend all day with kids is one trait to be admired. To say that Romney doesn’t understand the struggles of modern women just goes to show that Rosen doesn’t understand women—period. Women as a gender are generally empathetic and most mothers have a knack for putting themselves in others’ shoes and knowing how to navigate uncharted waters. They are selfless and give up their own lives and freedoms to ensure better lives for their children.

Moreover, single mothers should be admired and revered, because God knows I couldn’t do it. You can say that a stay-at-home mom doesn’t know what it’s like to be picked over for a job, or be fired, or know the stresses of having a deadline. But they do know what it’s like to be picked on and looked down upon for their choices by people like Rosen, and they know the stress of having to be responsible for another human being, knowing that every decision they make might end up being discussed ad nauseam in therapy one day. Also, they will never be fired because they will never stop working until they die. There is no retirement here, there will never be a raise, or enough thank yous. They may not know the pressure of a deadline, but they do know the pressure of being the one place that their kids feel safe and the pressure of having to protect them and be there for them even when they’re 2,000 miles away. I’d rather have the pressure of a deadline, a boss that screams at me who I can leave at the office, and the knowledge that when I’m 65, this is will all be over than to deal with the uber-responsibility of being a stay-at-home mom.

You Might Also Like ...

• UK MP Dominic Raab Attacks ‘Obnoxious Bigotry’ of Feminists

There’s a new movie called ‘The Five Year Engagement,” a film about a couple that just can’t seem to set a date and get up the aisle, and it’s definitely a sign of the times: this is an increasing trend today. The average age for getting married has shifted to a much higher number than 20 years ago, and more people are choosing to forgo marriage altogether, and are, instead, opting for cohabitation.

Marriage is a big thing, and like many other big things (careers, living space) , there are many reasons not to rush into it. I currently am in a similar situation. I live with my fiancee, we have two dogs, a nice little house, and about two months ago he popped the question. After some discussion, we decided that we already live like a married couple, and we both wear rings so why would spent thousands of dollars on a wedding? My best friend is still paying off debt from her $35,000 dollar wedding (which is considerably cheap seeing how I live in LA and that’s what people pay for flowers), and don’t get me wrong – it was a beautiful wedding, but I could buy a car for that amount. I could buy a new wardrobe, more dogs, a king-sized bed with the best bedding known to man and have enough leftover dough to go grocery shopping with. For a years.

The point is, if I had $35,000 to go in debt with, I wouldn’t spend it on a piece of paper. I live with my fiancee, and we share finances. If he leaves, I don’t have to pay $20,000 on a lawyer to decide what alimony he gets, I just kick him out. So for us, it just seems a bit silly, and worse, some say it’s a trend of a modern world. Everything is so enticing and on-demand that people think everything is so fleeting. Now, couples are uber aware of a high divorce rate, and that in itself is perhaps deterring them from rushing up that aisle, or, on the flip side, getting that paper puts pressure on couples to be perfect. A piece of paper does not make a relationship.

The interesting part of this trend is the fact that people are still getting engaged. See, for me, it was really nice to get that ring. It was a tangible promise from him to me. When I looked down at those three black diamonds on my finger, I know that someone loves me and is willing to commit himself to me. Maybe one day we’ll get married, maybe not. Either way, our relationship works for us and really? That’s all that matters.

You Might Also Like ...

• Why Are Women More Likely to Initiate Divorce?

Elisabeth Badinter has written a new book called The Conflict: How Modern Motherhood Undermines The Status of Women, and it’s intriguing. The book’s title seems a bit harsh, but when you talk to Elisabeth and hear her side of things, it’s actually not as bad as it would suggest. We all know that a catchy title is a marketing ploy more than an actual representation of the story inside, anyway—in short, don’t judge a book by the cover. We’ve all probably learned this lesson in some way, shape, or form by now.

In the book, Elisabeth takes issue with someone becoming a mother and then automatically taking a backseat to her own children. In my opinion, that’s what motherhood is: you start to live for your child. Having a baby is an amazing responsibility and it’s a 24/7 job, so it’s only natural that you would give all of yourself to this all-consuming being. Right? No—not according to Elisabeth Badinter.

In her book, she talks about how a working mother is looked down upon for not spending time with her children, and if they’re not there for them, there’s massive anxiety and guilt. Now, I don’t have children but I have two “fur babies” and I work a full-time job and sometimes I look at them and think, “I’m a bad pet parent to you guys, I’m never here,” so I can only imagine what it’s like to have that resonating feeling when it comes to rearing a child. Elisabeth, however, is telling women “you’re a human too, you also have needs and that’s okay.” It’s a very healthy way to look at motherhood.

Badinter’s book is telling women that you can be both a mother and a person, that you don’t have to give up everything, and that’s it’s okay to take some time for you. Sometimes you have to be cruel to be kind (yes, I rely heavily on advice from 80’s songs) and that’s apparently what Elisabeth is doing with her new book. It’s a harsh wake-up call telling women that they aren’t bad parents if they take time for themselves, because in fact you’ll be a better-balanced role model for your children in the long run. Isn’t that what it’s all about in the end, anyway?

You Might Also Like ...

• XXX Factor

Actress Ashley Judd has been an activist for women and an advocate for mental health for several years. Recently she wrote an essay that was posted on The Daily Beast that went viral. In it, Judd called out society’s misogyny and harsh judgment of womens’ appearances, and all of this was due because a picture of Judd (who looked beautiful in said photo) was released, and because she looked a little fuller-faced than normal, critics said she appeared “puffy” or “bloated” or that she “must’ve had work done.” The media went mad and called plastic surgeons who never worked on Judd but stated that she must’ve had this, that, and the other, done to her gorgeous face. She simply can’t just be naturally that beautiful, and God help a woman that’s puffy on film. The audacity. She should have stayed home!

Since then, nearly 16,000 people have shared the essay on Twitter, and 374,000 people have liked it on Facebook. Hopefully, this is a step in the right direction – women standing up and saying, “I’m not just a pretty face and it’s okay to have flaws.” Guys, flaws are the interesting parts! I live in Los Angeles where almost everyone looks the same, and I find it rather refreshing to see a girl with an interesting face and a fresh take on life – someone who steps out and says “I’m a bit weird in a certain way and that’s okay.”

Other celebrities weighed in on the topic, too - ”There is so much negativity online, so even if the content on a website is positive, the community is often incredibly negative,” Zooey Deschanel, actress and cofounder of HelloGiggles.com, and poster child for hipster semi-awkward geek girls, tells Mashable. “I was always shocked by how mean people could be when they were allowed to make comments anonymously online.”

“It’s easy to hide behind a computer screen and it’s nice to see that people are coming out from behind “posting as a guest” and showing that there is still kindness and caring out there. We all have such a short time together, you would think in 2012 we would’ve learned to not waste our time on such petty negativity. I once read something that said, (and I’m paraphrasing here) “that which makes us angry is simply a reflection we see in ourselves.” So those who attacked Judd for looking “puffy” aren’t attacking Judd, they’re attacking their own insecurity and it makes them feel better to take down a successful person by bringing them down to their level. Instead of knocking someone else down, why don’t we elevate ourselves? We can all take a lesson from Judd and her strength and belief in herself.

You Might Also Like ...

• ‘Lovelace’: Bringing ‘Deep Throat’ Back to Life