Opinion: Are Feminists and Feminazis Product of a Fashion?

Read more content like this at: thewomanpost.com

"All vices, as long as they are in fashion, pass for virtues."
Moliere

Does this concept tell us anything?
I would say yes, and it is as current as the 17th century when it was written!
Fashions and uses change, although previously these changes were almost imperceptible and occurred from one century to another, or from one era to another, at present the change is constant, we could not even say that from one generation to another, because starting in the 1960s, many changes have emerged that have accelerated more and more with the appearance of the Internet, social networks, and globalization.

We, women, have gained relevance and have gone from merely having a marital, maternal, and home role, to vindicating our ideas and preferences. Thus, we currently choose at the polls, we wear pants or a miniskirt, we smoke and drink, we have the freedom to choose our partner(s), profession, and work, and we can even decide whether or not to have children.
Until here, well come the freedom of action and expression.
But… Is it like this for all women on the planet?
Of course not!
Aren't we women universal givers of life? Yes, the only being capable of gestating and giving life to another being!
And this is a reality, regardless of all the genders and sexual classifications that may arise.
If our freedom claims the right to decide about our health, body, and reproduction, wouldn't it be more appropriate and conventional to protect ourselves with one of the methods provided by the market to avoid an unplanned conception -even in extremis with the morning pill? later-, instead of deliberately collecting abortions? As far as we remember, they begin to be a life, not just cells, after a certain week of gestation.
And in this sense it is not that some doctors are conscientious objectors, or that ordinary people who oppose this "fashion" of popularizing abortions are puritanical or old-fashioned; it could simply be understood as a matter of ethics, morality, and defense of life.
Let's say it without compromise, rationally and passionately* -without a trace of sentimentality-: it would be easier, less traumatic, and less costly to prevent conception than to perform an abortion, and in that case, IF it would be "deciding" about one's own body and one's reproduction in a responsible way, the latter is an important key: RESPONSIBLE.
This misunderstood concept of feminine "freedom" has been used as a banner of "feminism", among many others.
And what happens if not all women feel represented by those movements?
What do feminists stand for?
Are all their just causes?
Would not life itself already be a good cause of defense? Or is it that all humans inhabiting the planet did not go through that gestation phase?
Has the conglomerate of existing feminists on the planet unanimously and forcefully presented their protests and demands in African, Asian, Latin American, or any other latitude communities to demand the basic rights of other women such as education, work, deciding about their marriages, refusing to be genitally mutilated, deciding if they can show their hair and wear pants, drive and be free? Wouldn't that be a true feminist cause?
The desire to demonstrate "belonging" to a "progress" group or movement seems more like a fashion than a necessity, has made the difference between claiming rights as a woman subtle and at the same time abysmal and prostituting the term bordering on the radicalization, bridging a marked gap between men and women, and creating such confusion as to violate even the identity of the man.
It is here where two concepts arise: feminazi and feminism.
Feminist is understood as any cause that defends the rights of women, and here it is important to highlight that it should be a cause of women in favor of other women in the universal sphere, without violating the rights and integrity of other(s). genders).
Now, the concept itself is contradictory, because if we define machismo as the subjugation of women by men, feminism would come to mean the same thing, but interchanging the gender.
Is this logical when what in theory these movements want is to eradicate radicalization and subjugation?
And how would this apply to the different genders of biological males considered female?
Nor is it explained why an abusive woman -physically, psychologically, or mentally-, is not pointed out, penalized, or punished, according to the same law of gender violence, but instead the law is applied when committing the offense (sometimes even under false accusation) is a man.
Also, the definition is applicable only if the person who suffers the insult is a woman, but does the same happen in the case of a couple of women? No! It is not considered such, only because the person who attacks is a woman.
On the other hand -and unfortunately- we know very well
So where is the parity of rights and responsibilities?
Female recognition is not achieved by going out in a group as misfits, with grotesque attitudes and outfits, or exhibiting one's own body, nor is it achieved by uttering insults towards men. None of this claims femininity itself, nor does it represent feminism, rather it would show the phase of radicalization typical of feminazis.
Neither let us misunderstand feminism with abortion, nor let us instrumentalize the concept.
In the world countless women fight against political regimes in favor of the rights of entire communities; silent warriors who from their own experience, the extermination of their peoples or the limitation of their freedoms, have been punished, repressed, threatened, and expelled, many of them collaborate with international organizations making visible the real problems of women in certain parts of the planet. Amal Clooney fights from the international courts against abuses against women, likewise, we find victims or fugitives who have transformed their struggle into well-being for others: Ángela Ghayour, Hadizatou Mani, Ryma Seermohammadi, Nadia Murad, Agnes Pareyio, journalists, politicians, Nobel Peace Prize winners, and ordinary women. All of them are just small examples of true feminists.
In Spain, the Ministry of "Equality" was consolidated, of which Irene Montero is a faithful representative. She, ignoring social distancing at the beginning of the alarm for COVID-19, went out to march on March 8 through the streets of Madrid. The result? Many protesters contracted the virus, including the Minister herself, something very countercurrent if it was a global health emergency and if we take into account that March 8 is only a date when it comes to rights.
On the other hand, with the implementation of the 2030 agenda, the concepts of inclusion, "gender" freedom from preschool age, reproductive health (a subtle way of calling mass abortions), etc., have been gradually and subliminally inserted. whose sole purpose is to limit birth rates. But this has been happening before our eyes with the application of eugenics thanks to bills promoted by Rockefeller in the last century -which were later adopted by the Nazis against the Jews-. Strategy was changed after the Second World War, promising economic aid for reconstruction in exchange for massive sterilizations and abortions, as happened in India, China, African countries, and American Afro-descendants.
It is always Montero who defends the concept that a child at an early age can already decide her sexuality and "whether to be touched or not"… Is this feminism, inclusion, or sexual freedom?
Surely opposing these globalized and scheduled reforms is not moralism either.
What do we call these "activists": feminists or feminazis?
Do we want gender parity? Let's start by respecting our differences and evaluating the consequences of what is and is not consistent.
Taking all these aspects into account, it is very important to review social history to understand that the instrumentalization of terms favors the progressive changes that global power applies to society.
* Feminazi: Feminism + Nazism
A term popularized in 1992 (USA) by the broadcaster Rush Limbaugh