How authentic is the women’s rights movement? Are there certain groups that are fabricating this devoted campaign? Who paves the “way of life“ for these equal rights seekers? Is society presenting the Idealistic Woman appropriately? Is there truly an inequality between men and women if there is gender liberty justice? Should equal rights be scaled according to the natural structure of men and women? Can women be free from both the strict control of women’s rights organizations and social pressures from society’s ideal “Woman”? Is there a correlation between human depletion and politicizing women’s rights?
Organizations are exploiting women’s rights for political gains.
No doubt, women’s rights are absolute rights that must be constitutionally educated to everyone, just as all races and ethnicities are equal. The liberty of humans is built upon the social understanding that no one is above the other, or above the law that brings order to civil interactions. Concentration on the modern era Women’s rights movement has been a Human Rights priority for a while now, where it started with equalizing the opportunity with men in matters of voting, giving them enough power to pave their lives independently and having the voice for choice in a democracy.
This matter is strongly explored in the USA, where domestic organizations are leading women’s social perceptions in the name of equality and freedom, even though this sample population may not efficiently represent the entire population. They drive the 21st-century woman’s perspectives in a centralized manner. Women’s rights nowadays are empowering the change according to the desires of these leading organizations that emphasize its derivation from general societal acceptance. Not to confuse those organization’s leadership with the purity of seeking rights, they are mostly led by men with political agendas who are insincerely battling other men’s international grab to power. The demands presented by them do not empower absolute equality but shun society further from true human liberty. Movements demand society to accept women from all shapes and sizes, appearing however they want, with little care to different environments’ acceptability focusing the attention on what the woman, and her desire, want.
In the last 16 years, European countries proceeded to ban religious coverings of women in public sectors including education and administrative quarters, starting with the full-face cover known as the Burqa, and the half-face cover known as Niqab. In June of 2020, Belgium, superseded by other European member states, declared the prohibition of religious symbols in higher education, including women’s headscarf ban, which firstly repudiates the freedom of religion, and secondly contradicts the freedom of education to all kinds of people. Surprisingly, many cities in Europe accept the Christian nuns wear in teaching while banning the headscarves, which are very similar in nature. The ban directly contradicts women’s rights for all kinds of attire as empowered by the movement, only to exemplify political interference and agendas. Organizations are choosing how women should act and appear, and the movement listens to those reservations without regard to each segment’s objections, even if its goal is to “listen, help, and resolve any and all kinds of women’s troubles around the world.”
Behavioral changes that are unsuitable in different environments are exhibited in response to triggers.
These women’s rights entities very frequently activate specific behavioral changes that women worldwide should assimilate to; otherwise, they will be called anti-movement, or face constant social and psychological pressure due to the group’s unacceptability to their behavioral unsusceptibility. These are not the most celebrated traits for a woman in the 21st century. These ruling bodies cannot lose their influencing power, otherwise they would also loosen the square that boxed women‘s lifestyles and perspectives with the idea of openness and breaking free. They’re identified as the figures of change, even if their plans do not correlate straightly with the world’s demand for constitutional equality.
Henrik Ibsen portrayed women with intense devotion in the late 19th century with the drama known as A Doll’s House. Nora, the protagonist and leading female character, finally breaks the gender cage leaving Torvald’s house, her husband, as an act of personal power without care for him or his family’s reputation after a series of bad decisions coordinated amongst the men of the play. The aftermath of this play caused a big fuss to the majorly-men audience who viewed this as against social norms and traditions, while women saw this as an act of power that they always sought but could not mentally approach. Women nowadays are looking to breaking all kinds of glass ceilings that are presumably constructed by men at companies, institutions, governments, or politics.
A significant part of corporate lawsuits today is in regard to gender discrimination in the scope of sexual assault and inequality to hierarchy. This is becoming one of the biggest fears of corporate directors given that women’s employment unions are growing in strength and numbers, sometimes leading to an “autocratic imposition of decisions.” When women, such as Nora in A Doll’s House, begin to feel feeble or their rights have been abused, their next step would be fighting for that right. The procedures undertaken by women in professional environments are by escalating matters to courtrooms by means of discrimination and gender rights claims. However, due to social triggers, behaviors and responses are shifting. According to a simulation on companies facing gender prejudice lawsuits, most of the defendants explain that the issue is either very minute to be brought to a courtroom, or not even real but “the claimant felt a social pressure to battle the natural order of things in a professional environment only to be gratified by their idols, even if nothing did actually happen.” If companies continue to face the same struggles, women’s professional lives will become exceedingly difficult and stressful socially. It would be challenging to cope and display comprehension between the two equal genders, outright causing imbalances in the environments of different sectors.
Effects of growing political empowerment on art and equality.
Most of the latest movies nowadays are depicting women in a stronger position than men politically, mentally, and physically. The shift is so severe that there is a clear cut line of change in the late 2010s between male and female protagonists. The suddenly enforced characterization is correlated with growing movement strength that influenced major movie-making outlets to renovate and adapt to the new way of gender portrayal. According to male actors, they are feeling more overlooked, judged, and exploited as male characters in acting scenes only because of their “he-biology.” Doesn’t this bring up discrimination against men in this kind of environment, though? In most arts-related places, women are being materialized. This directly contradicts the request for equal, objective rights. Oddly enough, these kinds of objectification are not very tackled or in direct conflict with the movement’s organizations, other than #MeToo that female celebrities organized against sexual harassment. Instead, it appears that movie directors who publicly follow women’s empowerment are gaining socio-economically from objectifying female characters, seemingly backed by those organizations. Did the women’s rights movement succeed in this portrayal? As certain music videos demonstrated, it does not go the extra intended mile for all women’s choices in life.
The exposure of unity and presumed “biological adaptation” influences preferences and younger generations.
Women’s rights movement, in addition to creating new international norms, has an indirect influence on women’s preferences that promote unity as one gender, in addition to the divergence of different demographics under the umbrella of organizational-political agendas. The rate of straight women turning lesbian is increasing in the last few years with the one most significant cause in place, women’s rights. The primary area where this is explored is in social media. As more LGBTQ icons become popular and advancing women’s rights ideologies, followers are more socially inclined to gradually follow their footsteps, possibly leading to a change in orientation, overlooking the existence of some environmental restrictions. The latest hashtags and popular feminine influencers manufactured the way of thinking for women, especially teenage girls, in incredible ways that are putting them in a continuously uncomfortable state to assimilate to this particular group, or be called an outcast. When her cool friends tell her to follow an icon of change on social media because “she’s cool,” this girl induces high social pressures to the extent that even if her culture, traditions, and way of life are designed in a completely different way, there is a big chance she will cope with this trend. In doing so, this young girl, who is also highly susceptible to social influences, opens herself up to perpetual signals to accustom her lifestyle to this icon. A similar situation is observed with many girls of the same demographic. The results of any change in behavior exhibited in the name of social trends will be explicitly displayed by the girls of this segment and age group. Conclusively, this leads to a world filled with triggers to act in ways outside the scope of familial or traditional teachings.
Most social media fans of famous artists are young teenagers “relating to life.” And we ask why they seem so difficult these days?
The tranquillity of households and the strength of relationships are shaken by the growing partisan impacts.
When the girl and her mother start to focus on their rights as independent and free women, overlooking the crucial duty of peaceful coexistence in the household, families sequentially divide. According to statistics from the last 50 years, divorce rates have more than doubled while marriage rates almost halved. The inaccurate quest for women’s rights, under the political umbrella, is one of the leading causes of family divisions and divorces. The women’s rights movement associations created communities that “educate“ wives that their role in life is not only built for raising children and taking care of the household’s wellbeing but more. This kind of awareness pressures wives to the extent that conflicts with their partners begin to come to life unexpectedly. According to a quantitative survey on husbands of women rights activists, a significant proportion of them asserts that their wives encountered changing habits and desires, while others are facing constant internal disputes that are shaking the tranquility of the household. The first damaged group as a result of this scenario is the children, who will exhibit social and psychological troubles as a result. Husbands nowadays are shocked by the total change in behavior manifested by their equal other. As studies have shown by economists in the most gender-egalitarian country, Sweden, women promoted to a higher place of power are more likely to divorce their husbands, with the will to pay a tremendous emotional price for their personal success. Women’s grip on power for presumed equality seems to yield a large payback that cripples generations in a series of ripple effects, given the natural physiological and psychological difference between man and woman.
The growing importance of a “trendy” look damages the attributes of a woman resulting in reduced natality rates.
Societies have inappropriately pressured women into thinking that they need to look, feel, interact, and live in a certain way. This has been an issue that drifted a significant proportion into outcomes that are “horrific,” according to a survey on women of the 21st century in developed countries. “At first, it was to look more beautiful. But then we wanted more beauty, and more, and more,” they add, “Beauty is not only about our looks, but also about our personalities and the way we live our lives.” Magazines, movies, TV shows, and news channels where the winner “must wear Prada” are the points that drove women into behaving in an artificial, unoriginal way. This is exceedingly explored in developing countries with excessive wealth. This need for beauty resulting in heated social competitions between women of the same demographic is very demanding. Keeping up with idols, following the call for trends, and spending money openly for the latest improvements, all while staying “calm and serene” in social and professional environments, is physiologically and psychologically damaging at the very least. An essential pillar of life and survival must be given up in order to preserve the rest. As explained in “Renovating Social Media to What’s Necessary for Tomorrow,” social icons are the idols of their followers to the extent that any change in behavior exhibited by them is very clearly associated to their followers. Insecurity is the main characteristic found by these women, as they often disapprove of how they look, creating a constant need for more while compromising traditional integrity.
Women that look different from their idols may proceed to change the way they look just to be like them. This copycat behavior makes women live in constant fear of not being “fitting,” stressed because of the fear, and uncomfortable because of the continuous stress. According to a simulation on adult women that have a constant psychological need for more beauty, they tend to exhibit two types of failures. A chance for professional failure that is highly correlated with women who thoroughly follow idol’s trends on beautification, given the change in behavior that may be noted as “unprofessional to the work environment,” and constant search for acceptance that is not available at workplaces. A high probability for social failure due to the “rudeness” and “narcissism” shown by interacting with close people in terms of familial and spousal relationships, which may lead to more cases of psychological troubles. In the last years, a plethora of popular women proceeded to periodic beautification surgeries that continuously “renovated” the way they look, stirring them into thinking this would help them reach their “everlasting” beauty goals. According to a survey on the taste of men in the 21st century from developing countries, “women are looking uglier, behaving badly and unrespectfully so to become followers of this trend. We believe this is because of the influence of social celebrities.”
According to World Bank statistics of Natality rates per 1000 population, from the 1960s to 2018, birth rates have decreased by almost half. Should this trend continue with the younger generation, in addition to increased abortion rates and use of contraceptive pills as a result of personal empowerment, it may become a cause for a decrease in natural relationships between men and women, ultimately resulting in a stronger and continuous reduction of natality rates in the coming years.
Recommendation: a just representation, and scaling equality.
Equality should be more scaled towards the physiological and psychological structures of men and women. Women are physiologically more limited to perform essential hard labor tasks that men are able to do. They also encounter more emotional vulnerabilities that may compromise a significant range of professional responsibilities. These states contribute to psychological swings, which affect their reception of complex emotional signals usually triggering abnormal mental processes. Nevertheless, movements should seek to empower some of the women’s principal responsibilities that are not advertised very well, such as motherhood and upbringing. Unfortunately, the most pleasant and beautiful months that women go through are not always promoted or displayed as an advantage of being a woman, which sets them on a vital role for the growth and development of the population and younger generations. Mothers, plus the fathers in a tranquil and peaceful household, are the first level schools that nurture children on how to act in life, more essential than schooling systems that are considered secondary to the “Mother School,” according to graduates from developing countries.
Women’s rights are emphasizing women’s strength and power, overlooking feminism and women’s qualities. The world is filled with masculinity. When women focus on self-sustainability, sufficiency, and not needing their equal half, femininity reduces. If femininity fades and masculinity takes over, the world is doomed to a one-sided biological order that results in catastrophic competitions and constant mental battles in a loop of struggles for equality.
With changing genders on top of high divorce rates, families are not anymore longlasting, and individuals’ choice for reproduction takes a hit. Hence, as explored above, natality remains the biggest loser. This justifies a positive correlation between women’s rights and power with humans’ “deproduction” and extinction. Given that the women’s rights movement will keep going indefinitely under the coordination of organizations with political agendas, what can we say about the future of the population and its growth? What can we say about planned human expansions, scientifically and biologically? What can we identify as the most significant problem in this chaotically diplomatic matter? Should future generations suffer because of a series of misconceptions drafted by a few representing the most?
Women and men should always be treated as equals without paving their preferences by influencing bodies with socio-political objectives.