Why Is Feminism So Insistent That Women Be 'Fierce'?

The early days of feminism were indeed about equality of opportunity. The point was that society was pigeonholing women into being wives and mothers exclusively. Today, remarkably few Americans do not agree with that cause.

However, feminism has since been pigeonholing women just like its enemies used to do.

Hollywood loves the butt-kicking woman who can go toe-to-toe with men in any field, even combat. Feminism wants women to be "fierce." They're telling women that it's the only way to be.

Take, for instance, "Fearless Girl":

On its own terms, the statue is absurd. Taken together with the charging bull, the entire art installation would be more properly titled “Where Are Her Parents?” or “Seconds from Tragedy.” The relentless on-screen butt-kicking is ridiculous as well. It’s almost as if SEAL Team Six would be more effective if only it were stocked with 5-foot-5-inch starlets.

Where is this coming from? Why is feminism indulging and demanding a consistent form of pop-culture propaganda? It boils down to one word -- careerism.

It’s becoming increasingly clear that the foremost object of modern feminism isn’t respecting and honoring the choices that real women make, but rather making sure that women make a certain kind of choice -- to live with the same career- and action-dominant attitude that has prevailed in male culture for many thousands of years.

And yes, it is certainly true that a certain level of (properly channeled) aggression, ambition, and combativeness helps a person succeed. And if that is the case, then it stands to reason that the women who make it to the top of governments, corporations, and the media will tend to share some of those characteristics with their male colleagues. It is not true, however, that men and women are blank biological slates, and only sexist culture keeps men from being more like women and women from being more like men.

Ferocity isn’t a virtue, it’s a characteristic, and it’s a characteristic that not all (or even most) women share.

The ideological result is a kind of forced fiction, one that belittles both men and women and tells them that there is something essentially wrong with them if they choose to live according to the entirely natural and moral desires of their heart. In some quarters, it represents a failure -- a loss -- if a brilliant young woman chooses to drop out of the workforce and stay home to raise children. Conversely, it’s also deemed a failure if natural male aggression, natural male strength, and natural male competitiveness together create either male-only or primarily male spaces at the leading edge of physical danger, geographical exploration, and entrepreneurial risk.

This is all too true.

It's hysterical that the same fierceness that is decried in men as "toxic masculinity" -- the same fierceness that protected humanity for millennia and still does today -- is held in such high regard by those who possess two X chromosomes rather than just one.

Ferocity has its place, of course, but to try and push this as femininity itself is as wrongheaded as pushing all women into the role of happy homemaker. A person's nature, be it socially constructed or genetically originated, simply is what it is. Feminism telling all women to be warriors is as ridiculous as telling warriors to act like church mice.

Feminism needs to stop trying to pressure women. That's supposed to be the whole point.