What is Feminism? Think for just a moment about your personal definition of Feminism. Difficult, huh? And what about the “official” and worldly accepted one? …almost impossible, as I figured.
The point is that we hear a lot of talks about Feminism but, still, it seems the world hasn’t come to an agreement that satisfies everybody. Feminism is such a wide concept that – as Chris Beasley says in her book What is feminism, Anyway? – “Any brief, neat account of feminism is likely to be disputed.”
Nonetheless, we should not give up on defining it, as giving a certain meaning to a word is the very first step to understand it.

What about “equality for women”? The problem with this definition, in my opinion, is the stereotype: the term equality is often abused and this could lead to many misconceptions. Although women have achieved to some degree equal opportunity in studying, working and so on, this does not mean that women are going to be paid as much as men or that they are going to have the same possibilities as men in getting a job (due to maternity leave for example), neither that they are going to be proportionally represented in a parliament.
The other huge misconception that people held is the one about “unequal opportunities” or reversed sexism: putting women before men in every situation. Now, we cannot hide the fact that a group of extremist feminists, the so-called “men-destroyer-women”, is out there doing some crazy stuff, and we know too well that humans love to tar everyone with the same brush. Anyhow, these same women are actually destroying the concept of feminism itself, putting men at the centre, instead of women: hating men, fighting men, destroying men, triumphing over man. It seems to me that this type of “ground” feminism lacks significantly of strong principles and beliefs, going against respectable movements such as “Ni Una Menos” or “Me Too”. Let’s take a look for example at the behaviour of young women of the new generation: what do you think is the effect produced by a short skirt? Expression of freedom or identification of women as objects? Again, have you ever noticed that some sections of media and journalism are pushing the same agenda today as they were on 1918? “Feminism is a war on men,” front-page and cap locks and the article is sold… I mean, can you imagine Emmeline Pankhurst pretending a free-entry to a club just because she is a woman? Neither can I.

But don’t get me wrong, the problem is not the skirt itself. The problem lays on our own perception of it: of course, in an ideal society everyone should feel free to do and wear whatever s/he wants, but guess what? We don’t live in an ideal society. And we are so used to objectify and stereotype everything and everyone around us that is almost impossible to avoid the chains of classification. So, if you wear an extra short shirt you must be a prostitute; if you comment more that you should the work of your colleagues, you are being annoyingly bossy; if a girl plays with car races or a football ball they say “Don’t be a tomboy!” but when it’s a boy playing with dolls or crying for the smallest thing it sounds more like “Don’t be a sissy!”. Although the reasons why we so often use stereotypes are so many to be explained in this context, I think there is still something we can do about it.
But first, let’s talk about how things work today. Well, at the end of the day it all comes down to education. When we were kids, we were taught to behave in a certain way; play only with specific games, do this and that, and for what? Raising a sexist and class-based society. Men should be the strong leaders of the family, the ones that work and make money, the ones that always know what’s the best thing to do and never hesitate, never show any kind of deep emotion. Women, on the other hand, should simply stick to the role of housekeeping, raising the children (and often their husbands too…), emotionally supporting everyone and always being faithful and patient. Of course, the trick works also in reverse: women expect the gentleman to pay for them on a date and men are supposed to always come in aid of a lady in need. Luckily, the twenty-first century society has done some great progresses. The number of women wanting to be economically independent and achieving it through equal income, succeeding to pursue a good career, stronger and self-aware, is rising.

The secret ingredient used until now is to assimilate women’s characteristics to the male model: what I mean is that our contemporary society is presenting the patriarchal model as the only and best one possible; but achieving gender equality in such a world is not equality at all, but rather conformism. Ok, I’ll admit it: said like that it sounds completely horrible. And as a matter of fact, it partially is… It seems to me that we are losing the feminine component of society with women racing to become the same thing as men, do and behave in the exact same way. And even though this has led to an increasing number of women working in historically only-male fields (such as engineering, science, construction working and so on) or to the implementation of new policies securing women a certain percentage of seats in parliament or in a company’s managing body (about this, we should ask ourselves as far equality can overstep “merit,” but this is a different topic…); on the other hand it led to the breakage of the ancient delicate “equilibrium” -forgive me the term- existing between men and women in society. Since going back to the past is neither possible nor acceptable, we have now to find a solution for the future. The first step to do so, as said at the beginning of the article, is to define what feminism is.


                                                                                     by Sara Manni

So here you go: my personal definition of feminism is simply being more of a woman and nothing else. Let me explain myself better. Men and women are not born to be equal, as a matter of fact no one is equal, no one is the same as the others. Men and women are born with beautiful differences among them and it would be extremely foolish to suppress these special individual qualities and conform them to only one standard (that is the male one) just for the sake of equality. Of course we have to stop raising girls as the weak genre; of course women must be treated with the same respect and enjoy the same rights and privileges as men do, and we still have a lot of work to do about this worldwide. However, there is a reason if men are better at something practical while women succeed in more theoretical matters dealing with empathy, communication and relationship. Let’s embrace diversity, celebrate it, let’s take advantage of it. If we find a way to collaborate, to teach women how to be more straightforward and steadier and men how to be more empathic and thoughtful, I am sure we, as a whole, would improve beyond expectation. So, no, mine is not a call for “equality”, it is a call for making this world a little bit more feminine.


  1. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/11231029.pdf
  2. http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GGGR_2017.pdf
  3. https://stanmed.stanford.edu/2017spring/how-mens-and-womens-brains-are-different.html
  4. Charlotte Salomon: biography and paintings
  5. Chris Beasley: “What is feminism, Anyway?”



  1. A.

    Some notions entertained by this sweet, yet troubling, article are the veiled results of the patriarchal rhetoric.
    To illustrate my point:

    “Men and women are not born to be equal…Men and women are born with beautiful differences among them”.

    Men and woman are born equal, except in the most total logical sense. The claim that men and women are born with “beautiful differences” is both common and accepted fact, seeing that every man, author of this article included, at birth comes out of one of those “beautiful differences”. The author leaves a hyperlink to a study of the male and female brain and the respective differences between them. Again, one only need take a gander at our reproductive organs to acknowledge the distinctions or biological categories.

    However, the troublesome factor comes when we stop to contemplate the implicit impact or implications such a statement holds. Allow me to invoke a famous title (yet I focus solely on the misuse or rather abuse of the title) which has served as a basis for several gender derogatory rhetorics –
    Men are from Mars, women are from Venus. (by the proclaimed John Gray). Regardless of our interpretations of said title, we should all be able to agree on the following – Even if men are from Mars and woman are from Venus, here on Earth they enjoy (or at least should enjoy) equal rights and opportunities, n’est-ce pas?

    Now I must digress to a point made slightly earlier in the text:

    “…my personal definition of feminism is simply being more of a woman and nothing else.”

    This is a rather bold claim considering that the notion of a woman, the notion of a female individual is historically moulded after the male’s ideal vision of what a woman should be, what a woman should look like and how a woman should govern “her” life. You cannot define the term ‘feminine’ without adhering to the wishes and desires of the ‘non-feminine’ or ‘masculine’ part of society. These are the building blocks of stereotyping and discrimination. The ideal of female beauty as advertised on our small screens in the past century – blonde hair, a spec of blush, an almost invisible waist and well-positioned curves (for example Jayne Mansfield in any production of the time, especially ”The girl can’t help it”); even more in this century. To conclude this point I would only say “being more a woman” fails to convey the authors intentions (if I understood them correctly, that is). Being more *human* should be the generally more accepted practice of behaviour and thinking.

    Moving on:

    “However, there is a reason if men are better at something practical while women succeed in more theoretical matters dealing with empathy, communication and relationship.”

    This sentence is confusing because of the interesting use of the subordinating conjunction ”if”. It is yet another bold statement that links back to decades and decades of biased, almost tautological stereotypical male and female roles in society. Expressions that come to mind are put on an equal pedestal of meaning – woman/female – “the prettier sex”, ”the gentler sex”, ”the weaker sex”, which may seem like gallantry to some but it certainly is not, and to quote the title of the late Simone de Beauvoir “The Second Sex” (also a recommended read, as well as Harriet Martineau’s “Society in America”). A previous claim, which I shall link to this one, was that we should ‘’…ask ourselves as far equality can overstep ‘merit’…”. The criteria of merit can only be applied when there are equal opportunities for all. Merit, in the true meaning, knows no gender alienation nor discrimination. Men have dominated the professions throughout history not by chance or right, but by use of power and force. The best known example being women who practiced herbal or other medicine in the Middle-Ages and who subsequently met a fiery demise at the stake or the gallows. One could, naturally, name heroes and pioneers who succeed against the odds of the patriarchy, but they are few when compared to the millions who fell victim to the same oppressive mechanism that draws breath today.

    Overall, this comment might come off as overcritical, but my intention is to share a different perspective which was nourished by more sources and insight, and to encourage the further development of opinions about feminism – a rather important topic.


  2. Luca Gambelli

    Thank you for your insightful comment, you have shared some ideas that are mine too but I hope the overall meaning of the article was not misinterpreted. Allow me to explain myself better.

    My intentions can be summarized into two key points: to redefine the term ‘feminism’ (and with it all the related ones such as the mentioned ‘feminine’) – leaving aside, as much as possible, all the usual stereotypes coming from a patriarchal society’s point of view – and to bring the focus on the differences between the two sexes from a purely biological perspective as a starting point for a better merging of the two of them. Let’s take into account, for example, one of the most ‘abused’ stereotyped difference between women and men: empathy. Some argue it comes from nature and some from nurture – but that is not the point in this article: what I wanted to convey was that, either way, empathy is a quality that men must learn too; vice versa, qualities such as independence have to be taught to women also. It is about raising two children in the same way, making no distinction of genre and giving them the same ‘tools of development.’ In this way, not only we would exploit all these capabilities usually associated to a woman – by making them adhere, in a broader sense, to everybody instead of devaluing the such – but also we would reach, at least in my opinion, for a more balanced society in which women and men not only share equal rights and opportunities, as you well said, but also are ‘more similar’ to each other – in utopistic terms, my idea behind this thought is to pursue a model of human being that enjoys the best characteristics of both genres in which the ‘divine feminine’ and ‘divine masculine’ are reconciled; characteristics that are nowadays thought to be exclusively of a single genre only but which are not. Here it comes the final sentence ‘make this world a little bit more feminine’ – meaning that we need more ‘transversal’ and ‘soft’ qualities in this world in order to succeed.
    When I said ‘…but achieving gender equality in such a world is not equality at all, but rather conformism’ I meant that the abovementioned qualities are often associated with women merely because the patriarchal society attributed them to the female sex – portraying a vision of the woman as substantially weak and submissive. But I especially meant that women trying to climb a patriarchal society are involuntarily assimilating that same patriarchal model, sacrificing the part of ‘divine feminine’ that is themselves.

    This is why I had been really careful with the word ‘equal’ and tried to shift the perspective to a biological side: with the term woman and feminine I included all the unborn characteristics that make up the ‘divine feminine’ – definitely more developed in women but still present in each single man. Remembering the fact that the first purpose of a word is to define and classify a single concept and to ‘isolate’ it from the rest of the external world, free from any biasism or further connection – I also tried to use every single word in its literal meaning from a scientific and objective point of view (if I did not succeed, I must beg your pardon). Therefore, I have to disagree when you say that is not possible to ‘define the term ‘feminine’ without adhering to the wishes and desires of the ‘non-feminine’ or ‘masculine’ part of society’ – seeing ‘feminine’ in my opinion as a simple term to define certain qualities common to human nature. I had no intention of hidden rhetoric or implicit impact in what I wrote.

    Regarding the quote about merit, what you said could not have been truer but mine was a reference to the fact that many countries today are implementing policies to fix a proportional number of seats for women in parliament or in a company’s administrative body – policies I do not particularly agree with. On one side it would be extremely helpful as a first step to guarantee more equality on the field of ‘possibilities’ but on the other side it goes against the principle of merit – women gaining a seat not because they deserved it but due to the said policy. Of course, this principle has been violated by men countless times in history but, from a more proactive approach, looking at the future and not at the past, it is not helpful to violate it again if we want to achieve a healthy equality. However, I must admit I find way more productive the kind of approach that have been adopted, for example, in Rwanda – where 24 parliamentary seats are reserved for women on a total of 106, leading nowadays to a 64% of the whole parliament being pink-coloured. I still have no defined position regarding the topic, so further comments are more than welcome.

    Anyhow, forgive my inexperience in writing if I have not sufficiently been able to spread the positive message I had in mind and thank you once again for sharing your deeper knowledge on the topic.

Leave a Reply

Recommended Posts

%d bloggers like this: