(in our current society) Can *every* woman choose between being - demure & cherubic / or strong and assertive?

Question

.. at their own discretion?

And is this the basic tenet of feminism (that women will be given every and all powers of men/ yet at the same time reserve the right to pursue a more traditional role with less responsibility and expectation if they so choose?) - with society & the legal system to support and *adjust* depending on that woman's prerogative?

Answer 1

What you state in the beginning of your question is Not what feminism's tenet is. Feminism actually tries to move away from the virgin/w***e dichotomy that you frame this as. Feminism instead tries to create a system of thinking and being in which individual choice is a primary factor. It is mostly about opportunity--women should have identical opportunities as men have. And yes, just as how men can choose to enter the workforce, or choose to stay at home; feminists believe that women, too, should have this opportunity.

That being said, no, at this point, *every* woman does not have this choice. It is important to remember that there are many factors at play that can constrain personal opportunities--for example race or socio-economic class can constrain these choices. It must be said, too, that these factors also affect men.

However, when taken into account, there are still many areas in which society does not yet afford equal opportunity for both men and women, which is why feminism is still considered to be a continuing social movement, not one which is over and done with.  

Answer 2

Society and the legal system will not be affected by a particular woman's attitude. Anyone who says otherwise is overestimating female power.

Answer 3

You have your crosshairs tangled-up, all three of them:

1.  Humanism is the rise of the masses into legal protections for their human rights which we didn't have until relatively recently in history.  The process of securing legal protections for basic human rights has been gradual with lots of wars, especially related to whom we call a "human".  For example, when the U.S. Constitution was written only people who owned land were considered human enough to have rights.  But, the boys back then went ahead and said all people with male genitalia were humans and could have legal protections for their rights even if they didn't own land.  But, it took a little longer to include Black humans with male genitalia in that coverage.  Then, humans with female genitalia were considered human enough to have coverage.  And, finally the U.N.'s Universal Declaration of Human Rights included most everyone else who was being left out in the world.  Only children remain as a second-class form of human and the U.S. still refuses to ratify the Children's Bill of Rights. Feminism is the political action group, so to say, that fought for legal protections for the basic human rights of humans with female genitalia.  Our legal protections for everyone's rights, male or female, do not enter into supporting anyone's life style choices.  Think of legal protections for our rights as the right to get into a boat.  What people do WITHIN the boat is up to them.  Men and women can equally choose to be dependent upon others or to be self-sufficient.  No constitutional law today supports or prohibits either men or women from choosing to be either dependent upon others or self-sufficient.  

2. Within cultural norms and customs, though, especially within the social institution of courtship/marriage/family, there are private agreements of dependency and mutual support in which private individuals may do whatever they want within the "boat", so to say.  Traditional agreements such as wives assuming dependency were based on religious customs and lack of equal opportunity and lock-out for women to achieve self-sufficiency and most women were forced into dependency and lack of self-sufficiency.  But, in especially the last 50 years, women have fought for and won equal opportunity to become educated and self-sufficient.  Although women have achieved that equal opportunity many remain committed to traditional and religious-based notions of dependency in courtship/marriage/ family cultural customs, finding mates with similar beliefs and expectations.  Many women do become self-sufficient and pursue equal opportunity but also choose to assume traditional SAHW roles, especially during early childrearing years, which is intelligent family-building.  It is not at all that a woman has a choice to be either "demure & cherubic / dependent on a meal-ticket or "strong and assertive" / self-sufficient.  Many strong and assertive women wisely choose to be SAHM's and many demure & cherubic Cinderella wannabes are working because the economy requires that the majority of men and women work.  Men as well as women can and do assume the dependent SAH role and they are seldom "demure and cherubic".  That is a private decision based upon the vision of two people in a domestic relationship.

3.  Lastly, because the majority of people on welfare are Cinderella wannabes who are not self-sufficient or employable, I resent as a strong and assertive self-sufficient feminist that my taxes go to support them after Prince Charming aka Meal-Ticket dumps them and their children.  I resent having to pay the bills in the PUBLIC sector (taxes) for the choices that women make in their PRIVATE courtship/marriage/family lives.  Personally, I think only religions and conservative organizations like Phylis Shafaly's anti-working woman Eagle Forum foundation should be required to support all the Cinderella wannabes.  And, unless such "traditionalists" can come up with a better solution than moronically expecting all women to assume the "demure and cherubic" role of SAHW in the reality of post-industrial society which would utterly collapse into chaos if all women stopped working (duh), they should shut up and support the feminist movement in which we are trying to encourage girls to get an education and job skills with which to be self-sufficient and not a burden to society no matter what choices they make in their private lives.