A subject may well be confusing, but that is no cause for its abandonment. As I researched this article, my understanding of feminism’s subtleties became less certain. However, one central belief remains: How can a movement that advocates equal rights be so unpopular? Rebecca West claimed, “I myself have never been able to find out precisely what feminism is: I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat or a prostitute.” Leaving aside the intricacies of whether wet t-shirt contests entail empowerment or self-inflicted chauvinism, the rejection of feminism’s central core—equal opportunities for men and women—is perplexing. At the beginning of yet another decade, why are women still the second sex?

The most bizarre and repulsive aspect of feminism’s status is the desire among many women to shun social equality. “Social equality” can be loosely defined as the potential for both men and women to have access to the same roles and activities. However, perhaps as an attempt to appear meek and traditionally feminine, numerous women I’ve encountered have stated their aversion to this concept. A few months ago, author Fay Weldon claimed that women should pick up their husband’s socks, and in a response article that gathered reactions from 15 publicly prominent women, the majority agreed. Attached to the housewife role is the strong expectation that women are the primary parent figure. In an article about ten Princeton women (of whom only one, who has no children, works full time), each cited the need to care for their children as a reason to stop working. Not one even seemed to consider the notion that their husband might have to make a similar decision or share the duties towards their children. Furthermore, there remains a distinct lack of sisterly unity. For example, Princeton’s first female president, Shirley Tilghman, voiced surprise at the lack of reaction among female students when The Daily Princetonian suggested that she was practicing gender-based affirmative action.

An individual choice to pick up their husband’s socks is understandable, but the indiscriminate expectation for all women to do the same—the very inverse of female unity—is truly reprehensible. In a discussion about feminism, a friend claimed that, “life is easier as a girl.” The point is not whether it is preferable to be a mother or a lawyer, but (to use a cliché) that all women should be able to choose. And those who choose to be a housewife (or a lawyer) should not view their own role as a duty to all women.

The result of social inequalities is legal inequalities, especially in the workplace. As women alone are expected to choose between work and family, fewer women work, and so there are natural workplace barriers against women. In 2001, a Columbia University study found that 89 percent of men took paternity leave after the birth of their child but that the majority took less than one week off. As a result of this disparity, employers are much less likely to hire women of typical marrying age, and so there are fewer women and greater obstacles higher up the career ladder. Although many women opt out of work when they have children, the drastic difference between the equal number of women in training programs, and the tiny minority in top positions, suggests discrimination. As of 2008 there were only three women (and one with real power) in Goldman Sachs’ management committee of 29, while in 2003 only 1.6 percent of C.E.O.s of Fortune 500 companies were women.

A clear and undisruptive means to rectify this disparity is to alter maternity and paternity leave so that a couple may divide the leave between them as they wish.  Consequentially, the same number of weeks overall would be taken off work, so the economy would not be affected. Furthermore, men of parenting age would have less of an unjust advantage over women, as employers could not be definitely assume that women (and not men) will pause their work in order to raise children.

The one stale, clichéd response to advocates of feminism is that men and women are innately different. Of course, given the biological support, it would be folly to deny that there are general differences between men and women. However, there are exceptions to every one of the usual character differences. And just as a physically strong woman should be able to be a builder, a particularly parental man should be able to be a househusband without controversy. Men and women will never be the same, and I expect that even under absolute equality there would be more stay-at-home mothers than fathers. But feminists do not demand sameness, only equality—that men and women should be able to choose their role­ uninhibited by gender.

My argument—the lack of unity amongst women, the female aversion to appearing assertive, and the women’s burden of choosing between family and work—are the rudimentary basics of feminist theory. However, there is an ugly connotation to feminism that should be dispelled, and popular support for the movement is the only realistic means to reform its image and obtain equality. Sexism still stubbornly continues to prevail, both in society and the workplace, and, as such, feminism unquestionably deserves greater support.

Olivia M. Goldhill ’11, a Crimson editorial writer, is a philosophy concentrator in Kirkland House. Her column appears on alternate Tuesdays.