Today, “Fourth Wave Feminism” seems to be riddled with fissures and obstacles that prevent academia, women, and, arguably, society itself from coalescing and ascribing to an ideology whose dictionary definition conveys a much more utopian equality than the actualization of it. As the awareness and acknowledgement of feminism both as a discipline and practice have increased over the past decades, dissident opinions, misconceptions, and divides within the community of those who self-identify as feminist, as well as between the feminists and society, have all grown. While in the modern digital age there is an excess availability of voices, opinions, research and current events that all revolve around feminism, there is also more opportunities for miscommunication, misinterpretation, and misinformation that often offsets the embracing of this ideology. The lack of feminism having a singular, streamlined message its advocates can all agree on and circulate has impeded its ability to gain further momentum as a movement and efficiently target and solve critical junctures of sexual inequality, whether to the detriment of women or men, exhibited globally.
What has stunted the flourishing of this movement has been those who advocate and self-identify with the feminist cause themselves. Each paradigm, sub-sect, or individual has been proclaiming and practicing their own flavor of feminism; the most problematic of which are those women labeled as “Feminazis,” who are perceived by both men and women alike as aggressive and adversely affecting public opinion with their outspoken opinions and behaviors. By studying the rhetoric of the feminism utilizing a Post-Modern lens, scholars can learn how language inscribes the movement, ideology, advocates, opposes, and, on a macro-scale, the sexes, and how the implications and connotations of specific words and phrases communicating these perspectives can render very different understandings and emotions regarding the cause. Specifically, by observing how the three fundamental modes of persuasive rhetoric, ethos, pathos, and logos function within feminist propaganda, feminists will be able to refine and improve their message so it can regain a universal appeal. The actualization of feminism is contingent on the number of people, both men and women, who adopt and enact these core principles to create healthier, more positive socialization between the sexes globally.
There’s a complication that ideals are not uniform, so some will need to be ignored for the sake of unity, and I want to address that towards the end of my paper, but should I address it in my proposal?