It is disconcerting when your identity as a feminist is challenged, especially in just under 12 hours. I have always identified with traditional liberal feminism but tonight, my views have been challenged so greatly that I seem to have lost my feminist identity.

A friend (A) and I were talking about feminism and she shared this link with me. I could not identify with it's contents at all. I understood where the author is coming from and what she is trying to say. I think that kyriarchy could be used to describe the society we live in but at the same time, I did not believe that this movement should be classified under feminism. I believe that including men and the disabled etc under the umbrella of feminism reduces the purpose of the original movement which is "women having equal rights as men."

A agrees with the article and so did another friend (R) I spoke to. A refused to continue on the debate after a while and so I said to R, "No one will debate with me because I am too aggressive."

To this, R replied: "You are not aggressive. But I realise that you do not like the idea of diverting from what is more original."

So, I searched for traditional feminism. And this is where my confusion began.

What is this idea of original that my friend spoke about? 

Traditional feminism is the fight for equal rights for women as men such as the right to education, women's suffrage, equal pay, work and so much more. On the other hand, contemporary feminism encompasses so much more than just equal rights for men and women. There is choice and sexuality and also the traditional values of education and equal pay. The lines have been so blurred that the feminist identity has also been blurred.

I believe in the traditional qualities of feminism. After all, women today are still discriminated and oppressed. However, when my friends spoke about contemporary feminism, it seems that traditional feminism has no place in the contemporary world.

Perhaps my friend did not intend it as a slight and it was merely an observation but I could not help but feel that I was told to "Move on from your traditionalist views. It is not just about women any more. Men need feminism and so do the disabled and the underprivileged. What's so wrong with it?"

Don't get me wrong, I am all for equal rights for men, the disabled, the underprivileged etc but I can't help but wonder if grouping it together with feminism would have a stronger impact. Feminism, after all, in it's essence is women rights. By introducing other elements, the focus on women would diminish because the concern would be universal. It would be about the oppressed and not just the oppressed women.

Why call it feminism when the disabled is a different cause than women? Sure, the lines are blurred. The disabled also face problems when it comes to discrimination in pay, work and a general distaste. But, how many times have you seen a disabled person get shot in the head for fighting for the right to education? How many times do you hear a disabled person complain that they don't get the same rights as other people do?

Perhaps, it is the verbal and physical discrimination that is their cause. I am not going to say that the disabled or men do not face other problems besides discrimination etc because let's face it, problems exist everywhere. Men are constantly challenged to reclaim their "masculinity" instead of being allowed to express themselves.

However much the lines are blurred, in my opinion, feminism is not the fight for men to be allowed to express themselves or for the disabled to receive the rights that a "normal" person (by society standards) does.

The recognition of male oppression is a result of feminism. When feminists demand that they be equal to men, finally, then do men realise that if women can wear trousers, men can wear skirts. Toys no longer have to be pink or blue or girl toys and boy toys but this is a result of feminism.

It is not feminism itself. It should be recognised as a separate cause.

The fight for the rights of the disabled are a different fight altogether. I apologise but I am not well-versed enough into the fight of the disabled to provide a non-biased and informed comment.

I am still largely confused about my identity. I want to agree with contemporary feminism and the new sectors of feminism that the years have brought on but I am neither a complete traditionalist and neither am I a contemporary feminist.

I believe strongly in traditional values of feminism and I refuse to see other elements tarnishing the traditional views because it diminishes the cause. At the same time, I believe that feminism has brought on a lot of other changes that inspire contemporary feminism and I support these new ideals. However, I don't believe that these new ideals should be tossed in with feminism.

I want to identify with contemporary ideas and the new branches of feminism but at the same time, I am unable to. No one has convinced me otherwise.

Here's a quote I found interesting: Whereas Traditional Feminism teaches that men and women are equal, Modern Feminism teaches that men and women are the same. [Credit]

Disclaimer: This opinion has not covered linguistics, black feminism, the LGBT community and a lot of other areas. The contents of this post are my personal opinions. All mistakes made are my own.