What's In A Name? Or, On the Subject of Definitions and Critical Thinking

So-Called "Girl Power" is a Mess.

Too many pseudo-feminists are under the impression that just because something is slightly "conservative," this automatically makes it bad.  Perhaps you should grow some damn self-respect and stop being so self-destructive.  Perhaps you should try utilizing some critical thinking.  Try analyzing what is presented to you before jumping to conclusions.  'Oh no it's conserva-  BAD BAD BAD.'  But if you would just look at this-- 'knee-jerk auto-reflex BAD BAD BAD BAD.'

Let us take a more critical look at this, shall we?  This is akin to the "what's in a name" paragon, also known as semantics.  In Shakespeare's "What’s in a name," a rose by any other name would smell just as sweet.  What does the label matter as long as the meaning is plainly evident?

What we are seeing nowadays is a twist on that.  Here, they are using the labels, the terminology, the buzz words, the "name" as it were.  But let us examine this more carefully.  They are using the vocabulary words "liberating," "empowering," "confident."  They are using the letters spelled and arranged in this order:  L-I-B-E-R-A-T-I-N-G, E-M-P-O-W-E-R-M-E-N-T, et al.  But are they using the correct meaning of these vocabulary terms?  Not hardly.  I see now that they are reciting rote lines read out loud from a pre-meditated script, without any thought whosoever to the meanings behind those memorized lines.

Somewhere in there, tucked away in your arsenal of self-defense, you might have grown some deductive reasoning, analytical ability.  It is time to activate those abilities.  We shall apply some critical thinking.

Think the action before doing it -- is this truly a smart choice to make?  Is this genuinely the right, healthy thing to do that will be beneficial to me?  Merely because something is presented as "liberal," does this automatically mean it is what's best for me?  Not necessarily.  It turns out that many things that are "conservative" actually work in women’s favor.

I have seen that feminists and conservatives agree with each other regarding some important topics, such as the rampant objectification of women that infests the media.  Feminists approach this from the following angle:  This garbage is demeaning, degrading, and dehumanizing women.  This is disgusting, this is treating women like pieces of meat.  This trash is reducing them to nothing more than an assortment of body parts.

Conservatives approach this from the following angle:  This filth is severely destructive to family values.  This is cheapening something that is private and personal, thereby undermining the family structure.  It is taking something that is meant to be between adults, preferably married grown-ups, and turning it into a throwaway casual non-encounter.  They are polluting the minds of vulnerable little children that are still in their formative years.  They are corrupting the impressionable spongy minds of adolescents that, like lemmings, have a pathological need to do whatever is designated as "cool."

The etiology of their theories is a little different from each other.  But if you'll notice, feminists and conservatives both have the exact same end goal -- that of respecting women as human beings.  So, what is happening is that conservatism and feminism agree with each other on a major topic.  This was the peer-reviewed consensus of psychologists back in the 1990s.  I remember clearly that feminism promoted ideals of girls not dumbing themselves down, and concurrently about girls not sexualizing themselves to impress boys.

Why are media misogynists so hell-bent on trying to promote the current crap as "empowering?"

That’s funny; I thought empowerment and liberation were attained by having an education, by earning a respectable and prestigious job, by gaining financial solvency, by taking control of one's physical and emotional health.  You know, by things that actually give you empowerment and liberation.

Question:  when you read Orwell's <1984>, did you understand it to be the cautionary tale it was meant to be?  Or did you take it as inspiration?  "War is peace.  Freedom is slavery.  Ignorance is strength."  That whole spiel is now being repackaged, slapped on a lunchbox, and sold to tourists (Crichton, Jurassic Park), thusly:  "degrading yourself is empowering;" "serving yourself up as a sexx object is liberating;" "cooking for yourself is demeaning but bl----g random strangers in club bathrooms is empowering."

(As an aside for the record, I thought "1984" was crap.  I am simply specifically taking one element from the book as an example.)

Thank the merciful benevolent Lord that I did not actually partake of ANY of these activities.  I am an introvert.  I am not naturally expressive, and I sure as hell am not a wild hellion.  So it was sufficient for me to simply agree with the sentiments.

The Subject of Elitism

Here I will discuss the concept that the main reason people reject validation/approval/etc. from some sort of accrediting body -- is that they simply cannot cut it.  I realize now that this argument is quite valid and well-founded.  This is why hippies say the SATs don't define them; it is why hippies are in the stead of doing or saying, they are in favor of just being.

For example, a lot of them seem to spew the accusation that anybody, especially any woman, that wants an official marriage to secure their relationship, who demands that her boyfriend/significant-other/etc. make a definite legal commitment, must be insecure in her relationship.

Oh yeah, you're like totally right.  On the same token, I'm probably also insecure in the abilities of my electrician, which is why I need this person to prove that he has the abilities to make sure I don't get electrocuted in my home or my place of work.

Or the mechanic who works on my car and the brakes.  He is probably just insecure in his abilities.  Which is why he went to an accredited training school to learn how to do the job; he was not sure enough in his own abilities.

Or the medical doctor who diagnoses my health.  She's probably just insecure in her abilities as a healer and that is why she needs the piece of paper that says "doctorate in medicine."

Or the person who studies the safety of a bridge or other highway construction, they are all probably just insecure in their abilities, which is why they need that external validation of being licensed and certified and registered.

(((((bak to elitist essay for brie sec,, they keep saying I am stuck-up for thinking I am better than everyone else.
well guess what.  I have worked my butt off to achieve what I have.  I have [[[___scrimped and saved and scratche___]] and I have
I have earned the right to be a little stuck-up.  Perhaps it is a privilege and not a right.  In that case, I have still yet earned the privilege to be proud of my accomplishments.

This past summer I traveled to my native land of Bangladesh for a few months.  I came back from Bangladesh with renewed energy and purpose.  This is sort of a monumental essay, since I was taking 4 laboratory sciences when I wrote it.  I wrote the bulk of this last semester, Fall 2001.  and I am strengthened in my resolve, emboldened by the fact that I am in fact training for the express purpose of getting a job.

I have no interest in the typical world-traveler, globetrotters, who view all of Asia as one big Buddhist camp.  Who unfortunately think of it as a (denizen?) of hippie hangouts, entailing a hippie hobby sabbatical.  These are sometimes one year long (or longer, if the person feels so inclined). With this wrong perception I am irritated, disgusted, and finally bored.

I hope nobody gets this journey confused with the typical young adult road trip to spring break that typical young college students take with casual friends to have fun, rebel, etc.  My travel was definitely fun, yes, but that wasn’t the only point of going.  I really was trying to find myself, and I didn’t have to get drunk or smoke crack or get my navel pierced to do it.

Public Education Considerations on Behavior

I notice that a lot of times, teaching advisors in news media and other media tend to say, "oh put a dumb kid in the same exact group as a smart kid.  That way the smart kid can help the dumb kid understand."

But hang on a second.  Why is it the smart kid's job to make sure the dumb kid understands?  Why is it incumbent on the smart kid to make sure any dumb kids can grasp the subject matter?

They usually come back with some inane trite insipid reply that the smart kid should be helpful and giving and selfless and magnanimous.

But wait a minute.  You are assuming that the dumb kid even wants to learn.  Many don't.  They have horrendous attitudes, they make fun of the smart kids, they bully and harass and tease them.

"Ohhhh well if you would just be patient with them, show them that you care, show them that you care about their wellbeing, show them that you care about their success."

Sigh.  You are still assuming that this would definitely change their attitude for the better.  Why should I have to expend that much energy and effort for **their** success?  I feel that I should instead put all that energy and effort towards a goal that would actually pay off -- towards my own success.  This would be an actual useful endeavor that is worth my time.  I should instead be free and enabled to make sure I myself master the course concepts.

Here is what the advocates for the dumb kids are not comprehending.  It is not the duty of ANYONE at the school to change the dumb kid's attitude.  The school's only job -- that means teachers, principals, and other students -- is to teach the academic subject.  That is it.  It is nottt the school's job to do a personality transplant, an emergency horrid-attitude-appendectomy, or graft into their cerebral lobes a desire to learn and improve.

Plus, this is not just a matter of being dumb.  This is a matter of being an a-hole.  It is no one else's job in the world to magically turn an ahole into a good person who actually wants to learn.  The only entity that owns the responsibility to change an a-hole into a good person -- is the a-hole.  It is that person's duty alone.

----------------

The school also does not have the capability nor the responsibility to graft inherent, natural intelligence into a kid.

Sigh.  Here is another thing they don't get.  There is in fact such a thing as natural intelligence.  So many talking heads in the sociopolitical arena staunchly refuse to face this simple truth.  I remember a few people like this back in high school also.  They were students that were reasonably intelligent themselves; they were in the advanced classes, they completed routine AP and honors courses.  Yet they flat-out refused to accept this fact.

I am not sure why so many are loath to admit that there is such a thing as natural intelligence.  We believe there is such a thing as natural athletic ability.  We believe there is such a thing as natural musical talent, and artistic talent.  Yep.  So why is it such an unreasonable, illogical stretch of the imagination to think there exists such a thing as natural intelligence?

The Overhyped Middle Class

All over the news, you hear that the
Driving force for the economy__
The backbone of this country____

I was quite surprised by the way middle-class whites treat service workers.  Or the way the middle-class whites regard anyone else they consider beneath them.  They think they are too good to say "Hi" or make eye contact with a store cashier.  They think they are too good to look a post office clerk in the eye.  The middle-class whites think they are above the station of that of hourly wage workers.

Let me repeat the catch phrase once again for emphasis.  These are not "upper-class" people in the definition that most people think of:  money wise.  These people are staunchly middle-class, money wise.

The Predictable Question Regarding Black People

"Do you know any black people in real life?"
This is a truth that not many people want to dare utter out loud.  Blacks are rude, loud, volatile, hot-tempered, aggressive, way too easily excitable.

I am not even talking about crime statistics, although that does pack a punch and gives you all the evidence you could possibly need.  I am referring to their everyday, usual behavior, as they go on about their workaday lives.  (Non-workaday lives, rather.)

Studying their behavior and the way they interact with other people, I have noticed several things.  They become way too easily angry over some little scuffle.  They get way too overheated over some silly little conflict which is, in the grand scheme of things, inconsequential.  Some perceived "disrespect," some minimal social slight.  A few times I saw a small group of black guys engage in a screaming match in the parking lot of a Walgreens.

They still carry enormous resentment and bitterness [[[on their backs]]], subconsciously turning themselves into beasts of burden.  Fueled by_____
This alone drives all their behavior, all their negative, [[[corals, reefs, anemone, sand dollar, sea urchin___]]]]] attitude.

But at some point, you have to say, enough is enough.  It was the past, man.  Let it go.

Then, cue the requisite, scripted question from obscure modern politicians:  "Do you even <know> any black people in real life??"  This is always the predictable, knee-jerk reflex reaction from liberals anytime anyone speaks an uncomfortable truth about black people.  They seem super-confident that they can make the assumption of "ignorance" about anyone who dares speak the unpleasant truth about the African American population.

Answer:  As a matter of fact, yes I do know quite a few black people in real life.  Where do you think my opinions come from??

I have had the misfortune of being acquainted with a great number of them.  I have encountered blacks in grocery stores, at the mall, at McDonalds, in shops, in restaurants, in parks, at historical tourist attractions.  I have encountered them in elementary school, middle school, high school, and college.  I have encountered them throughout the years in the workplace at various minimum wage jobs as a teenager.

In their infinite wisdom, liberals think that this person absolutely must be culling their opinions from stereotypes and stereotypes alone; there could not possibly be any other explanation.  Liberals never consider the possibility that maybe, just maybe, a person offers these critiques on the black community -- because they have actually read the facts.  (Another variation is, "How many black people do you know in real life?")

One oddball, desperate, grasping [[[last-ditch effort]]] from liberals is that these experiences I write about are due only to geography.  They think this must be the case only where I live.

Er, nope.  I have lived in four different states.  I have traveled all over the United States.  New York, Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, Washington, D.C., Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Michigan, California, Illinois, Pennsylvania, including several major metropolitan cities.

I always make sure I arm myself with plenty of correct information.  I make sure my arsenal of knowledge is more than sufficient.  I will refrain from listing all the evidence, as my previous essays that extensively explore this subject are all archived on my blog.

Their behavior is hardly limited to some tiny little enclave tucked away in the boondocks.  To make the claim that ______ is foolhardy.

Revisiting And Revising Women Stereotypes

I think we are done with the stereotype of women being helpless, weak, meek, bad at math and science.  That dead, dusty, dried-out old stereotype.

I think the new stereotype is that of, the woman kind of goads the man into marriage.  She possibly assumes the role of a psycho teen slasher obsessed girlfriend.  This psycho behavior is just temporarily for the time being, so that she can secure her home and household stability.  It is so that she can ensure she has a normal family within a married two-parent household.
A bit psycho about it possibly, but this has an end goal that is noble and that benefits society as a whole.

Hmm...  Shrug.  That seems about right.  For goodness sake, someone has to make sure society is maintained in regular order and structure.  She might have to force the man into marriage.
Hearkening back to my previous essay {{put link}},, (((((After this, essay about how (yes femis isss about having it easy.  It is about giving women a break.)))))

--Beyonce has a song out that makes the allegation, "ladies, it ain't easy being independent."
Er, I admire the sentiment, but that's not the whole story.  It is evident from her inflection that she feels it is easier to take care of a family than to work at an office.

Nope.  It is infinitely more difficult being a mother to growing children than it is working somewhere.  All the vast mountains of evidence point to this incontrovertible conclusion.

On the Subject of Arrogance

What’s wrong with thinking highly of yourself?  I set a goal for myself, I worked hard to achieve it, and I accomplished it.  I have earned the right to feel proud of myself. [[I have a sense of accomplishment.]]

And what is wrong with thinking you are better than everyone else?  demand more for yourself, and demands more *of* yourself.
((silly gangsta rappers and their crass, exaggerated, overcompensating displays of comical grandeur notwithstanding.

mayve put this isn the article aobut greatness, moderation, etc. not sure.
My own interpretation follows thusly.
It does lead to more consideration of other people, and that is a good thing.

The flip side is just as ludicrous.  What does it matter if you get to some destination on time or not?  Does it really matter that much if you are there on time or not?  Are they completely unable to start without me?  Well, perhaps not, they might say, but arriving on time for an event does show respect.  Well, goes the counterargument, why should I think that respect from me counts so strongly?  I wouldn’t want to be arrogant.

How far might this argument be taken unfortunately?  What if a bully used this same excuse?  They might very easily exploit + abuse this concept and say that when they bully others, it shouldn’t matter because the bully is merely other people, the bully's opinion and words and actions shouldn’t count for that much.  Can you imagine the defensive arguments?  "Oh, I wasn't being an a-hole, I was being humble."

But I do think that thinking <too> highly of oneself is bad, because this leads to arrogance, conceit, self-aggrandizement.

there is such a thing as thinking too highly of oneself.  We see it everywhere, from fatcat embezzling ceos that think they are above the law, to pro athletes that ra, mudr, their baby daddes and think they are above the law.  they think they are too good to be brought to justice.
and please, if i may beseech you, do not throw around random words in an effor to (balloon) self-esteems..

Accomplishments Define A Person

There exists this prevailing rhetoric that a person should not define themselves in terms of their achievements.

Why is the general media and pop psychology relentlessly trying to drum it into our heads that accomplishments should not matter?  I just don't get it.  What's wrong with defining yourself by your achievements?  What it wrong with having a goal, performing it, and successfully accomplishing that goal?

It should be a good thing to have a sense of accomplishment, a sense of achieving a goal, and having a sense of purpose.

actually noticed it all my life growing up.
"try your best" "do your best"
But then when I DO actually do the best and do the best compared to everyone else, it is somehow evil to point that out.

...or Success???
__that success does not define a person, or a job does not define a person, or accomplishments do not define a person---

**Psychiatrists, counselors in popular philosobabble always ask this particular question:  "Tell me who you are.  Define who youuu are.  Describe who you are.""

Then if someone says they are a teacher or a doctor, or if they start to list their accomplishments. perhaps their band made regional, and they are a band leader (((copy th thing from fsusan's band acompsl list-)))___
    Then the psychiatrist abruptly interrupts them and says__ ''I am not asking what you do for a living.  I am not asking what your job is.  I am asking who youu aree..."

all the charming little monikers that grade school dumbazzes label smart kids with:
Know-it-all
Show-off
Teacher's pet
Goody-two-shoes

And the ones that <adults> moniker smart, accomplished kids with:
Overachiever
Perfectionist
----
There is this weird, skewed notion that to achieve, that to set very high goals for oneself, is a bad thing.
Actually, allow me to be more specific.  There sure as hell are a lot of congratulations for trying, oh pooh poohing, "you tried your best, that's all that matters."  "Actual grades are not important, what's important is that you worked really hard."  "The sky is the limit."  "If you put your mind to it, you can accomplish anything."  They said these last ones, smugly comfortable in the definite knowledge for sure that no one would *actually* achieve anything.

Oh, but to actually astonishingly achieve the aforementioned goals goes against people's delicate sensibilities.  It is a strange widespread societal phenomenon that to actually *achieve* those very high goals is bad.  And that to be genuinely *good* at the job, and that to have natural *inherent talent* are all distasteful. [[[_opposi of laudable; voracious no;;;; vicious ehh not qut;;;;;;;

It is because *they* feel inadequate compared to the smart kids or smt.

*•*•* to first part, add the ""charming moniker"" tidbit;; the teacher's pet,, show-offf
--overachv-- as if there is a magical pre-determined upper limit of acceptable success.  anyone that dares to venture above this or crane their necks out a bit,,,_____ is castigated as trying too hard or being a show-off.
((threshold bit was orig here)))

Add to accompl achnv essay-- 2nd part???  not onnly having accompl, but also ***talking*** about them....

-What's wrong with ****bragging**** about one's accompsinekrh?
What's wrong with boasting?
ifff anyone crosses over this threshold, they will be met with swift [[[[discipline??nono,,justice??nono____]]]]
--it is very heavily enforced through a system of social checkpoints___ [[[[it is considered rude, it is considered bad taste,;;;
//-/theeyy will be ostracized, innto a social pariah ---- LEPERrrr
--- Noone likes a braggart,, noone likes a show-off]]]].  [[[welll why should I concern myself with what people like and don't like??  I thought all you people were in favor of freedom of speech____  Here I am, free speeching.

I notice that this is a distinct artifact of white people's culture.  They think it is the height of bad taste, impoliteness to brag about one’s personal accomplishments.  They think it one of the worst grievances against social propriety to talk about one's achievements.  (National scholar?  Noone wants to hear about that.  Regional band champion?  Don't you dare talk about it.  Dean's List?  Quiet.)  (It is also a remnant of black people's culture, but from a different angle.)0

Sometimes I hear people on TV or in books describe a kid as being "just an average kid."  Before arriving at the small women's college, I truly had not been acquainted with such a specimen.  I attended a mostly upper-middle-class-white high school, and it was an excellent environment in which to come of age.  These kids were extraordinary.  They were accomplished, they were intelligent.  They did tons of community volunteer work.  They were talented in music, mathematics, chorus, athletics, academic Beta Club.

Regarding the accolades, they were not simply being coddled by the local town or school district.  These kids completed several Advanced Placement courses.  They did excellently on their SATs and other such exams.  Those are all national standards.  They competed in regional and state band conferences, athletic tournaments.

These high school classmates were not just "average kids."  They were, as popular lexicon currently classifies, "overachievers."  I happen to think that this concept is a very positive one.  Growing up engulfed in that environment was incredibly invigorating.  This spurred me to establish goals lofty and high but in a good realistic way, and to accomplish them. 

As a contrast, Asians do not harbor any self-consciousness issues about boasting.  Nor do they mind in the least hearing about other people's accomplishments.  They do not take any sort of personal offense at the fact that someone set out to achieve a goal, and then achieved it.

The African-American Analogy to Female "Choice"

All the other reasoning; logic arguments; critical analyses, and definitions do not seem to be working.  Perhaps the "slavery" one will.

I have heard a few hushed, whispered snippets that this is demeaning to blacks.
for the analogy of blacks acting low-class, ___what was the other word not ghetto??]]]]] hood????

Like when these silly little females say that women are "mean" or judgmental when they deem these... activities to be disgusting, vile.  That we are somehow wrong for judging them when all it is, is a matter of "choice."  And that somehow, we are denying them their "choice."  Something about, how dare you denigrate women for their "choices."  Er, actually, I doubt any of them used the vocabulary term "denigrate" to describe our reactions.

I think this warrants whole new separate essay.

Ohhhhhh, so you say that you are capable of making your own choices.  Ohhhh, okay.  Guess what, I've got news for you.  A three-year-old can make its "own" choices.  Ask a three-year-old what it wants for dinner, it will say "ice cream!"

That's the truth, folks.  Anyone can make their <own> choices.  What is important is not simply making one's "own" choices.  What is important is the ability to make the right choices.  One must be able to weight their options, consider the possible outcomes of each choice, and then choose the smartest, healthiest path.  About the whole, "we are wimmin making this decision, therefore simply on principle this must be a good decision."

I like using this analogy because it tends to cut through the bullshyte.  it gets right to people's noggins.

An alarmingly large number of black Americans seem to think that the gangsta rap culture is something to which to aspire.  They idolize gangs, they flash gang symbols, they wear and brandish gang paraphernalia.

In their minds there is no doubt that this is "true" black identity.  They eschew any and all forms of self-improvement.  They think that attending college and pursuing higher education is “putting on airs” and “getting too big for their britches.”  (I am not sure if that is the exact terminology they use for those concepts-- probably not.)
They would rather be "keeping it real."
crime.
dealing drugs.

So why should women refrain from dressing and acting like cheap tramps out in public?  Because if you do choose to partake in that, you are embarrassing yourself.  And you are an embarrassment to all self-respecting women.  You are turning yourself into a sex object.  You are cheapening and degrading yourself but you don't even care.

If you try to tell me it's none of my business how you dress or that it's not affecting/harming anyone else, I'm going to go ahead and call BS on you.  It is my business, because we are all in this together.  All human beings.  Not just feminists for women, but all human beings for all human beings.  We should all try to better ourselves and improve the human condition.  All members of the human race have a duty to uplift each other.  This is in terms of how we regard each other, how we respect each other, how we treat each other.

None of that can happen, however, if we do not simultaneously respect ourselves.  As a human being, you have a duty to yourself to conduct yourself with dignity and grace at all times.  You need to learn how to act civilized in public, just like all humans should act civilized in public.  You need to be polite and courteous, and not assault people.  That includes how you dress.

Dressing suggestively out in public is, frankly, rude.  It is undignified, it is disrespectful to yourself and to others, and it shows little regard for rules of polite society.  Just as it is rude to shove people out of the way on the sidewalk, it is rude and disrespectful to dress like a skank out in public.

Feminists have been working their butts off garnering equal opportunities for women in education, career, the work force, holding public office.  Women having the rights and privileges of being able to live a full life are due to feminism, which is a subset of all human rights.

This includes civil rights for racial minorities as well.  Because of human and civil rights, women and men both have respect and acknowledgement of women as human beings worthy of being on equal status as men.  Because of human and civil rights, members of racial minorities can be regarded as fully evolved, flesh-and-blood human beings who are worthy of being treated with respect equal to that of whites.

What you are doing, screwing around in public, dressing like a floozy, and acting like a dumbass floozy, is like a slap in the face.  You are being ungrateful and ignorant of our foremothers.  It's as though you saw all the sacrifices and hard work that feminists have done in the past, considered all the gains women have made -- and then threw it in the trash.  You are being careless and inconsiderate.

This reflects badly on women collectively.  Educated, hardworking women want to be taken seriously in professional fields.  We want to be seen as worthy candidates for gradating college with useful degrees, and after that we want to be seen as realistic, reliable candidates for employment.

Infringing On Their Right To "Choice"

This is the same weirdness, spewing the same wishy-washy crap that all choices are equally valid, and that all choices have equal merit.

Only now it has grown to morbidly obese, grotesque proportions.  It is now gross, corpulent, like a sewer monster that feeds on the city's anger and malevolence. (Ghostbusters II)

The plain fact is that there is no way that a girl who was raised right and is fully aware of the options available to them, would ever choose this.  No boy would, either, for that matter.  All throughout history, the only time anyone would do this was if they were abandoned, abused, and had nowhere left to go.  It was borne out of extreme desperation and panic, the bottom of the barrel, out of shame of poverty and nothing else.

All throughout history, women who were forced to do this, did this because they were trapped.  And now, what?  Is this supposed to be an homage to them or something??

Perhaps these young ladies need a history lesson.  All throughout human history, women have been demeaned, degraded, reduced to their mere body parts, denigrated to being far less than the sum of their parts.  This has been done through prostttt, through selling wo as chattel, through sessss slaves, through selling children -- both boys and girls -- as __.

And now this is being hailed as the next wave of empowerment??  Seriously, what the hell is wrong with people?

This is caused by extreme ignorance.  This reveals an extreme lack of knowledge of history.  And believe it or not, it is also an extreme lack of knowledge of current goings-on in the world today.  These young ladies evidently need a current-events/social-studies lesson as well.  
Unfortunately slavery still exists in many permutations.

The plain fact is that emotionally healthy and stable people do not do this.  Let us consider an analogy.  Would anyone declare that a group of grown people who have severe Down’s syndrome should simply be set free, turned out, and be allowed to do whatever they want?  Left to fend for themselves out there in the cold cruel world.
"No."
Well, why not?  They are adults, after all.
"But they are not mentally healthy."
What makes you think so?  They are of legal age as adults, they have the right to make their own decisions.
"But they are not mentally aware... they do not have true sentience.  And it would be socially immoral and irresponsible of us to leave them to their own faculties when they are clearly not capable of taking care of themselves as consciously complete adults."
What makes you think so?  They are capable of making their own decisions.  They can choose what to have for dinner -- ice cream.  They can choose what they want to do with their lives -- be a clown and make balloon animals.  A lot of them might be capable of living alone and taking care of themselves.
"That’s ridiculous. Nobody who is fully mentally functional and capable would choose those options."

Exactly.