I never quite understood why feminism and primitivism were so closely linked.

www.dictionary.com defines “Feminism” as such:

fem⋅i⋅nism

–noun

2.	(sometimes initial capital letter) an organized movement for the attainment of such rights for women.

There’s nothing in that definition referring to body hair.

Of course I know that a woman’s lack of shaving makes a statement and all that. But I think it’s really kind of a confusing statement. Men and women alike are thinking of feminists as primitivists, because the whole hair thing isn’t as powerful as it was in the ’60s and ’70s when everyone had to shave. Back then, having longer hair, or hair in uncommon places on one’s body (and I mean one’s own hair, mind you) was a cry of protest against the war and a call back to a time when everything was wild and free and peaceful and artistic and when humans were in-tune with nature, their own bodies and copious amounts of hallucinogens. The hair grew long so that one could hide his or her drafted friend within his or her long and disheveled locks.

If a woman doesn’t care to shave nowadays as an expression of her feminism , that’s completely fine with me – I have no qualms. On the other hand, it would be nice if people would stop linking me with bodily hair when I identify myself as a feminist. It’s like assuming that every Gay Rights supporter owns a pair of pink pants.

I don’t know, these are just some thoughts I’ve been having.

Photo Courtesy of Creative Commons: Todd Huffman