censorship

"and if i for a moment smudge my mascara and let the world know i am flawed then i am told to stand down." 

i wrote this in a brief instagram post delving into censorship. 

the idea that as women we are told to censor ourselves simply because the world we exist in only wants perfectly shaped, put together women who don't struggle. i think part of my disdain, if we can call it that, with the feminist movement with the very brief interactions i've had with it--is that it solely focuses on power. 

but that's the thing. instead of redifining power and what it is to be an empowered woman, it seems there is simply a demand for power. why not define the term in a different light? 

what is power? the natural assumption with power is there a lack of weakness. if you are powerful you cannot also be weak. 

but yet some of the most empowered and powerful inspiring voices i have come into contact with also are the most vulnerable and by society's standards "weak" people. whether physically emotionally or mentally. 

but i beg to differ. sometimes the most powerful thing we can do is be weak and vulnerable. to embrace the sensitivity and the emotions. 

it becomes our enemy only when we are told that by being a woman we can only be controlled by emotions and tears. 

there is such censorship in everything we do. if we hold a good job and are successful we are told to not talk about it in front of men. for fear that their egos may be crushed beneath the fact that a woman can be successful. we are commanded to wear make up and be "on" at all times. if we don't we don't take care of ourselves. there are a million rules that women must follow to be taken seriously--but not too seriously, mind you, because a man doesn't want a floozy either--in this world by men. there is more than one way to be a woman. if a woman chooses to have a successful career and focus on that she is neglectful for the ideal position for a woman to be in. but if she focuses on her family she can also be critiqued for succumbing to a patriarchal ideal that seems archaic at best. 

since when is one basic ideal being made global for each individual? what works for one doesn't for another. some may share openly and desire to do so. but are we to be labeled as highly emotional and sensitive as though it's a cut to our very power we posses just by being human? some may choose not to be but does that therefore mean they are cold, unfeeling man haters? 

what's terribly confusing is how men are praised for showing emotion. nothing wrong with this. for overcoming the macho unfeeling stereotype and being open is a feat. one that should be reveled in for the strength it took to overcome the negative connotation that comes with being both man and emotional. which shouldn't those thing coexist as well? men are humans too.  but in the same breath women are damned for being equally as open. we appear to be damned if we do and damned if we don't.