If you've ever stumbled across women's lifestyle magazines then you're probably familiar with choice feminism,
even if you didn't specifically know it by name. These publications will
argue that everything from bob haircuts, to being catcalled,
to being a lazy piece of [BEEP], are super-feminist and empowering.
What exactly is choice feminism? Choice feminism is most succinctly explained by writer Sarah Ditum,
who refers to it as the "Can you be a feminist and..." game,
or CYBAF for short. The can you be a feminist and game often plays out like this:
Can you be a feminist and have a traditional wedding despite the institution of marriage
originating as a form of legal control over women?
Can you be a feminist and a stay-at-home mom while your husband works?
Can you be a feminist and still love Game of Thrones
despite the graphic depictions of sexual violence against women?
Khaleesi would like totally be a feminist, if feminism was a concept
that had been invented during the fictional time period the show takes place and if dragons were real.
The can you be a feminist and game is meant to critique the hundreds of op-ed articles online that
self-consciously ask the question: "Can I still be a feminist even if I participate in activities that reflect traditional gender roles?"
According to Andi Zeisler co-founder of my fave
publication Bitch Magazine, choice feminism has "devolved into the idea
that anything is a feminist choice so long as a feminist chooses it: not just relationships and kids and career
but also religion, dieting, breast implants, stiletto heels, gun ownership, and capitalist megalomania."
Basically any choice a woman makes is inherently empowering because...
feminism?
Choice feminism can also be quickly summed up by this article posted on The Onion entitled
"Women Now Empowered By Everything A Woman Does"
The term choice feminism was first coined by author Linda Hirshman in her book Get to Work. In it Hirshman
criticizes choice feminism and argues that the only way
to live up to feminist ideals is for women to devote their lives to their careers.
However, the book has been widely criticized by feminists for shaming stay-at-home moms
who "choose" parenting over having a career.
Maybe let's not shame women for having kids... perhaps.
That's just me. Hirshman's argument misses the mark for several reasons.
Number one. As long as birth control and abortion are made inaccessible to certain cis women as well
as some trans men and non-binary folks
pregnancy can't be considered a "choice" that everyone is equally able to make.
The people most affected by reproductive injustice are folks living in states
with conservative laws dictating abortion, birth control, and sex education,
people who don't have the financial means to afford birth control or abortion,
minors under the age of 18 in states that require parental consent,
and people who don't have access to transportation and time off work.
Since the majority of states only have a handful of clinics that offer abortion services.
Number two. It tells women that their only source of fulfillment in life is through their labor.
If you're going to be critical of gender roles
it's important to also be critical of capitalism.
Capitalism disproportionately privileges a few ultra-rich usually white men and exploits everyone else
particularly women and marginalized people.
Capitalism? More like crap-italism.
Number three. In the US daycare can be suuuper expensive. Cost of daycare
may exceed one person's wages, which is why many women often stay at home.
We'll come back to this one in a minute because it's important.
Number 4. It shames women, and that ain't cool. While trying to critique choice
feminism Hirshman unwittingly falls into the trap of assuming that the same choices
are made accessible to all women. Which just isn't true.
The choice arguments are fundamentally flawed because they assume a level of
unmitigated freedom for women that simply doesn't exist.
Yes, we make choices, but these are shaped and constrained by the unequal conditions in which we live.
So in order to truly understand choice feminism, we need to talk about individual versus collective choices.
Most people, myself included, would probably agree that individual women
should be able to make whatever choices are best for them regardless of stigma or shame.
I mean as long as they're not hurting anyone.
And historically, feminist activism has included advocacy to expand women's individual choices.
Such as the right to vote, the right to education, and the right to reproductive freedom.
However, collectively it's pretty clear that there are trends in the choices that women make as a whole.
Let's return to the phenomenon of stay-at-home moms. In an essay critiquing Hirshman's analysis of choice
feminism, Emily Bazelon examines the concept of choice.
She says, "Maybe the reason feminists generally don't take Hirsman's line, can be traced to the difference between
collective and individual choice. When virtually only women stay home
(as is still the case, since stay-at-home dads in the United States number fewer than 2%),
then collectively speaking, that choice has a powerful social meaning.
But when it comes to each of these mothers' individual choices,
how can anyone, feminist or not, say that they've chosen wrong?
Here's the fundamental problem of using choice feminism as a framework.
It conflates the personal with the collective.
According to Hirshman's argument collective choice trumps individual choice.
In her mind the only way to truly further the status of women is for them to make choices that
subvert traditional gender roles.
By choosing a career over having kids, entering STEM versus other traditionally female-dominated fields, etc.
Unfortunately this privileging of collective choice leaves behind all of the women
who aren't able to "choose" the most subversive options.
Similarly choice feminism also fails.
Choice feminists champion individual choice while ignoring the gendered patterns
of the collective choices of women. Not everything a feminist does is a feminist act.
Feminism is more than a collection of personal likes and dislikes. And that's why choice feminism as a whole
is a dangerous frame for a political and social movement.
If everything is feminism, then nothing is. By limiting our discussions and turning them inward
we ignore the larger implications of the social roles of women.
However, by only focusing on women as a collective group
we ignore the personal needs, desires, and realities of women as individuals. And at the end of the day
we're just trying to live our own damn lives.
Anyway, thank you for watching this video.
If you enjoyed it, please give it a like and subscribe to this channel for more videos like this one.
This is completely voluntary
but if you would like to help support my work then please consider donating to my Patreon page which will be linked below.
Has a lot of cool perks such as exclusive updates, secret vlogs, and even a monthly feminist newsletter. So definitely check it out.