I've been thinking about choice feminism a lot lately. Thank you for a very nuanced contribution to the topic, like always.
I wholeheartedly agree that feminism is not what is standing between women and a path of domesticity or family life. Feminism is what enables this kind of life to be a choice, and not a trap.
Very true indeed. What is really standing in the way is CAPITALISM, and especially neoliberalism (aka late capitalism aka capitalism on steroids and crack). Blaming it on feminism is essentially either "referred pain" (when being intellectually honest), that is, when one is not being complely disingenuous.
"Feminism is not, and has never been, simply the belief that every decision made by a woman becomes feminist because a woman made it. That is not feminism. That is the political philosophy of a scented candle."
This is my favorite of your essays. It is, in the end, not only about choices, but the framework - social, economic and political, in which those choices are made. One of the favorite tactics of authoritarians of every sort is the "magician's force," the illusion of choice in which the person presenting the choice controls all the available options. You need not fear someone's choice when you have limited them to only the choices that benefit your agenda.
As to "ruining" anything, well, surely, the person making that choice should have the right to choose what others would consider ruinous.
I would send this to every woman in my life if they weren't, for the most part, already psychologically, emotionally and/or physically destroyed by men. Wonderful writing.
Send it. When you read a perfectly encapsulated description of your own experience, it frees you. You do an inventory and realize, “I’m not crazy or difficult.” This is a pattern. Feminism gave me a language and a framework for everything I’d been feeling but had no language but the patriarchy to think of it. I’ve been a feminist my whole life but only fully got on the train in college. 37 years ago and I learned even more from this piece. The tentacles of patriarchy go deep.
Beautifully done. The teacher in me loves how carefully and gently you delivered this message. I read into your tone many, many interactions with intelligent, passionate young women, hours and hours of … office hours. And always I love the reframing toward power systems, the history of repression and outright oppression. It’s stunning to me how much these anti-feminist arguments take as a presupposition that the past was better. I was a father’s daughter when I was in my 20s. It seemed the only intelligent position to take. Thank the gods, it wasn’t.
So many great truths in this piece, but this one knocked me out. “ The problem is compulsory softness, selectively enforced softness, and the long history of defining women’s virtue through their willingness to absorb harm gracefully.” I have been found guilty of this more than I can count. Mostly in my professional life. My old boss demoted me without cause (technically had the power to do this in the contract which gave him final say over these stipend funded positions) because he said I was negative. Spoiler alert I’m not. In fact I’m an optimist or I wouldn’t bother doing what I do. I had been working tirelessly for my teachers and students. I had years of documented effective excellence but that didn’t matter. There were/are many impediments to learning that are contributing to students not having grade level skills. I would try to solve those impediments which required us to look at the problem systematically. He took that as an attack and criticism and punished me the first chance he could get. We couldn’t prove sex discrimination because he didn’t treat all women this way. Just the ones that would not be the shock absorbers that would appease him and go along to get along. Seriously, Meredith, mind blown.
This mindset is a result I think of what might be called "feminism through osmosis" absorbing a set of disparate notions that are labeled as feminist or loosely associated with them but never really looking into it further. Loosely identifying as a feminist because your friends are and wearing a pussy hat and collecting Frieda Kahlo & Ruth Ginsberg tchotchkes. Then getting bored and diving into a cottagecore to tradwife pipeline during the pandemic. And I'm not trying to be an intellectual gatekeeper here. You can read Teen Vogue. You can listen to Bikini Kill. You don't need to take women's studies classes necessarily. Hmm that gives me an idea- maybe I could a mini women's studies class for community ed?
I met Betty Friedan at a reception many years ago. She put into writing what many of us were thinking as we looked around at our parents’ generation and saw the frustrations and the self-destructive behaviors of women who knew they were not all that they could be or could have been had they not been told what they could not do or should not do and believed it. Later, I met my in-laws who were very much of the school that women are of a lower order than God and man and relegated to home and hearth and motherhood and obedience. We did not get on as I did not conform to their view of a suitable wife. Fortunately, their son had other beliefs and we have been married for over 40 years at this point. He has been my partner at work and my partner at home through all the years we’ve been together. I made choices. I could do so. Others can make other choices. But they should be choices, not the dictates of others or “society” or anything else.
Agreed in part but people can expand the choices available with some support. And society can, if it chooses, expand or contract the choices available generally or to particular groups. When Jews were denied admission to the clubs where business was done, they set up their own clubs and excluded Jewish women from joining. The women so excluded found other forums and places to network and do business. And when the clubs generally opened up to a broader membership for their own financial reasons, they could not attract the formerly excluded who had created their own associations.
Did y'all see the photo Katie Miller, she of MAGA fame, posted where she's nuzzling her newborn and writing, "I don't understand why anyone would call this oppression." The comments I saw were very similar to this, but they were just comments. I'm glad I read this, Prof Meredith. You articulated and explained feminism wonderfully.
"But....but...if you give women choices, they often make the wrong ones, taking the path of least resistance, and that creates a collective action problem and a race to the bottom! Because reasons!" some anti-feminists and extreme radical feminists may argue via Horseshoe Theory and begging the question.
First of all, that is *capitalism* (and especially neoliberalism, aka capitalism on steroids) they are thinking of, not feminism. And capitalism has always had an incestuous relationship with patriarchy.
The "paradox of choice" is real, but it is still not the "gotcha" they think it is. Too many choices can indeed have adverse effects, but so can too few choices, and IMHO the latter is far worse on balance. Thus, In any case, to quote Thomas Jefferson:
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniencies attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it."
'Capitalism has always had an incestuous relationship with patriarchy' - yes. This. Very well put.
Feminist theorists call it patriarchal capitalism. And it's happening right now, on steroids. Hence the pushback on progressive values, the rise of authoritarian regimes around the Western world and so on.
Thank you for this. I do read the Substack you mention in this article and I often wonder what is going on with the author. Is she even living in the same world? But, as you say, I do not want to attack her or her ideas. I fully support her right to hold her opinions and to express them. Your response to the articles in question has articulated what I have been thinking but much better than I ever could.
I am a feminist. But feminism hasn’t made me hate men. It hasn’t made me miserable. The power structures that support patriarchy, on the other hand, have made me miserable. Having to listen to (mostly right wing) men - and women - make jokes at women’s expense, judge women’s choices and still believe women are less than human, is somewhat depressing.
And, of course, men also suffer under patriarchy. Softness, gentleness, care and compassion are strengths, not weaknesses. But in our late stage capitalist society, they are seen as a weakness.
THANK YOU! I started reading her article and stopped and blocked when my eyes rolled so far back in my head that I became concerned for my optic nerve. I considered writing a rebuttal like you have, but decided not to, and just not to give her any air time. I’m glad someone took up the task, though.
I've been thinking about choice feminism a lot lately. Thank you for a very nuanced contribution to the topic, like always.
I wholeheartedly agree that feminism is not what is standing between women and a path of domesticity or family life. Feminism is what enables this kind of life to be a choice, and not a trap.
Very true indeed. What is really standing in the way is CAPITALISM, and especially neoliberalism (aka late capitalism aka capitalism on steroids and crack). Blaming it on feminism is essentially either "referred pain" (when being intellectually honest), that is, when one is not being complely disingenuous.
Indeed.
"Feminism is not, and has never been, simply the belief that every decision made by a woman becomes feminist because a woman made it. That is not feminism. That is the political philosophy of a scented candle."
This is my favorite of your essays. It is, in the end, not only about choices, but the framework - social, economic and political, in which those choices are made. One of the favorite tactics of authoritarians of every sort is the "magician's force," the illusion of choice in which the person presenting the choice controls all the available options. You need not fear someone's choice when you have limited them to only the choices that benefit your agenda.
As to "ruining" anything, well, surely, the person making that choice should have the right to choose what others would consider ruinous.
Well, that was a lot. I appreciate your ability to slog through this. Thank you for your mature analysis. We'll done.
I would send this to every woman in my life if they weren't, for the most part, already psychologically, emotionally and/or physically destroyed by men. Wonderful writing.
Send it. When you read a perfectly encapsulated description of your own experience, it frees you. You do an inventory and realize, “I’m not crazy or difficult.” This is a pattern. Feminism gave me a language and a framework for everything I’d been feeling but had no language but the patriarchy to think of it. I’ve been a feminist my whole life but only fully got on the train in college. 37 years ago and I learned even more from this piece. The tentacles of patriarchy go deep.
We are constantly learning, hopefully. If we are allowed to.
Beautifully done. The teacher in me loves how carefully and gently you delivered this message. I read into your tone many, many interactions with intelligent, passionate young women, hours and hours of … office hours. And always I love the reframing toward power systems, the history of repression and outright oppression. It’s stunning to me how much these anti-feminist arguments take as a presupposition that the past was better. I was a father’s daughter when I was in my 20s. It seemed the only intelligent position to take. Thank the gods, it wasn’t.
Great article. Wrote a long response, my phone ate it
The common denominator for all women is that their government does not consider us ‘persons' under the 14th amendment.
Equal Rights Amendment first. Then we can hash out the rest.
Are women persons or property?
Equal Rights Amendment now.
💯
I’m at a total loss for words… other than ‘wow’, ‘brilliant’ and thank you from the bottom of my heart.
🙏🙏🙏
Humbly, Em
So many great truths in this piece, but this one knocked me out. “ The problem is compulsory softness, selectively enforced softness, and the long history of defining women’s virtue through their willingness to absorb harm gracefully.” I have been found guilty of this more than I can count. Mostly in my professional life. My old boss demoted me without cause (technically had the power to do this in the contract which gave him final say over these stipend funded positions) because he said I was negative. Spoiler alert I’m not. In fact I’m an optimist or I wouldn’t bother doing what I do. I had been working tirelessly for my teachers and students. I had years of documented effective excellence but that didn’t matter. There were/are many impediments to learning that are contributing to students not having grade level skills. I would try to solve those impediments which required us to look at the problem systematically. He took that as an attack and criticism and punished me the first chance he could get. We couldn’t prove sex discrimination because he didn’t treat all women this way. Just the ones that would not be the shock absorbers that would appease him and go along to get along. Seriously, Meredith, mind blown.
This mindset is a result I think of what might be called "feminism through osmosis" absorbing a set of disparate notions that are labeled as feminist or loosely associated with them but never really looking into it further. Loosely identifying as a feminist because your friends are and wearing a pussy hat and collecting Frieda Kahlo & Ruth Ginsberg tchotchkes. Then getting bored and diving into a cottagecore to tradwife pipeline during the pandemic. And I'm not trying to be an intellectual gatekeeper here. You can read Teen Vogue. You can listen to Bikini Kill. You don't need to take women's studies classes necessarily. Hmm that gives me an idea- maybe I could a mini women's studies class for community ed?
I met Betty Friedan at a reception many years ago. She put into writing what many of us were thinking as we looked around at our parents’ generation and saw the frustrations and the self-destructive behaviors of women who knew they were not all that they could be or could have been had they not been told what they could not do or should not do and believed it. Later, I met my in-laws who were very much of the school that women are of a lower order than God and man and relegated to home and hearth and motherhood and obedience. We did not get on as I did not conform to their view of a suitable wife. Fortunately, their son had other beliefs and we have been married for over 40 years at this point. He has been my partner at work and my partner at home through all the years we’ve been together. I made choices. I could do so. Others can make other choices. But they should be choices, not the dictates of others or “society” or anything else.
Indeed, the problem is not too many choices, but rather too few (albeit with the illusion of too many).
Agreed in part but people can expand the choices available with some support. And society can, if it chooses, expand or contract the choices available generally or to particular groups. When Jews were denied admission to the clubs where business was done, they set up their own clubs and excluded Jewish women from joining. The women so excluded found other forums and places to network and do business. And when the clubs generally opened up to a broader membership for their own financial reasons, they could not attract the formerly excluded who had created their own associations.
Did y'all see the photo Katie Miller, she of MAGA fame, posted where she's nuzzling her newborn and writing, "I don't understand why anyone would call this oppression." The comments I saw were very similar to this, but they were just comments. I'm glad I read this, Prof Meredith. You articulated and explained feminism wonderfully.
Excellent, just excellent on so many levels. I will save it to read again.
"But....but...if you give women choices, they often make the wrong ones, taking the path of least resistance, and that creates a collective action problem and a race to the bottom! Because reasons!" some anti-feminists and extreme radical feminists may argue via Horseshoe Theory and begging the question.
First of all, that is *capitalism* (and especially neoliberalism, aka capitalism on steroids) they are thinking of, not feminism. And capitalism has always had an incestuous relationship with patriarchy.
The "paradox of choice" is real, but it is still not the "gotcha" they think it is. Too many choices can indeed have adverse effects, but so can too few choices, and IMHO the latter is far worse on balance. Thus, In any case, to quote Thomas Jefferson:
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniencies attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it."
(Mic drop)
'Capitalism has always had an incestuous relationship with patriarchy' - yes. This. Very well put.
Feminist theorists call it patriarchal capitalism. And it's happening right now, on steroids. Hence the pushback on progressive values, the rise of authoritarian regimes around the Western world and so on.
Very true indeed. Thank you 😊
Thank you for this. I do read the Substack you mention in this article and I often wonder what is going on with the author. Is she even living in the same world? But, as you say, I do not want to attack her or her ideas. I fully support her right to hold her opinions and to express them. Your response to the articles in question has articulated what I have been thinking but much better than I ever could.
I am a feminist. But feminism hasn’t made me hate men. It hasn’t made me miserable. The power structures that support patriarchy, on the other hand, have made me miserable. Having to listen to (mostly right wing) men - and women - make jokes at women’s expense, judge women’s choices and still believe women are less than human, is somewhat depressing.
And, of course, men also suffer under patriarchy. Softness, gentleness, care and compassion are strengths, not weaknesses. But in our late stage capitalist society, they are seen as a weakness.
THANK YOU! I started reading her article and stopped and blocked when my eyes rolled so far back in my head that I became concerned for my optic nerve. I considered writing a rebuttal like you have, but decided not to, and just not to give her any air time. I’m glad someone took up the task, though.
The problem is not too many choices, but rather too FEW (albeit often with the illusion of too many).