No, feminism is not about choice
by Meagan Tyler
Feminism is back in fashion. As the push to claim the 'f-word' has
intensified, public figures, corporations and much of the mainstream
media have propelled a largely unchallenging version of feminism into
the popular consciousness. It is a feminism that never mentions women's
liberation, instead opting for a celebration of 'choice'.
Read almost any online article about feminism and the comments will
soon devolve into a debate about choice. It doesn't seem to matter what
the topic is, people are quick to reframe the issue as one of women's
empowerment and right to choose. This provides a neat diversion from
talking about the larger power structures and social norms that restrict
women, in many different ways, all around the world.It's been a season
for 'choice feminism'. In late March, the fashion magazine empire Vogue
launched a 'My Choice video in India as part of its Vogue Empower
campaign which, quite literally, reduced women's empowerment to a series
of choices
The video went viral and, as the India-based reporter Gunjeet Sra
noted, the hypocrisy of an "industry that is based on fetishising,
objectifying and reinforcing sexist standards of beauty on women",
supposedly promoting feminism, went largely unremarked.This liberal
brand of 'choice feminism' was then followed to its logical, if absurd,
conclusion, when a Liberal Democrat candidate in the upcoming UK
election tried to explain away footage of him getting a lap dance in a
strip club. Apparently, it was all part of his feminist mission to
assist in "empowering women to make legal choices, not to judge the
legal choices they make".Even Playboy has recently decided to weigh in
on the finer points of feminist theory, and have come out in favour of a
woman's right to be subjected to the pornographic gaze. Which,
conveniently, fits in very nicely with their own business plan, of
course.
It is incidents like these, as well as hackneyed arguments about
whether Beyoncé is a feminist, or whether male politicians should wear
'This is What a Feminist Looks Like' T-shirts, that inspired a new
collection of feminist writing, Freedom Fallacy: The limits of liberal
feminism.
"choice feminism"
In the book, which I co-edited, 20 of us take on different topics
that have become part of the "choice feminism" landscape: from
pornography and prostitution, to female genital mutilation, from women's
magazines and marriage, to sexual violence. While coming from a range of
different perspectives, we all critique the notion that "choice" should
be the ultimate arbiter of women's freedom.
Many of us argue that the rise of this pop-feminism is actually more
insidious than poking fun at the inane end of the "I choose my choice"
spectrum might suggest.
First of all, 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. It would only make sense to
uncritically celebrate choice in a post-patriarchal world.
Second, the idea that more choices automatically equate to more
freedom is a falsehood. This is essentially just selling neo-liberalism
with a feminist twist. Yes, women can now work or stay at home if they
have children, for example, but this "choice" is fairly hollow when
child-rearing continues to be constructed as "women's work", there is
insufficient state support for childcare, and childless women are
decried as selfish.
Third, the focus on women's choices as the be-all and end-all of
feminism has resulted in a perverse kind of victim-blaming and a
distraction from the real problems women still face. If you're not happy
with the way things are, don't blame misogyny and sexism, the pay gap,
entrenched gender roles, women's lack of representation on boards or in
parliament, or an epidemic of violence against women. Blame yourself.
You obviously made the wrong choice.
As sociologist Natalie Jovanovski points out in her Freedom Fallacy
chapter, it is not surprising this kind of liberal feminism has risen to
prominence. In privileging individual choice above all else, it doesn't
challenge the status quo.
It doesn't demand significant social change, and it effectively
undermines calls for collective action. Basically, it asks nothing of
you and delivers nothing in return.
Instead of resistance, we now have activities that were once held up
as archetypes of women's subordinate status being presented as
liberating personal choices. Sexual harassment has been reframed as
harmless banter that women can enjoy. Marriage is reconstructed as a
pro-feminist love-in.
Objectification
Labiaplasty is seen as helpful cosmetic enhancement. Pornography is
rebranded as sexual emancipation. Objectification is the new
empowerment.Instead of talking about a vision for a more equal future,
we are left with inward-looking, futile discussions about whether or not
individual women are "bad feminists". Or what journalist Sarah Ditum has
termed the "can you be a feminist and ..." game. As though the real
issue of women's progress is whether or not we can live up to some
fabled feminist ideal.
So
thorough is the individualisation of "choice feminism" that when women
criticise particular industries, institutions and social constructions,
they are often met with accusations of attacking the women who
participate in them. The importance of a structural-level analysis has
been almost completely lost in popular understandings of feminism.By way
of comparison, it would seem quite ludicrous to suggest that by
critiquing capitalism a Marxist was attacking wage labourers. It would
similarly seem very odd to suggest that those critiquing Big Pharma hate
people who work in pharmaceutical factories. Or that those who question
our cultural reliance on fast-food have it in for the kids behind the
counter at McDonalds.
Ultimately, the promotion of "choice" - and the myth of an
already-achieved equality - have hampered our ability to challenge the
very institutions that hold women back. But the fight is not over.
Many women are reasserting that feminism is a necessary social
movement for the equality and liberation of all women, not just
platitudes about choices for some.
(Meagan Tyler is a Research fellow at RMIT
University, and co-editor of Meagan Freedom Fallacy: The limits of
liberal feminism. This article was originally featured in The
Conversation) |