Why "Choice Feminism" is an Illusion (With Bonus "Lost" Analogy)

[redqueen]

http://m.xojane.com/issues/choice-feminism-isn't-a-choice

...

Choice feminism gets one thing right: You should be able to make the choices that are right for you. And yes, of course that should include the choice to be ogled by strangers, or have your body used as a recruitment poster to bait guys into caring about important causes. Where choice feminism falls down, though, is in assuming that any of those things are actual choices right now.

They’re not. Like the Hot Chicks founder (I’m not giving him the Google hits), patriarchy just slaps your face up on a public site with a sign saying “OGLE THIS.” You can decide to be OK with it, or you can decide to raise a stink, but the options aren’t equal -- one of them’s going to make for a much harder life, fielding a lot of hostility from people who think you shouldn’t complain. And the option to just not be treated as public property in the first place? That one’s not really live.

I feel like talking about Patriarchy turns some people off, because it’s so vague and academic-sounding and also because it’s the Matrix --i.e., you’re soaking in it, all the time. Therefore, I have come up with a super-reductive parable based on "Lost"! And you will either like it or you will go read something else.

...

Feminists who want to fight for your ability to reject patriarchal standards of beauty or behavior or availability or occupation aren’t trying to constrain your choices. (Well, some probably are, but screw ‘em.) They’re trying to give you more genuine, valid, supported options. If you still like reading scratch-and-sniff wedding magazines or being on “sexy activist” Tumblrs after that, by all means do it! Just make people stop telling you that it’s the only acceptable option, so you can go back to doing it because it’s your favorite thing.

This was written after the 'hot chicks of occupy' dumbassery, and I liked it. I was reminded of it tonight so I thought I'd post it here.

[seabeyond]

1. i will take it further. there are lots of things we like, but we recognize the destructive value.

and part of integrity, character, we say no.... because we know the repercussions are greater than the reward of doing what we want cause we "like" it.

it is called maturity.

[ismnotwasm]

2. On a different note

This is why I consider all sex work equivalent. A prostitute is no different than a stripper or a burlesque dancer. A naked barista is no different than Men's magazine model. Female Models who use the sensuality and sexuality of their bodies to sell shit--even if said shit is sold to women it's simply a circle--are no different than a phone sex worker. It's all prostitution of one form or another the differences being monetary and social standing.

The economic fallacy of 'choice' is always brought up in these situations, but its all the same crap. I don't consider 'prostitute' a pejorative but I'm sure the hot chicks of occupy would be outraged to be considered one; the same thing as a porn actor. Kind of like football cheerleaders, who also fall under the same category.

Once women have real choices--a complicated proposition involves the end of patriarchy, economic parity, full reproductive freedom, support for child are etc. There may still be sex workers. There still may be 'Hot Chicks of Occupy' but the choice of doing so will be a lot clearer. And the desire to do so will be a lot less.

[seabeyond]

3. or

the woman that uses sexuality to be hired or climb the latter on the corporate wheel.

i agree with you.