Choice Feminism is little understood... Most people are under the mistaken impression it believes all choices made by women are Feminist choices by default of calling herself a Feminist. This is not, however, the case at all. In fact, it's a piss poor strawman that's not only untrue, but detracts from the actual point Choice Feminism seeks to make.
A commentor on an article I've long since lost the link to (something about porn stars, if I remember correctly, but it's been years at this point) hit the nail on the head back in 2013 when they stated:
[I think] there are like 3 different groups that get called “choice feminists.”
There’s the Charlotte Yorks, who aren’t feminists but would like feminism to stop judging them for their personal choices […] [which is] fair enough, actually [...] I think it’s fairly anti-feminist to judge women for their personal decisions, like if they just felt enough shame the various factors that influence their decision would just fade away [...]
[Then] there’s the feminists who have more than one [axis] of oppression and might actually be claiming that (whatever) is actually subversive, but aren’t saying it’s always subversive- just subversive in certain ways within certain contexts pertaining to how they are situated in the larger oppressive framework [...]
And lastly, I think there’s the group that’s probably closest to an actual “choice feminist” [...] analyzing and challenging the system that generally influences women’s choices, while recognizing woman’s right to navigate their matrix of oppression as they see fit; that while we can get a broad sense of what creates statistical norms, what actually influences each woman is going to change dramatically based on region, ethnicity, various sub-cultures (and sub-sub-sub-cultures), socioeconomic status, etc […], as well as the good chance that there’s always going to be a certain level of indefinable personal preference that cannot be accounted for solely or even mostly by socialization.
The commenter isn't wrong. If you take it at face value without going any deeper for an explanation... They're entirely right, actually: Choice Feminism, in its proper context, is arguably all of the above in different measures, at different times.
At a core level, Choice Feminism believes some things which are traditionally oppressive can be fundamentally empowering for the right individual under the right circumstances- but that we can't know what's exactly what, for who, or why. Only they can figure that out for themselves, based on their own unique lived experiences- and their own unique interpretations of those experiences. As a result, Choice Feminism believes people should be empowered to make choices for themselves- and that those choices should be supported once made- not judged, condemned or mocked. Furthermore, it believes that none of those choices, whether disagreed with or not, should somehow exclude them from Feminism, and the protections it seeks to offer for all women.
Most discussions around Choice Feminism, however, focus on the want of material things- like a person's choice, or right, to wear makeup, for instance. Sometimes it even ventures into attacking the choice to occupy "traditionally feminine" roles such as Homemaking, as well. But in all cases, these accusations insist Choice Feminism says it's automatically and always powerful and even subversive to make our own choices involving these things... But that it's really only white, middle class women who have many of these choices available to them at all- and that therefore invalidates any and all pro-choice feminist arguments on the matter altogether.
This is, however, nothing more than a strawman used to argue against Choice Feminism, which exists only to detract from the real message. It accepts only half of the equation, and ignores everything else about Choice Feminism and its ideology- refusing to look any deeper than the barest surface reflection.
⚶ Only A Half Truth ⚶
Yes, it's true that Choice Feminism believes that the right to make your own choices must inherently include the right to participate in "traditionally feminine" things that are seen by other schools of Feminist thought (most often and notably: Radical Feminism) as oppressive. And this includes actions such as wearing makeup; it's a given that, when you discuss the various complexities of choice, something like makeup has to be included in that discussion. It's impossible for it not to be- and it would be hypocritical not to include it, as it's still a choice just like any other regardless of why a person may make that choice or any of the pressures behind it.
And yes, it's also true that greater levels of choice are undoubtedly afforded to white, middle class women above other groups- and it's likewise true that the choice to participate in things already considered "traditionally feminine" is widely accepted over the choice not to participate; BIPOC in particular are frequently excluded due to the byproducts of racism and its intersection with sexism. And MOGAI individuals frequently face abuse due to sexism's intersection with homophobia and Transphobia- treatment which increases twelvefold not only for the visibly Trans and Gender Nonconforming, but those who are simply suspected or assumed of being these things.
What these arguments ignore and overlook, however, is that Choice Feminism doesn't argue that any of these things aren't facts... Indeed, acknowledging these facts is absolutely integral to the entire ideology of Choice Feminism. Why? Because contrary to what most think piece "takedowns" claim, the point of Choice Feminism isn't even about the actual choices we make, or the "feminist weight" they hold... It's about our right to make choices for ourselves in the first place, and the right to have those choices respected.
In the shortest possible explanation possible, true and genuine Choice Feminism is simply about not infantilizing women; it's about recognizing that we don't, actually, all have the same lived experiences as one another, or suffer from the same cultural conditioning. And it's about recognizing how our choices are influenced by that- and how those factors can't be neatly summed up, or, ultimately, even recorded or accounted for in full.
In other words: Each individual has different preferences, needs, wants, and experiences- and we all live our lives under unique conditions. Because of this, how we experience and perceive our oppression, as well as how we ultimately tackle inequality and feel empowered, is going to be based on those things... And since these things are intrinsically different? The result is likewise going to be unique from individual to individual. The solution must therefore be tailored to them, by them, as anyone else's solutions are going to be insufficient to address their actual problems on the individual level.
It's about allowing people to be in control of their own lives and bodies, when a large part of these oppressive structures is meant to control us specifically through limiting our choices in the first place– either through enacted legislature, or through societal conditioning and punishment, and so on.
⚶ What does that mean ⚶
Choice Feminism doesn't just stop at accepting and affirming women's right to choice. Recognizing that women deserve the right to choose for themselves is only step one of the process. In order to follow through on the idea that choice is a powerful and important component in dismantling systematic oppression, it can't just stop there... It has to go much, much further. And this is where accepting these facts that takedown pieces like to focus on as gotchas becomes absolutely integral to the entire ideology- because you can't go further without recognizing these as realities.
And in that regard? From an action standpoint, Choice Feminism strives not to tell women what the "proper" choices are to make, to feel empowered- nor to dictate the terms and conditions of their empowerment... But to ensure they have all of the education, resources, and avenues of choice available to them in all aspects of life, so that they can make their choices. Ones that are fully informed, and made on their own terms, after a lifetime of often being ignored, spoken down to, and told what to do (and often what's good for them) by everyone else.
In order to do that, it seeks to actively dismantle the core systems which limit choices only to certain people, or value certain choices over others for certain groups, in the first place. It further seeks to dismantle the social consequences, social stigmatization, social enforcement, and other things often faced when attempting to make these choices for ourselves- especially when the choices we make "go against the grain" of what's considered traditional or acceptable.
This is explicitly intended to open all avenues of choice to all people, so that every individual may have these choices available to them- including having their choice of different jobs, education levels, marriage options, and any other aspect of human life- regardless of race, gender, religion, and other traditionally excluding factors.
And finally, it seeks to ensure everyone has the comprehensive and inclusive educational tools needed to exert their agency and free will to the fullest extent possible. Which, in itself, includes discussing everything openly, critically, and educationally- not only so people are given the choices, but also that people are able to make educated decisions about those choices, and better assess their rightness for themselves, based on their own experiences and personal needs.
Ultimately, at its core Choice Feminism establishes that we are not gatekeepers and do not have a right to dictate what is or isn't an "acceptable choice" for others; we are all intelligent and autonomous people with personal agency, who are fully capable of making our own decisions. Therefore, it boils down to individuals not only having choices concerning all aspects of their lives- but being able, in all ways, to actually make the best choices for themselves... And then stepping back and actively allowing them to do so.
But above and beyond, Choice Feminism believes that those choices should ultimately be supported, respected, and upheld as legitimate by others regardless of our own personal beliefs or ideologies concerning them; that we don't have to personally agree with a decision, or personally desire to participate in the same things, in order to understand they're still deserving of the most basic respectful and dignifying treatment; that "support women" does not come with the caveat that we must like all women, nor that we must agree with them. And that it certainly doesn't come with fine text reading "but only when they're like us".
Referring back to the makeup example people like to harp on: It includes breaking down the societal conditioning and societal stigmatization surrounding makeup- thus making it acceptable for both men and women of any class, race, or other status to wear it (not just the women for whom it is currently not only socially acceptable, but also socially required). It then means educating people on the realities of the makeup industry, the harmful toxins present in most makeup, the lasting, damaging effects of it on our bodies and environment, the socioeconomic impact of the expectation to wear makeup, and more... And then it means letting them make their own damned decision about it- and respecting and supporting whatever decision that winds up being. Because it's not our life, and it's not our body, and is therefore none of our business what they do with theirs as long as, ultimately, their actions do not become actively dangerous to others around them.
"Feminist Enough" ⚶
“But wait!” I hear the cries in the background. “Not all choices are Feminist choices!”. And to that, verily I say "well no fucking shit Sherlock. Thank you for telling us the blatantly fucking obvious. Because we never said they were".
The idea that people deserve the right to choice in a system which limits their choices- and that they deserve to have those choices respected regardless of what they are? It doesn't, by default, turn every choice a woman makes into "a feminist one". No one ever actually claimed they were, in fact, other than those continuously beating the strawman. And frankly, I don't understand what the fuss about it even is.
We can somehow understand that people deserve the right to make their own decisions, and exercise their own autonomy, when it comes to topics such as abortion... But heaven help you if you try to expand that ideology to the rest of a person's life. Suddenly there's an issue, apparently; women can't actually be trusted to make up their own minds. Or, rather more correctly: They can be trusted to make some decisions about their lives- but they're only allowed to make decisions which align with proper feminist thought and are therefore considered "acceptably feminist" in nature.
It's all pretty messed up when you really sit down and think about it. And yet that's exactly what's going on when you look at the arguments: Make a choice they agree with and you're exercising your right to autonomy and breaking the system... Don't make one they agree with, however, and you've given in to that mythical all encompassing "conditioning" and are "supporting the power systems in place" and "helping the patriarchy"- therefore "setting Feminism back" (all actual things I've actually been told myself just for abandoning Radical Feminism and becoming a Homemaker, hilariously).
People think a choice must be suitably Feminist before it deserves respect and support... But what even is a "Feminist choice" in the first place- and what exactly is it that makes a choice "acceptably Feminist"? Is choosing to shirk traditionally feminine behaviors and dress Feminist? Is getting a college degree Feminist? Is aiming for a high paying career and opting to work outside of the home instead of inside of it Feminist? If they are, what exactly is it that makes them so? What makes them better or more Feminist than others?
I've asked this question a thousand times, and haven't gotten a single coherent answer from those who say such things; the closest answer I've gotten is that “Feminist Choices challenge the status Quo”... But then the question becomes which one? Are we talking about the social status quo- or the Feminist one? What about non-western status quos? Or are we going to continue ignoring that those exist, too, and that the world doesn't actually revolve around the west? Or even Men?
The fact is, I don’t know the answers myself- and frankly I doubt anyone else really does, either- though they certainly might place themselves on pedestals as the arbiters of "true Feminism" and yell that they do. But while I'm unsure of whether or not she describes herself as a Choice Feminist, I think Erin Matson really strikes the nail on the head in her piece Policing Personal Lives Is Not The Point: Dos And Don’ts Feminism Must Die when she says:
An outcome of feminism for women is agency, or the ability to direct the course of our own lives, and the proper placement of perspective with regard to women, that say, our bodies are actually about our bodies […] It’s not far by extension that a woman’s personal life is actually about that woman’s personal life and not about what potential should exist for all other women’s personal lives. In the context of a social movement that works for the ability of all people, and especially women, to truly express their own free will, it’s fine to draw inspiration from the lives of other women, but that does not mean that each woman must set an example for others.
The ability for us to say “but that isn’t Feminist!” without questioning why we believe this, and what we believe makes something a Feminist choice or not, is distressing. Equally (if not more) distressing is the idea that everything we do in life, every decision we make, must be measured against the generic yardstick of Feminism. A yard stick which, by virtue of those who decided it even existed in the first place, is decidedly steeped in Radical Feminist ideology in particular- and Radical Feminism which is oriented in the white, western gaze and understanding.
And if your decision somehow doesn't measure up? Then congratulations! Your choice is invalid and undeserving of support from our fellow people- other Feminists especially. To the trash with ye!
But in all genuine honesty... There is certainly too much emphasis on staunch individualism in western society. But at the same time: Why should the total social value of our choices always matter? Why should we always have to judge our personal decisions about our personal lives against some mythical yardstick of "feminist enough"? Why should people always have to prove they're “suitably feminist” through the choices they make concerning their private lives, in order to be treated with dignity and honor, and to have their decisions respected?
As There’s Nothing Retro About the Retro Housewife If She Gets to Choose says:
Women don’t have any duty to not be “stereotypes” any more than they have a duty to embody them. None of us can live each others’ lives […] What’s wrong with acknowledging that we have a lot of choices, and that some of us might see fit to choose differently? None of us are truly stereotypes.
When the majority of our problems often stem first from the fact that the social structures in place are explicitly focused around outright taking our choices away from us; limiting us; shoving us into tiny little one-dimensional boxes of acceptability; removing our ability to make our own choices for ourselves; and generally denying us the personal autonomy we have a right to as human beings? Giving people the capacity and options to decide for themselves, and giving them the resources to do that to the best of their ability, is one of the most powerful actions we can take to exact social change. Because choice is a powerful force. Indeed, it's arguably more powerful and more empowering than anything else on the planet.
It's certainly not the only step of solving the problem, that much is true. And it won't solve every problem there is, either... But it's still a damned good start- and that's the point; limiting choices even further- which is exactly what Feminist thought which argues our choices should be "suitably Feminist" before they're worthy of respect, does- doesn't make the problem better. It doesn't eradicate the issue, or fix the system. It's just another version of the same damned tune played over the centuries; as There’s Nothing Retro About the Retro Housewife If She Gets to Choose once again points out:
Having what is is that you want, and the opportunity to figure out what that is- and then, if you think you’ve achieved it, not being judged for it… That seems a modern sort of feminist ideal to me [...] The day that we stop freaking out, one way or another, about what women choose […] the day we stop couching the new discussion in these same old terms, the day we don’t get worked up about a stay-at-home mom anymore than we do about a woman who works 90-hour weeks and doesn’t have children, is the day that we stop slapping old norms on new ways of being, and it’s the day that we really are different.
To do that, though, requires us to step down from our soap boxes; to stop preaching about what is “right” and “better” in terms of Feminism and Feminist Action.
It means we've got to stop trying to take the wheel and steer people for them, because we've decided we know the destination better than they do for some reason; that we have to allow people to steer their own cars to their own destinations. But more importantly, it means accepting that's where they ultimately want to go for whatever reasons they may have- reasons which are ultimately none of our damned business.
That means accepting that some people just aren't going to choose to break all the walls feminism now gives them the power to break; that they're not going to want to step out of any of the social boxes they're in, because actually they quite like them; that some of them are going to look and that glass ceiling and say "that's too much for me, I'd rather clean the house instead".
And being a Feminist who genuinely loves and supports their fellow women- instead of simply paying empty lipservice to the idea of doing so? Absolutely means accepting that they want to do that, and saying "Ok. You go girl! That's valuable, too!"... Not tearing them down for it and doing basically the same thing these oppressive structures do- just a little to the left and with more progressive words.
I want Feminism to be as awesome as it is on abortion rights: figuring out non-shaming ways to understand the wide variety of circumstances that can influence a woman’s decision, then organizing to increase women’s access to a wide variety of choices by focusing on institutional barriers, and making judgment-free, supportive spaces for women who are stigmatized. I want Feminism to be about organization and activism, not about asking yourself “are blue or black pens the most feminist?” (Haha, trick question. Only women who love patriarchy “chose” pens. Real Feminists use artisan charcoal as their only writing utensil.) – I want feminism to Trust Women.
With that quote, I feel the need to point out that I actually think the article that it comes from is one of the best articles I've ever found that sums up actual Choice Feminism quote well... And for the first time ever in my life, I actually suggest that people read the comments section after finishing the main article; there are some amazing, thought provoking comments and discussions there which do so much better than the article at highlighting the problems with Anti-Choice Feminism rhetoric, as well as outline what Choice Feminism is actually about in more depth.
For an audio transcript of this post, you can now listen on Youtube!