A different viewpoint on Choice Feminism

"Ask a little black or brown girl in some poor neighborhoods about being expected to be virginal (a concept that depends on whiteness from the very beginning) until her wedding day. She?ll probably laugh at you. She?s been continually harassed, abused and assaulted since age six."

What feminists say that women must remain virginal until marriage? That would be a very strange statement for a feminist to make I would have thought.

Honestly it would be great to be pointed in the direction of what she is reacting against, because I have not seen these attitudes.

Is it that feminists generally fight for a siuation where females can have autonomy over their bodies, and decide who they have sex with, and when, and not be subjected to virginity tests prior to marriage, or raped, or coerced, or sold?

And that some girls don't have any choice but lose their bodily autonomy because they are abused?

I don't see how that is the fault of feminists though, if that is her point. Feminists would certainly fight for the girl to have autonomy over her own body and be free of abuse.

Have I missed the point spectacularly?

All of the bad things cited, I don't think they are things that feminists have done, so why are feminists being lambasted about them?

Can anyone explain hher virginity/child abuse comments, what she was talking about there?

Which articles are those nick? I feel as if I have missed something here - the comments to which she is responding. Can you link? Are they on the site?

Is she talking currently in the UK that these things are going on?

I am still a bit by it all.

i listened to a woman with a daughter with sld speak at a conference about sexuality. very thought provoking.

dd2 is only 7 but i already worry about the choices she will get the chance to make.

she might be blonde and blue eyed (and have had her squint fixed ) but i so hope there is a man or woman out there who will be able to see her past the wobbling and slurring and allow her to experience the joy of a close relationship. or relationships, lol. and experience what she can give in return.

i worry that she will be more vulnerable to predatory attack if she is viewed as a sexual object at all.

which is worse? to not be viewed as a person capable of sexuality, or to be seen as an aberration easy to victimise and leave?

or worse to be viewed only as a sex object a la conventional mysoginist discourse?

of course, there is no reason why she can't be a loving wife and mother/ partner. but it involves someone else recognising that about her... and it's difficult to believe that's possible when you read articles like this, where clearly some adults with disabilities have been denied this role by society.

and that's only one aspect of course - the work thing is equally perplexing.

lots of layers, pogles

i think the main point is context, though? what is a choice, and what is feminist, from different backgrounds?

(fascinating trying to unravel how utterly irrelevant the make-up/ heels debate is to women who don't have that choice - it can't mean that it is not relevant to debate it, but i can see how (as a well-visited feminist trope) it would put you right off any brand of 'feminism' that didn't recognise it wasn't a choice any woman was able to make...)

and yes - very interesting trying to work out from another viewpoint what makes a choice 'feminist' or not... rather than looking through the patriarchal lens lol.

It chimes with what I'd read,possibly talking about The Feminine Mystique,saying the push to get women out of the home and into the workplace was liberating for a specific group of (middle class) women,while liberation for women who had historically worked out of the home might be to be able to be at home with their children.

A while ago I read a little about mining in the 19th centuary for another thread and was really struck by the fact that the laws passed to stop women working underground were widely looked on as being a good thing for women - but written down in other terms women were stopped by law from doing work which they had always done,and which was needed to support their families.The law did result in unemployment and hardship for women who had worked in mining.

But it was dangerous work done under awful conditions. So - good for women,or not?

I didn't think she was saying that even the limited 'choices' that 'choice feminism' offers are not recognised/ possible choices for some women.
I thought she was saying that while some choices might not be feminist for some groups of women,they would be for others...

a bit like - whether or not to pole dance (lol)

whether or not to wear sky high heels and make-up (whether or not you have the right to be treated as a human being not a sex-object)

whether or not you want to be viewed as a sex object in the first place

i found it very interesting - like a lot of people on here, she is arguing that choice feminism is not 'feminism', and for similar reasons - that they do not represent free choice. but she's saying choices are not limited solely because of the patriarchal nature of society (as some of the arguments towards choice feminism on here) but that the reasons go much deeper - that even the limited 'choices' that 'choice feminism' offers are not recognised/ possible choices for some women.

her arguments reminded me a little of the poster who wanted to talk about 'working class' feminism, (there was a busy thread) as she didn't recognise the sort of feminism and problems espoused by much of the mn feminist board. (although i grimaced a bit at some of the fwd author's phraseology).

interesting, anyway. lots to think about.

lol, never mind - just seen it was a link - colour turned down on screen!

i'm struggling to find it - have you got a link?

it sounds as though it would be quite interesting - i've oft pondered that dd2's choices will be more restricted/ difficult - a woman with a disability becomes pretty much public property in the decision as to whether/ how she can care for her own child in many cases, let alone if you can get past the prejudice and actually get a job you want.

and tbh she'll never be able to put make-up on herself anyway. i don't wear any, but it has crossed my mind that she won't be able to anyway. we have enough trouble come the annual dance recital.

but anyway, i've no idea whether any of that is relevant as i can't find the article! (found the website...)

I thought it was quite interesting. She's arguing with the idea that wearing lots of make-up, being a SAHM, wanting to be "a mother" first and foremost are "less feminist" choices. I can see why people here are finding that confusing, because I think on MN the idea that e.g. being a SAHM is "unfeminist" is never articulated (Xenia aside). But she is arguing with people - and I'm going to give her the benefit of the doubt and believe that she has encountered some - who do express these views.

Yes that's about how it felt to me purits. The context is missing.

What is she on about?
This sounds like she has been discussing it with her mates for hours and has written out a rant. I feel like I have come in halfway through a conversation and don't really understand what is going on.

It's a strange article TBH. I'm not sure that I agree with it, but I found it a bit confusing. Maybe it would help to know who she is responding to? I only really talk to feminists on here, and I haven't come across anyone saying that all women have to work, or that disabled women shouldn't have children or wear makeup etc. I don't understand the thing about being expected to be virginal until marriage, and child abuse, at all.

If I had an idea of who is saying these things, then it might be easier to understand where the author of this piece is coming from IYSWIM.