Why are so many women hellbent on acting against their own interest?

The problem with choice feminism though is that it very conveniently allows the discussion to focus on individual women and their choices,

It’s not us focusing on women’s decisions! Choice feminism is about not focussing, dissecting, criticising, influencing or even controlling/banning choices.

It is your sort of feminism that focuses on women’s individual choices and then after the above, sits in judgement and tries to force women into a mold of a ‘good girl’ by categorising certain decisions as either feminist or anti-feminist. It’s just more patriarchy as far as I am concerned.

Take the motherhood penalty that causes the gender pay gap- the focus is on well women are choosing to take too much time off work so that’s why. No, that’s not the root cause of the motherhood penalty. The penalty is because presenteeism and never getting off the work treadmill is what our society values. It doesn’t value motherhood. So your brand of feminism that says don’t be a SAHM, that’s not a feminist choice, get back to work, get a nursery, don’t stay home until the youngest is in primary school- you are trying to dictate ‘feminist’ choices to choose our way out of oppression.

That doesn’t work. Hasn’t worked. Will never work.

If you were a choice feminist, you’d be like us, not focussed on the individual choices women make but focussed on the root causes. The only reason you think we are and call us choice feminists is because you want to control women and so inevitably our interactions end up with you declaring how a choice is not feminist, and sets women back and we responding no such thing, let women be women how they want to.

No decision by anyone is ever in a vacuum. Not for men, not for white people, not for the ultra rich. This is a given and doesn’t need to be mentioned. People take this into account when they make their decisions- women are painfully aware of the influences of society on their decisions.

You do you, does empower women when compared to the do as I say type of feminism you are espousing by setting yourself up as some sort of matriarch what knows best for all women.

Allowing individual choice (aka empowering women to live their lives as they see fit) doesn’t cause systemic issues to be downplayed and the fact you said this is actually blaming women having agency and autonomy for their own oppression.

Its like you think that if women were ‘good girls’ and make the choices you think they should; that like a fairy godmother, all our oppression will just vanish.

I'm not blaming women making choices as a causes of our oppression.

I'm saying that focusing on a "you do you, if a woman makes a decision don't mention that decisions aren't made in a vacuum or that the environment is stacked against women as a class" style of feminism doesn't empower women as a class. If anything this sort of model tends to shut down getting to the root cause.

Too often the focus on individual choice allows for environmental and systemic issues to be downplayed by those pushing a liberal, individualistic model of feminism.

The root causes of women’s oppression do not include women having the agency and autonomy to make their own choices, or life decisions.

The fact some women make bad choices, choices they regret is not a reason to further infantilise us.

Do focus on the environment that is stacked against us.

Do focus on classism, racism and how they intersect with sexism.

Don’t dictate what choices are best for women and punish women who choose differently.

Don’t blame women having choice as a cause of our oppression- the opposite is the case.

I do too. Choice feminism isn’t perfect, but what it does is gives women agency and autonomy to decide what is best for them, their own life path
But does it though?

The problem with choice feminism though is that it very conveniently allows the discussion to focus on individual women and their choices, which aren't made in a vacuum and are often choices made in an environment that is stacked against women (as a class).

By focusing on the choices individuals make, the systems that keep women oppressed as a class can conveniently go unchallenged because it doesn't take too long before liberal choice feminists (as well as those who aren't feminist, don't care about women's interests, and would quite like the status quo to continue) jump to claims that questioning how free choices are, or questioning the big picture around choice making is unfeminist because individual women feeling good about their decisions is the priority.

Aiming to get to the root cause of women's oppression as a class and resolving those issues would open up meaningful freedom for women to choose.

Choice vs non-choice is just too simplistic. Some things it's good to have choice on. Some things it's the best thing even if people make bad choices. On other things we need to think about the larger social implications of choices. In some areas choice is bad.

I think where the late 20th century went wrong is the embrace of the idea, among liberals anyway, that freedom is the highest value, and more freedom always brings more happiness.

It's not true for society nor is it true for individuals.

I do too. Choice feminism isn’t perfect, but what it does is gives women agency and autonomy to decide what is best for them, their own life path.

@MercanDede "when resources are limited..."

and this is why I think "choice feminism" works better despite not being perfect - wanting all women to the same thing leads to exclusion of...well...the majority of women

I read it. Chuckled at her outrage as a feminist just now realising that the “sisterhood” is a myth. Feminism has historically had issues with ignoring the interests of non-white, non-gender conforming, non-heterosexual, lower class, older, disabled (long list) of women who have been excluded from the sisterhood she thought existed from the very beginning. 🤣

Nrtt, any of it, so not sure how relevant this article is

https://thecritic.co.uk/feminism-has-a-women-problem/

But it seems to be saying some women aren't acting against their own interests.

I don't read Dworkin as meaning that women are mentally weak at all. She isn't dividing women into two groups: those who recognise oppression and those who don't. She is making the point about all women. All of us find it painful to contemplate the extent of our oppression. Dworkin is expressing compassion and empathy for this, not judging us.

I've always found Dworkin's claim that other women don't "see" their oppression because they lack the internal fortitude to face it to be borderline offensive. I know there are people who do this kind of thing in many areas, such people exist. But there is something about claiming that those who disagree with you are just too mentally weak that seems like major cop-out to me. And you could turn a claim like that around as well, and say that someone like Dworkin sees things through a particular lens due to some kind of protective trauma response distorting perception. That might also be true of a particular person, but to say it's a significant reason why women turn to feminism would also be borderline offensive.

When you can use the same logic both ways typically I think it undermines the premise, or suggests maybe that these are just features of human psychology you find represented among all viewpoints - so not really telling us much about the ideas themselves.

It's about owning the means of production, vs selling your labour. That is, working for yourself, and gaining the profit or result of your own work through the improvement of your asset, and someone else being the main beneficiary of your labour as you work to improve their asset, albeit while giving you a wage.

The different cultural conventions on dowry or bride price are very intriguing.

didn't think my lighthearted comment about cow-splitting would prove to be controversial :P

basing this entirely on literary examples - I always thought dowry was mostly money, but you could get a cow for a daughter

although I feel like this crosses the boundary into another sad realm of treating one's children as future investment opportunities, something that unfortunately still takes place

(sons for financial support, daughters for practical care or both)

I don’t think you would split the cow to give your daughter a dowry either though.

I did not think cow splitting was the turn this thread was going to take!

@WhatWouldJeevesDo chatting online is my main form of chat throughout the say...that maternity life is not very exciting :(

as for inheritance - it also mattered to when there was little wealth, I'd say it mattered even more because there wasn't much to share - a small business, a house, maybe some savings... I don't support that system, but I kind of understand where it came from

basically if you had some land and one cow you wouldn't split either in two

I’m not sure when and where you mean. I think the advantage of handing on the whole estate intact to the first born male was that there was enough wealth and status to secure a profession for younger sons. In the UK it was traditionally army, navy or church.
Younger sons from very wealthy families did also sometimes get an allowance eg Lord Randolph father of the more famous Winston. and all Bertie’s friends at the Drones Club
It’s nice that you are always here for a chat @PaintedEgg.

@SerafinasGoose
Be careful saying this western naming tradition when you are describing a tradition that isn’t representative of all, or even the majority of western cultures.

No, they are not interchangeable. 😂 Therein lies your confusion.

This should say:
“An individual woman's family name ceases to be 'patriarchal' patrilineal once she's availed herself of this option. But given these are still in the minority, the system overall remains patriarchal patrilineal”

and this
”The western naming tradition could not be deemed patriarachal were there a matrilineage running concurrently with it”

Yes it could. You absolutely can have a patriarchal matrilineal society. These aren’t even rare in today’s world. Most women, globally, keep their surname when they marry and in societies that are much more patriarchal than ours.

If a naming tradition were in any way part of or indicative of a patriarchy, then societies that are matrilineal would also be firmly matriarchal. But they aren’t, most matrilineal societies are also patriarchal.

The two, lineage and archy are fully independent of each other.
One is not dependent on the other.

This independence means that patrilineal or matrilineal naming traditions do not affect patriarchy. They have zero influence on the rights and status of women.

The Anglo-centric tradition of the woman taking the man’s surname upon marriage is Patrilineal not Patriarchal. These are often confused 🫤 as you have done.

They are not 'confused'. They are interchangeable.

The western naming tradition could not be deemed patriarachal were there a matrilineage running concurrently with it, in which, say, 50% of women used their own names on marriage and passed this down to their children.

But they don't. So it is.

An individual woman's family name ceases to be 'patriarchal' once she's availed herself of this option. But given these are still in the minority, the system overall remains patriarchal.

They do indeed happen organically, or sometimes they don't happen at all. I actually know someone from uni who did the new name thing!

Yes, except when they come out and you encounter one it can be extremely unpleasant to be on the receiving end of their intense animosity.

@TrashedSofa and this is how title Ms also came to be in its current format, these things happen somewhat organically

some people are even choosing an entirely new name upon getting married - so that the family could have the same name, but neither partner takes on the other's name

also here is an interesting short video about title of Mrs