A different viewpoint on Choice Feminism

[GothAnneGeddes]

This is taken from a website called FWD, or feminists with disabilities.

It argues that not all women can access the same choices, hence not all choices can be viewed equally. Well worth reading.

Oops ... I did go in with the earnest analysis there, rather missing the point!

As you were.

although i could do you a nice line in deep southern literature if you fancied delving into the old black man/ white woman discourse?

ISN'T - In short, what she's saying is that different people's choices take place within different contexts.

Dittany - I get your point about sexual objectification, I guess we are taught a very limited sexual language if you like. But I still think her point about disabled women's sexuality is valid.

I remember reading an interview years ago with a woman with cp who was married to a non disabled man. She made a point of being very tactile and affectionate with him in public, in order to confound the stereotype of people with disabilities being sexless beings.

But I don't see her points about what is happening to disabled women happening here. We don't carry out forced abortion and steriisation do we? Or do we? I can understand her underlying point, I think, but the examples seem extreme and baffling, which detracts from the point for me, I think. As i am so busy wondering which feminists say you must be a virgin until marriage and how that links in with anything IYSWIM.

D'you know what, sometimes I think we are too polite and give too much credence to any old argument that comes our way. None of what she said was a convincing argument for choice feminism IMO. I agree with Dittany, she has set up a whole load of straw feminists in order to knock them down.

Yes of course women are marginalised differently according to whatever socio economic/ ethnic group they are in; of course disabled women's experience of sexism is different from that of able bodied women; that's a statement of the bleedin' obvious and feminists have dealt with that over and over again - the article assumes that we are utterly unaware of the different contexts of different women's lives. It is not feminists who desexualise women with disabilities; it's our wider culture. Feminists have been in the forefront of making the arguments for women with disabilities being able to express sexuality. It's not feminists who tell women not to wear lipstick; it's twats (usually hostile to feminism) who tell us that if we do, we're letting down the sisterhood. There is only one tiny, very mad very unrepresentative strand of feminism which says all women have to go out to work in the cash economy as soon as their babies are weaned; most of the feminist movement has been engaged in the struggle to have the work that women do for free, at home, recognised as the crucially valuable contribution to society that it is.

Basically, she's doing that usual thing of pretending that feminism is all about white, privileged, able-bodied middle-class rich western women who haven't got a clue about other women in the world. Which indicates that she doesn't really know that much. I really can't take her arguments seriously, it sounds like an excited sixth-former who has just discovered something all the adults have known for 20 years.

"I think we are too polite and give too much credence to any old argument that comes our way"
Hear, hear. I can't believe this thread is still going.

"it sounds like an excited sixth-former who has just discovered something all the adults have known for 20 years"
ROFL

"the work that women do for free, at home"
Ahem, you mean "the work that people do ..."

Right, so feminists, whether as individuals, or as a wider group never make any mis-steps regarding racism, ableism, etc?

And Womanists and others who feel the feminist movement hasn't served them well are just imagining things?

Let's face it, there are women on Mumsnet who feel that Feminism hasn't served them well, so it's surely logical that people who are even more marginalised in society might feel the same. And rather then getting defensive, we should take the opportunity to see someone else's point of view. If we don't do the things she says, fine. It's good to have a reminder anyway. If we are being thoughtless about the experiences of others, then it's an opportunity to put that right.

But what is all this stuff about virginity and child abuse, gothanne? What's it all about? I don't feel I can talk properly about the issues she is raising when I don't understand where she's coming from.

I don't think I am thoughtless of the experiences of others?

I don't go around saying disabled people must be sterilised or being horrible to children who have been abused, AFAIK.

Should I not get defensive when I am accused of these things? How to respond to these accusations without sounding defensive?

Briefly, one of the areas where women have been constrained is sexually. To be a good woman, you had to be a virgin and this has gone back a long. Feminists have fought against this for obvious reasons.

However, for black women in US society, there is the legacy of slavery (where they were frequently sexually abused). Emmett Till (a black man) was battered to death for wolf whistling at a white woman, and thus 'daring to besmirch her virtue. No one cared about the virtue of black women in a similar way as they were not viewed as worthy.

On my bb so can't link, but the Sojorner Truth speech 'Aint I a woman' sums this up pretty well.

For a modern day perspective, google Latoya Peterson and Yes Means Yes.

Yes I know all that. But I still don't understand her comment.

"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 does that mean? Who is expecting black girls to be virginal? Who is expecting anyone to be virginal apart from fundamentalist religious types ie not feminists? Why the idea that only poor black females are sexually abused?

I hoenstly don't understand it.

Is it trying to draw parallels of these horrific things, and saying that when a feminist eg says that women should be able to work full time and overlooks that many mothers don't want to do that, that it is the same thing?

On that basis though surely no-one would ever be able to say anything without a million caveats.

Should poeple on MN have to list all of their personal circumstances so that others can check off whether their viewpoint is valid?

Like on a thread yesterday where someone was accused of being a misandrist, then revealed he was a man, and the accusation was swiftly revoked?

I am really upset about this for some reason. I don't understand the article but it seems to be highly critical and levelling some really unpleasant accusations and I don't know what to do with them.

I don't think you understand the article because it's a bit incoherent, ISNT. There's not a lot to understand IMO. She's accusing feminists about not engaging with the experience of black women, disabled women, working class women etc. But they have been.

And yes GothAnne, I'm sure that feminists either individually or a group, can make mistakes regarding racism, ableism etc. But the gist of this article and similar ones, is that feminism doesn't enage with these issues at all. When in fact, it's been engaging with them for... ooh, ages. Feminism was one of the first movements to engage with the experience of marginalised women outside the white, western, able-bodied, privileged elite. And plenty of those women self-identify as feminists.

I just don't have much patience with the propaganda that feminism doesn't speak to anyone outside the privileged group. It's just not true, but that myth has been a very effective means of ensuring that the majority of women disengage with 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."

I think ISNT, what she means is:

• some feminists claim that women being able to have sex outside of marriage etc and reject the (conservative) virginal ideal is a "feminist choice"

• but many women [apparently only black women in her view but ho hum] have never been expected to be virgins, on the contrary they have been forced into early sexual contact against their will

• so for these women, the "choice" of whether to be a virgin bride or a rebel naughty feminist having sex outside of marriage is a false one. They have no choice. Being able to remain a virgin (in preference to being assaulted) would be a powerful "feminist choice" for these women.

I think that's what she's getting at with that - does that seem right? Obviously there are a vast swathe of problems with that. To name a few:

• girls (and boys) of all races are assaulted
• the virginal ideal is not reserved for

white women only worldwide

• feminists don't actually tell people that staying a virgin until married/forever is a bad or unfeminist choice.
• as you have said, feminism does engage with women from all races/walks of life/professions/countries

She's tilting at windmills here, IMO.

That makes more sense, thanks elephants

Also there is a really distastefful conflation of sexual abuse (no choice) and sexual freedom (with choice.

I'm sure many of the same people who expect their women to be virgins when they marry, also abuse their daughters/relatives. Why would anyone think differently? Child abuse is incredibly widespread. So contrasting "expected to be virgins" with "sexually assaulted from an early age" is false IMO. I'm sure many girls of all races grow up with societal pressure to remain "pure", while also suffering "harrassment, abuse and assault".

The idea that feminists would ignore the prevalence of sexual assault against girls and women is a new one on me.

dittany - I'm not sure she's arguing for choice feminism.

i think that's the point. she's just another voice arguing against choice feminism. (which she sees as ignoring those marginalised for other than just being a woman)

it's no more complicated than that, really.

she's only really talking about 'choice', surely? she hasn't gone any further than that. she's not addressing any other common or garden variety of 'feminism' or 'feminist', just choice.

she's saying what every mn feminist against choice feminism says on every 'choice feminism is not feminist' thread, just from the angle of disability. (again, ignoring the race issue as i think she included it to make a wider point and it failed, mostly...)

i think those of you who are disagreeing, are disagreeing because her argument is not intellectual enough - i've no idea whether she recognises any other brand of feminism or not.

is it just her voice you don't like? she's not clever enough to engage with?

oh, and re sterilisation/ adoption. oh, yes, there are legal cases fairly often in the uk too. the idea of halting puberty of girls with severe disabilities early to prevent menstruation etc/ inhibit growth to allow easier care (lifting etc) still raises its head periodically.

there's lots of research into disability and mothering too - have a bunch of stuff somewhere in the basement. generally looking at ss interventions and (wait for it) choice - ie you can only bathe your child at 10am because that's when the carer will visit. and mental capacity. huge. but it's all quite emotive, obviously.

she's just arguing against choice feminism - she's just articulating it badly.

your last para 17.53.45 is her argument. you are on the same side, you can just unravel it better