Feminist Choice

[Blistory]

Not a TAAT but prompted by one.

I know that most posters on here despair when people use the I exercised a choice and the fact that I did so itself is feminist, therefore what I did was a feminist act line of reasoning but can making a choice to do something that either is against women or comes from a tradition of oppressing women ever be a feminist choice ?

So on the marriage thread for example, can choosing to use your husband's surname ever be hailed as a feminist act ? So if you know that the tradition behind it is not at all supportive of women, can it really be reclaimed by women as a positive or does the history of how it arose completely wipe it out ?

Trivial example I know but there seem to be so many everyday things that stem from horrible woman oppressing traditions or that have evolved recently to objectify women that I can't see how any woman who has seriously thought about these things can ever call their choice a feminist one. It's a choice, yes, great, but even feminists do anti feminist things.

What am I missing or is this feminism lite that I just don't get ?

I think the problem stems from the misguided idea that everything you do has to be feminist for you to be allowed to refer to yourself as a feminist.

What this forgets is that we are all human and doing our best to get by. I took my husband's name for my own reasons but I do acknowledge that, due to the history, it isn't a feminist choice. But I will still call myself a feminist even if every choice I make doesn't fit perfectly with the ideology.

I didn't realise that feminism was an exclusive club with specific rules that had to be followed in order to be allowed to join. In that case, I am a womanist. I think females should be allowed to do whatever they choose.

Absolutely TerrariaMum, I often do things myself knowing that it's not particularly feminist but I don't beat myself up about it nor do I feel that I can't call myself a feminist.

But there is real resentment when you encounter someone who insists that the fact they made a choice is the feminist part of the act and that that is all that matters, that it makes me wonder if feminism has gone wrong somewhere to the extent that it is so misunderstood.

Is feminism lite the way to attract more women to feminism and accept that at least it's a starting point or does that just defeat the very purpose of feminism ? Does it become corrupted by diluting it to such an extent or have I just gotten high and mighty about my brand of feminism ?

Sorry HamletsSister, I deliberately started a new thread to ponder this rather than continue on the other one for the exact reason that I didn't want you to think that I was having a go at you.

I wanted to be able to discuss it for the very reason that I wanted to challenge my thinking, not because I think my view is the only one so I'm genuinely sorry if you're offended by this thread.

Blistory I agree with you and Terraria. Feminism doesn't amount to much if all it is is the right of all women everywhere to make any choice they like, regardless of its historical background or its impact (or contribution to impact) on women as a class.

Historically women had very few choices in life and therefore first and second wave feminists were working towards liberation of women from oppression which would then lead to women having more choice over their lives. This choice aspect seems to have been co-opted as the goal of feminism in and of itself, in a liberal / libertarian tradition. I don't subscribe to that point of view. I prefer to view feminism as the liberation of women as a class and choices made by women can either support that (feminist choices), work against that (non-feminist choices) or have no bearing on it.

I agree with Terraria that you can be a feminist even though not every choice you make is a feminist choice, we all have lives to lead and other factors in our lives. But calling yourself a feminist does not magically transform all your choices into feminist choices.

But HamletsSister every group needs rules to need to adhere too.

You couldn't be an environmentalist and then go fly tipping for example.

the interesting bit is deciding on what those rules are

has rules that need to adhered to

Otherwise it's all do as I say, not as I do

But I agree you can't - just actually can't - follow them all. But you should try and keep to the spirit of the thing more often than not

20+ years ago I told my partner that I had no issues with her keeping her surname when we married, but she chose to have mine. I felt no pleasure or pride in her wanting my name, I did not see it as a gift to me, I just saw it as her choice. Had she decided to keep her name I would not have seen it as a feminist choice, I would not have been disappointed, I would have just seen it as a choice, no more and no less.

But IMO what you talk about Blistory is a manifestation of a problem within feminism itself, attitude to the personal agency of women. The same act (taking the husbands name) it held up as feminist by some who are unhealthily over invested in personal agency or brought low by others more invested in denial of it, that its a false choice where the woman naively chooses (or has it forced on her) a dis-empowerment that serves patriarchy.

Surname- I think its just a choice today, it does not need to be lauded or abhorred. Historically, different story. But isn't history like that? Historically western Europe tore itself apart yet manage to move on, despite Basil Fawlty constantly not mentioning the war?

Feminism has created choice. It has never been about choice. It has always been about liberating women from male oppression.

The whole 'choice' feminism is a con used to convince women that they do in fact have equal choices to men. When in fact the surrounding structures and pressures that those choices live in, lead you to making the choices you do. It assumes free choice, when that isn't the case. And the inequality of men's and women's choices remain, except of course it's women's own fault because after all they had that choice

Ahh, the problem lies within feminism itself. Does it indeed, Dad ?

And here was me thinking that the problem, in this instance to do with surnames, was that women were viewed as property and that taking a husband's surname was simply used to signal a change of ownership from her father to her husband. Quite why I wouldn't want to put my support to such a tradition is beyond me.

I actually credit women with intelligence so forgive me if I get a little disappointed when we let ourselves down. And we do let ourselves down when we refuse to see that choice doesn't exist in a vacuum. And we let ourselves down when we consider only our own experience as individual women and refuse to recognise the problems that women as a group face.

Feminism asks difficult questions of women as it asks them to analyse and understand their lives from a perspective other than that of the individual. The majority of women who reject feminism do so out of a need to self protect. They know how they will be judged, they know they will require to look critically at their own way of thinking. Society (for want of a better word) does not allow women the freedom to explore without being judged or condemned.

It comes as no surprise to me to find that women consider that feminism is about choice. That's what young women of today are told in the media. They can have it all, it's their choice. And when they don't cope with working, looking after the children, running the house and looking after elderly family, the only comment they get is 'well you wanted equal rights'. Not only do they have that to contend with, but they have the message that they have somehow failed, that feminism has led to this and they've been badly let down by it. I can see why feminism is rejected but it simply isn't true that feminism lets women down. No one points out to these women that the choice was never there for them to make in the first place.

No one was arguing that the choices women make are false ones, simply that they are not feminist ones.

Isn't choice a liberal, rather than feminist concern? Obvs, there are lib fems whose primary feminism is about extending the same choices to women that they perceive men as having, but I think if individual choice is your primary concern then you are a liberal. In one place I worked, describing someone as a liberal was the polite way to call them a twat.

Replace taking husband's surname with 'removal of body hair' and it's the same isn't it? It's not really a choice.

Well, this is really a TAAT and you are misrepresenting what I said.

Duchesse, this was started before I had discussions with you on the other thread. And it was prompted by the other thread but its not about the other thread.

Blistory, if taking your husbands name is not a feminist act what of the reverse? Are women who keep their surname performing a feminist act?

I see western women keeping their original surnames in marriage as a personal choice today, not a feminist act. Feminists took arrows for it in decades past, like the proverb 'pioneers take the arrows and settlers take the land'; back when it was a socio-political principal that needed to be made. My second wave feminist relative was one of that vanguard, and she had to deal with family and social flack for keeping her name. But little is in a name IMO, it did not protect her from a physically abusive marriage that from the outside projected nothing but happiness. I am not going to get particularly worked up about how people interpret choices of names, too much else is more important. If a woman wants to regard taking her husbands name as an empowering feminist decision, and perhaps it is in some special circumstance I cannot imagine, more power to her. In general I do not see such an attitude to a name as a benefit to feminism nor do I see it as a weight against it.

Its probably worth mentioning that within certain ethnic groups keeping your own surname would still be a feminist act (ie has dimensions beyond personal choice for a broader female community) and in some situations to make such a choice; I suspect it would be so dangerous as to cause the woman to be beaten and murdered if she would not comply.

I'm sure it's not deliberate Dad but in both your posts you've told us what is and isn't feminist, what is and isn't an issue for women today. I'm sure you know we don't need you to tell us what our individual and collective life experiences are :)

scallops "Feminism has created choice. It has never been about choice." exactly that.

sparkly I agree that individual choice is a liberal issue rather than necessarily a feminist issue.

I'm pleased to have the opportunity (yet again) to post this:

www.theonion.com/articles/women-now-empowered-by-everything-a-woman-does,1398/

For me choice and agency are the most important social mechanisms for people who already have power and control in and over their lives, through privilege, wealth and/or education. For people who don't have power or privilege, they are hollow goals. Worse still, where people do not have power or privilege, emphasising choice and agency places responsibility on those people for their shitty life outcomes by ignoring structure and oppression and focussing on "it's their choice, they are exercising agency". This is deeply right wing and smacks of Thatcher's "there's no such thing as society" and an "I'm all right Jack" outlook. I cannot get on board with this attitude at all and I perceive it to be fundamentally anti-feminist.

I honestly fail to understand your point Ria, This thread is made up of people questioning and opinioning what is and what is not feminist:

'can choosing to use your husband's surname ever be hailed as a feminist act?'
'women consider that feminism is about choice'
'Isn't choice a liberal, rather than feminist concern'
'The whole 'choice' feminism is a con'
'It's not really a choice.'
'The majority of women who reject feminism do so out of a need to self protect.'
'I wanted to be able to discuss it for the very reason that I wanted to challenge my thinking, not because I think my view is the only one '

Should I not say what I think of parts of feminism and issues of concern? Only you or I can tell each other what our personal life experiences are. You bring up the 'collective life experience' of women yet you know that sections of feminism have often heated disagreements with their stances and observations of feminism, society, sex, etc.

I see western women keeping their original surnames in marriage as a personal choice today, not a feminist act.

You seem to believe the whole western world is as open-minded about surnames as you are. Many (most?) women will tell you it's not. On MN alone there are plenty of threads demonstrating that it's still a contentious subject.

I agree. Choice is a con/hollow goal - as so well articulated already by women on this thread.

It does nothing to address structural institutionalized oppression. It is also very sly in the way that it individualizes class issues.

I only ever see 'choice' used to;

a) justify and or invisibilize oppression and exploitation of women

b) victim blame

c) help a woman deal with cognitive dissonance that she doesn't want to, or cannot deal with, in another way.

And it is very odd when people seem to think that feminists snorting at the concept of 'choice' is us questioning or attacking the agency/intelligence/cluedupness/whatever of individual women.

I think mainly people who say that just want to attack feminism and potentially divide women.

Surely it is obvious to anyone who understands politics that 'agency' is a sliding scale. And that is the case for everyone, not just women.

Agency, like everything else in society, does not exist in a vacuum.

The confusion is that feminism HAS been about choice, but in the sense that scallops has stated.

If a black person votes for the BNP, is that a sound anti-racist choice purely because the person is black and has the freedom to choose? I don't think so.

I see western women keeping their original surnames in marriage as a personal choice today, not a feminist act.

Why does it have to be one or the other?

It can be both. You cannot know the personal circumstances within which each and every women in the west made that decision. We do know the wider political circumstance however - which is that not taking your husband's name is to reject a misogynistic custom. That sounds like a feminist act to me.

This is what we mean in feminism when we say 'the personal is political'. People often think that this means that individual women's choices are being judged as 'political' or not. It doesn't - it means that we recognize that women's individual personal lives always exist within a wider political context of female oppression.

I think the problem is with the way in which the concept of choice has been suborned by neoliberalism, rather than with the concept itself.

Choice is great. I have infinitely more freedom in terms of making life decisions than I would have had 100 or even 50 years ago, and I am grateful for it every day. And we all believe in the 'right to choose' when it comes to abortion.

Working for a society in which women have freedom to make the life decisions that work best for them is surely a key aim of feminism. But for this freedom to have any real meaning we need a society in which men and women are wholly equal, and in which life chances are not decided by class and material advantage. This is, er, not yet the case.