There is no one definition of feminism; most feminists have, very loosely, the same goals, but some definitions are better than others. Some define it as equality between all genders (quite vague, but sure), liberation from oppression, among others. Once in particular is very common in mainstream discourse, and that is for women to be able to choose whatever they want from among various choices. Defining feminism as women having access to more choices, without going into what that entails, has serious implications that are far less feminist than they initially appear. Feminism defined as women being able to choose whatever they want is nice. I say “nice” because it sounds great—what isn’t awesome about women having more options considering how limited choices have been in the past? To some extent, it is a good thing. But what often gets overlooked with what is referred to as choice feminism is its deeply individualistic nature. What is a feminist glass-ceiling shattering victory for one woman can, in many cases, hurt many more women as a result.There is no one definition of feminism; most feminists have, very loosely, the same goals, but some definitions are better than others. Some define it as equality between all genders (quite vague, but sure), liberation from oppression, among others. Once in particular is very common in mainstream discourse, and that is for women to be able to choose whatever they want from among various choices. Defining feminism as women having access to more choices, without going into what that entails, has serious implications that are far less feminist than they initially appear.
This is especially evident when we look at reactions to women going into office (there will potentially be 100 women in the United States Congress as of the midterm elections), or women gaining high-power positions in major companies. And it’s wonderful that some women—the most privileged ones, namely—have these options now. But ultimately, I am far more concerned with the quality of a woman’s choice than with the fact that a woman is making that choice.
Clickhole—a satirical website affiliated with The Onion—posted a particularly cogent article entitled “7 Female CEOs Who Inspire Us All To Be Cogs In The Capitalist Machine.” The title says it all. One point reads: “PepsiCo CEO Indra Nooyi is living proof of the fact that when we are complicit in an economic system that rewards the wealthy and further impoverishes the poor, there’s no limit to what we can accomplish!”
While it is, of course, satirical, the article makes some serious commentary. A woman being in power is great, but from a feminist perspective, it really isn’t very great if, as a result of their actions, women are being overworked in sweatshops, or forced into poverty.
Case-in-point: a feminist t-shirt—sported by Emma Watson in Elle UK magazine—was recently discovered to have been made in a sweatshop where female workers suffer formidable conditions and measly pay. One worker said, “How can this T-shirt be a symbol of feminism when we do not see ourselves as feminists? We see ourselves as trapped.” Evidently, the mainstream movement is limited in who gets represented.
The individual successes that we celebrate as feminist victories often yield not-so-feminist effects. The marginalized women in the sweatshops, being struck by drones in the Middle East (see: U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton) or being denied a living wage are an afterthought. These liberal feminist “victories” largely belong to the most privileged women in our society, which is often the case with any civil rights struggle.
The response from those who are unsympathetic to feminism often involves the utterly unpredictable, “It could be worse—look at x and y country!” In addition to being fallacious (it doesn’t make this situation any better), it isn’t as if these opponents actually care about those women so much as they care about refuting feminists, period.
My intention is not to say that it is a bad thing for women to have more choices—this would be completely misconstruing my position. My intention is that, as women gain more choices, we should celebrate these victories while also being critical of whether the outcome is good for women or if it’s just good for a woman.