Once more, with feeling.
Okay, folks. It's been a long damn time since I've written any kind of rant/polemic on this here LJ-- particularly in response to an online conflict-- but at this point, I feel compelled to speak up. "I won't be silent anymore" is a bit of a cliché, but in this case, it's kinda true
( Read more... )
I think, as has happened before with you and me, that our viewpoints are fairly close, and the vocabulary we employ to describe them is, due to our specific experiences, different.
I would call what you describe in your comment, not "feminist critique," but "prescriptive criticism," which is a subset (chronologically, one of the earliest forms) of feminist critique, and I would agree with you that it's not very useful. I think prescriptive criticism, in its desire to outline a simple liberatory/oppressive binary, actually ends up doing more damage, because it effect is to suppress and curtail women's (and other sexual/gender minorities') actions, rather than giving them an empowering means to decide for themselves whether something is liberating or not.
So while I'm not necessarily in favor of the "but I chose it" argument, I do believe in individuals' ability to think critically, and in feminism as a meaningful (but not necessarily prescriptive, and certainly not monolithic) system of critical thought. I'm critical of "but I chose it," but I'm much more willing to listen to "I've given some amount of consideration to my tastes and their connection to greater societal forces, and having considered them, I still stand by my desires." I recognize that when people think critically, they do not necessarily come to the same conclusions I do; and I consider feminism to be a way (or, really, several related ways) of organizing one's thoughts and actions, rather than a simple set of prescriptions.
I would hope most (well, all) feminist critique, as I call it here, is more nuanced than a simple question of "is it liberatory or oppressive", and I hope (at least, I tried) I succeeded in modeling some of that here.
Reply
And I get that, but I think that all too often "but I chose it" is taken to mean the exact same thing when it comes from someone saying "Y'know, fuck examination, I've spent the last five years worrying about what 'feminism' says I should do, and now I don't care any more -- my body, my mind, my choice" as when it comes from someone saying "I was raised to submit to men."
And I'd rather err on the side of assuming Ms. I Was Raised is being more thoughtful than she is than err on the side of assuming that the "dammit I chose it!" feminist is foolish.
Besides which, I *still* want someone to explain to me why "I chose it and that's that!" is totally feministily acceptable ONLY SO LONG AS what's chosen is "my abortion."
I have NEVER understood why women are assumed by default to be making thoughtful choices in that area but no other.
Reply
First, that we don't live in a cultural vacuum, so what we "choose" is very much informed, even curtailed by our social positioning. This has nothing, or nothing much, to do with "wisdom", in my opinion; it is simply an acknowledgment that some people are more privileged in their "choice"-making than others.
For example, when I protested the "Anti-Feminist Bake Sale" on my school campus, the "anti-feminists" proclaimed that they were protesting feminism because feminists didn't want women to choose to opt out of the public workplace and stay at home. Certain of the "feminists" responded that, no, feminism is about choices, and women should be able to choose to stay at home if they wanted to.
Of course, the problem with framing the debate in these terms is that making domestic work vs. paid work (a problematic binary in and of itself) a matter of choice, ignores the fact that many women do not have the option of choosing in the first place. Does this make the women who can, and do, choose to be homemakers non-feminist? Of course not. But I am wary of the "but I chose it" argument here, because it narrows the terms of discussion, and marginalizes a whole number of people for whom, in this context, "choice" is not meaningful.
Another position I take, regarding the critique of "choice feminism," is that what I choose, while potentially liberating for me, may in fact oppress others. I'm reminded of a post on Mimi Nguyen's blog, years ago, in which she talked about buying sex toys at a feminist sex store. I can no longer remember the exact terms of her discussion, but the gist was this: If I buy, say, a vibrator from a feminist sex store, and the vibrator is made in China, and it's mass-manufactured by a woman who is paid sweatshop wages for her labor, is buying (and orgasming from) such a toy still a feminist act? I may have supported a local feminist business, and I may have taken my sexual pleasure into my own hands (so to speak), but my sexual pleasure is still, in some way, contingent on the economic oppression of someone else.
Again, this is not to say that we should issue Notices of Eviction from the Feminist Society to everyone who's ever bought a sex toy of dubious labor origins (I would certainly be banned from the sisterhood on this basis), or that everyone who's ever orgasmed from such a toy is an Evil OppressorTM. But I do think it points to the need to expand feminist discussion and praxis beyond the simple terms of choice.
I think, for me, a critique of "choice" in the context of feminism is above all another (still, unfortunately, necessary) way of pointing out the importance of intersectionality to feminist debate and activism. And my call for attention to intersectionality does extend to abortion, too (and here I'm particularly thinking of Dorothy Roberts' Killing the Black Body, and other feminists of color who have called attention to the racist dimensions of framing the abortion debate solely in terms of choice).
Reply
This is of course true, but I think to some degree it misses the point. As I understand what "but I chose it" means, "but I chose it" is a *response* to a claim posed by someone else. That claim looks something like "When you do that, you do it only because you are either ignorant, or have false consciousness." The response is a protestation that the chooser deserves to be treated as someone who possesses some relevant level of autonomy, and is not being so treated. It's not any kind of claim about who gets to be a chooser -- it's a claim that conceiving of women, as a whole, as non-choosers because of false consciousness disrespects the agency they *already* have.
Another position I take, regarding the critique of "choice feminism," is that what I choose, while potentially liberating for me, may in fact oppress others.
Semantical nitpick: I don't think (please do correct me if I'm wrong here) that you mean "oppress others" so much as you mean "involve complicity in the oppression of others." I think it takes a lot for one person to oppress another -- if it's even possible at all.
But the issue you raise here is that of complicity: what blame, if any, trickles down to you when you knowingly buy a sex toy that you have reason to suspect is connected to unjust labor practices in, say, China? What responsibility do you have to act or not act?
And the thing about the issue of complicity is that there are two easy answers. One, as you point out, is "Fuck it, complicity doesn't matter -- I didn't create the situation, and I want a vibe."
The other is "Complicity is badnevil, and therefore one should never participate in this thing tainted by complicity."
And to me, the "but I chose it" thing is a response to 2. "Look, the greater good is not my responsibility." And the thing is that I strongly agree with that -- I think that when what we do is centered around the greater good in an unthinking way, we do just as much if not more harm than when we forget there is a greater good.
And it's this -- the changing that greater-good focus -- that I like about what gets sneered at as "choice feminism." We can only really act for specific consequences. And this doesn't trouble me at all, because those specific consequences can be things that help women out of bad situations.
"I benefit from others' oppression" is true, but it's not really anything we can ever stop doing, unless we want to be survivalists. (And even if we do, privilege still has its part in our being able to try that as a flashy political move rather than necessity.)
And yes, you're right to point out the reframings of the abortion debate as well -- things I'm glad to see. I just find it an interesting example of hypocrisy that so many see a certain value in autonomy wrt repro rights, but not wrt anything else.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
SHUT UP ABOUT YOUR GENDER EUPHORIA
IRONY, HYPERBOLE, AND PUNS ARE INHERENTLY OPPRESSIVE
Seriously, though. I think you've actually said what I wanted to say, better than I've said it. I think one of the biggest problems I have with so-called "choice feminism" is its resemblance to mainstream capitalist discourse which equates consumerist "choice" with empowerment, while conveniently bypassing the limiting and even oppressive context within which those "choices" (and, indeed, that definition of choice) takes place.
Also: yay for BDSM on a budget. Or Punk Rawk DIY BDSM. Or something.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Maybe you can change your name to "punsareoppressive," and when they clear out the old name, I can change my journal name to "gender_euphoric." THEN WE CAN CONFUSE AND OPPRESS EVERYBODY.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
I feel your pain. I don't want my LJ name anymore, but I also don't want to give this damned website any more money.
Reply
Leave a comment