Radical Choices and Myopia in Politics

By Hirsute2008 (Own work) [GFDL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html), CC BY-SA 4.0-3.0-2.5-2.0-1.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0-3.0-2.5-2.0-1.0), GFDL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html) or CC BY-SA 4.0-3.0-2.5-2.0-1.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0-3.0-2.5-2.0-1.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

Our society's attitude to body hair is really weird. It was really difficult to find a image of a woman's body hair that wasn't politicised, sexualised or an object of mockery.

Body hair is hot topic in both choice and radical feminism, where regular women who need an income are often caught in the middle between the irritating and unfair amount of money and time they are expected to spend on grooming for work, and unworldly rad fems who work in academia, or for non profits, and think intact body hair is the only correct or laudable choice. The latter seem to lack the ability to see that if you work in the non academic private sector, or in the retail / service industry, refusing to remove your body hair could actually cost you your job. It might be couched in terms of 'appropriate grooming' or 'dress code' or veiled feedback. But the pushback and consequences are real. And if the 'choice' is between employment or body hair, most women will shave their damn legs. 

Fair? No. But even less fair is the inability of supposedly clued up and intelligent women to recognise that the idea of choice can be a laughable concept in a world with a historical and current atmosphere of oppression.

The Problem With Radical Feminism

TDLR? Radical feminists decry the evils of choice feminism while making the same mistakes.

For example; one patronising and irritating rad fem article "It allows them to earn the benefits society gives women who don’t challenge male supremacy while comforting themselves with the idea that their behavior... is feminist." It doesn't explore or recognise the very real costs of challenging male supremacy, or why a woman might not want to fight every single battle she encounters. It fails to even examine situations where the choice is simply not there. In my experience, when I have engaged in even mild pushback on 'male supremacy' there have been real, unpleasant, and sometimes dangerous consequences. 

Sometimes it's been worth it. Sometimes it was pointless. Sometimes it would have been better - for me - if I had I kept my head down and my mouth shut.

Every single radical feminist I have met has been white, immensely privileged and has criticised other women for working and participating in 'patriarchal structures'. They can inexplicably manage to work part time or not at all, which is usually the result of inherited wealth, government assistance or financial dependence on another person. Consequently, they have more freedom, time, energy and disposable income than most women who work for wages.

The Twin Pincers of Radical Feminism and Patriarchy

I grew up in a patriarchal, religious household and I work in a male dominated field. As a result, I hate being told what to do, or how to act. I hate conformity of all stripes, and hate the idea that there is one 'right' way of doing things. I hate people telling me what to do with my body, whether it's a teacher telling me to dress more modestly or a peer telling me to dress more sexily or a rad fem telling me that the makeup that sometimes makes me feel good - and that I have to wear to (in reality) keep my job makes me anti-feminist. I hate when people tell me how women should be. 

As a result, I can see why women are drawn to the seeming warmth and comfort of 'choice feminism'. Because guess what - if you are a rad fem, you aren't helping. You aren't going to provide me with an alternative skill set or job so I can pay my bills. You aren't doing anything practical to replace patriarchal structures. You apparently don't have to work for a living, or else you work in jobs where you can say or do or wear anything you like and think it's the same for everyone else. 

Radical feminism is no better, or even very different, from patriarchy or kyriarchy or organised religion or any other group attempting to impose their arbitrary and wearying views on me. You are nothing more than yet another person telling me how to live my life and patronisingly informing me why I'm not measuring up.
While choice feminism argues that every choice is feminist (not true), radical feminism fails to acknowledge that not all choices are possible.

And that's not good enough.

Choice and the Sex Trade

To me, choice feminism is a fucking curse.

It ignores societal limitations on women's freedoms and elevates choices that are not even remotely feminist to a virtuous level - simply because they are being made by someone who identifies as female. Sexual choices are a particularly controversial part of the mix.
For example, a female choosing to cosplay as a Gorean sex slave is a choice. It is not one I feel any obligation to approve of or respect. The Gor books were written by a man called John Norman who explicitly stated that he feels female submission is the 'natural order of things'. His works decry consent as unnecessary and unnatural. His works are so egregiously offensive that fellow fantasy author Michael Moorcock has said, "I’m not for censorship but I am for strategies which marginalize stuff that works to objectify women and suggests women enjoy being beaten."

This is distinct from BDSM as a lifestyle, as BDSM is consensual, and also features male slaves and female dominants. It is also distinct from a woman who 'chooses' to be in the sex trade. It's a choice where a female is endorsing and participating in a subjugation that is still very real problem for many women across the world - as a hobby. 

Choice and the Sex Trade

Rachel Moran

Brooke Magnanti (better known as Belle du Jour) chose to be a £300 an hour prostitute in London, in order to help fund her doctoral studies. In Rupert Everett's documentary, 'Love for Sale', both she and Everett belittled dismissed a woman called Rachel Moran, who had been forced into prostitution as a child - because Moran had inconveniently pointed out that not all sex work was empowering and glitzy.

It could successfully be argued that both women should have had the choice of another (better?) source of income, and that Magnanti had choices the other woman did not. 

Magnanti is intelligent, accomplished and in some ways very admirable. She also lacks empathy, is solipsistic, and like many of the 3rd wave feminists she hates, doesn't understand the intricacies of choice and agency. 

For example, she maintains that if your job doesn't give you enough maternity leave, you can choose to find another job. Something that would work as a philosophy if it were a problem with one or two employers and not an endemic issue. And is probably an option for her, as she's a highly educated research scientist and published author who has won numerous awards. 
The failure to recognise that other people have different or fewer choices than you do is immensely damaging.

Intro

This is a place for me to vent, so I don't irritate other humans more than I have to.