Feminism: Self-Undermining?

Does Feminism Come Close To Undermining Itself?

Preface -

---

To be clear, I have minimal qualms with both classical and contemporary feminist theory/talking points. While I think that any ideology or position that is taken to its extremities/is overly-radicalized is mistaken, I take no issue with the vast majority of the moderate, yet, seemingly controversial points being raised in contemporary feminist discussion.

Nonetheless, there seems to be a point that is often made yet, is glossed over as a triviality when considering practical consequences of feminism and the moral duty that beneficiaries of feminism, allegedly, bear a responsibility to fulfill. Here, I hope to clarify the issue and bring some attention to it.

---

Choices, Choices, Choices -

---

The progress of feminism is most commonly attributed the credit of having given women choices. This is, in my view, largely correct. Of course this is not all feminism has done, but it is its most observable accomplishment. So then, to participate in having a choice, as a women, is to benefit from feminism in some manner. Such that, should a woman have the choice between something like:

1. Being a Stay At Home Mom (henceforth referred to as SAHM)

or

2. Being a working woman in her field of choice and climbing the corporate ladder

then, she would be benefiting from feminism in either position. Should she be in position one as a SAHM, the fact that she was able, both in practice and in principle, to have done otherwise rather than having no choice but to have been in position 1, is a radically different scenario than it would have been prior to the rise of feminism.

This is an example of how one can choose to be in a traditional setting/role, yet remain a beneficiary of feminism nonetheless. It’s also worth noting, that the choice of being in this traditional role does not undermine the enterprise of feminism, it is a necessary outcome of its whole goal. So then, the fact that there is a choice to be made by a woman is a benefit of feminism, even if the choice is made to adhere to a more traditional standard/role/lifestyle. The very act of a woman making choice can be seen as, albeit quite minimally, an endorsement of at least one of the goals of feminism.

---

A Social Paradox -

---

If making a choice to stay in a more traditional role is, itself, a minimal endorsement of one of the goals of feminism, it seems like we ought to be able to apply this principle more broadly. That is, it seems like we should be able to say:

“In any given scenario in which a woman has a choice to fulfill an alternative to what would have previously been necessitated, this ought to be taken as, at least, an endorsement of the feminist goal to give women a choice, unless explicitly opposed.”

But then comes this problem of determining both the practical consequences of feminism as well as what moral duties the beneficiaries of feminism bear. We see this problem a lot, and yet, it never seems to go anywhere because we just sort of gloss over it for some reason.

Can you benefit from feminism and be against feminism as an enterprise?

Of course, you can, in that, you are capable of doing so. But can you meaningfully be against feminism while benefitting from it? There are two positions, or, at least, two important ones, that we can consider here. One is a scenario in which a woman has chosen to fulfill the alternative position to whatever the relevant traditional one is yet finds themselves opposing feminism. The other is one where a woman fulfills, by choice nonetheless, the relevant traditional position and also finds themselves opposing feminism and its endeavor.

These are meaningfully different, even if the answer to the core question is the same. One could, in fact, raise the point that perhaps the mere fact that, in principle and practice, the traditional woman could do otherwise is not enough to warrant describing this as a “choice.” I would be suspicious of this though, given that this doesn’t seem to be how we treat other very similar concepts.

Consider the color of the room you’re sitting in. We would, typically, describe this as a contingent feature of the world. It could’ve have failed to be the color that it is. There is nothing about its nature that demands it be the color that it is. We would call this contingent because, in principle and in practice, it could have been another color. The mere fact that it is the color that it is, is not evidence to the contrary of it being a choice.

What about the nature of being a woman demands or necessitates that she fill this traditional role? There are a couple of directions you could go here, the one I predict I will hear the most is this sort of “feminine energy” or “gendered energy”, but even if I grant the existence of these it still fails. Obviously, adhering to those is not necessitated by their existence given that women can still, apparently, not be in touch with their feminine energy.

So then, I think we could reasonably call this a “choice.” The only way I could see it not being a choice is if the woman in this scenario was forced into that role. Now that we have established that this is, generally speaking, a choice, we can dive into whether or not either position is coherent.

---

To Be, Or Not To Be… -

---

So, here’s the big question again:

“Does it undermine feminism to not be a feminist?”

As a more interesting question, does this make feminism somewhat self-undermining? If it purports to hand women a choice that, itself, could undermine feminism’s enterprise, is that not an example of being self-undermining? Moreover, is it even a coherent position to not be a feminist while living in a place which benefits from feminism? There is a strong disconnect with this sort of thing from other political positions. One can coherently be strongly communist whilst living in a capitalist society.

Participating in a capitalistic society by virtue of the fact that you were born there does not indicate any sort of endorsement of Capitalism. You do not choose the economic structure you were born into. Similarly, one might say you do not choose the sociological and political environment you were born into, but nonetheless the communist can claim they do not benefit from capitalism, whilst the non-feminist has a much higher burden to claim that.

As we established already, it is a choice to adhere to traditional notions of ones role and behavior. To participate in that choice is already to benefit from feminism, as feminism was the mechanism by which the choice to do so was made available, rather than it being the default. If you’re confused about where the tension is here, I can try to lay it out clearly.

The issue is, at base, normative reciprocity. Feminism makes a basic claim:

“Women ought to have the right to choose.”

If a woman uses that freedom/choice to reject feminism, then:

1. Feminism must either respect that rejection, and thus tolerate anti-feminism

or

2. Feminism must say rejecting feminism is wrong, which limits the ability to choose that it promotes

My position is that, it is not self-undermining in a logical sense, however its quite politically risky. This is rather similar to liberalisms paradox of tolerance, in that a system that tolerates everything may tolerate forces that destroy tolerance.

---

Why Feminism Is Not Self-Undermining -

---

There is a way to resolve this tension and likely one that is broadly acceptable on contemporary feminism. If you were to ask the everyday feminist what the goal of feminism is, you are unlikely to hear anything like: “make all women feminists”. Rather, you are more likely to hear something like:

“Remove structural constraints on women’s autonomy.”

Once autonomy is secured, what people do with it is morally up to them. In this case, a woman using their choice/freedom to reject feminism is not an indication that feminism is self-undermining, but rather that feminism has achieved its structural goal. Therefore, unless feminism includes the stronger normative claim that:

“All women ought to be feminists.”

If, in fact, that premise is built in with whatever formal system of feminism you intend to argue for, then yes there is a tension. Outside of that however, the tension is trivial if not resolvable.

---

Conclusion -

---

All in all, while someone might be able to take this as far to say that any liberal system that places autonomy at the center is going to be politically unstable, as it risks empowering dissenters. But that does not result in any liberal system, such as feminism, being self-undermining.