Choice

I am unpopular in some feminist circles, because I make no secret of my questioning a woman’s ‘right to choose’.  I do not think that right is paramount, because I think sometimes people choose poorly.  I also think that ‘choice’ is not necessarily informed, and a bad choice is worse than no choice.

You can imagine how this opinion flies in feminist circles.  It doesn’t.  It’s a bit of a lead balloon.

Take this article about gender selection, for example. Technology has allowed people to see the gender of their unborn child early on. So early, that an abortion is no problem if you don’t like what you see.

In some countries, it would appear that the ratio of girls to boys is now 800-1000. This is choice gone mad. When you give the ‘average’ woman in these countries a choice, of course she will CHOOSE to have a boy, because having a girl means paying the dowry where having a boy means receiving it. Having a boy is socially and financially preferable, so of course it’s the better choice. It would be like choosing between a life where you do very little and earn $100,000/yr or one where you wash everyone else’s laundry and cook and clean and perform thankless chores for $6000 a year. What the hell kind of choice is that?

Some would argue that these countries need to get out of the dark ages and feminists have to work a lot harder at ensuring basic human rights for women everywhere. Fair enough, but we can’t even get pay equity or some women’s rights in our own countries, let alone make the world a better place.

I still cringe when I hear the term “domestic violence”. Why should it matter if it’s domestic or not? Why is violence not violence? “Spousal assault” is a term that I will never understand. Why do you have to qualify it? It’s as outdated as “lady doctor” or “male nurse”. The adjective is unnecessary. It doesn’t matter what gender your nurse is. It doesn’t matter who assaulted you.

So long as we have such harsh gender divides in our our backyard, we can’t expect the world to suddenly value women and men equally.

Another ‘choice’ that I find perturbing is the ‘choice’ to be a Stay-At-Home-Mom. bell hooks would argue this is a VERY white, middle class concept, and I would agree. Very few people in the world can choose this life — it’s only for the richest women in the richest countries with a spouse (likely male) whom they can financially depend on. Choosing to be a SAHM is kind of like choosing housewifery. In years gone by, when one income sufficed for basic living expenses and women were discouraged for being financially independent, it was the norm. In our current era where that is no longer socially acceptable, SAHMhood is the socially acceptable way to staying out of the paid workforce.

It’s marketed in such a way as to be the ‘choice’ of a loving mother who wants what is best for her child. If you disagree with the concept, you are pooh-poohed in the SAHM-eco-mom feminist circles who think that their right to choose to stay home should trump the idea that it’s a whitebread, rich ‘choice’ in the first place, and doesn’t do anything for women who don’t have that ‘choice’.

And to take it a step further… I offer you a personal example: My own ex-boyfriend’s ex-wife was so hellbent on being a SAHM (claiming it was her choice, when in actuality, she’d never worked in the paid workforce, couldn’t conceptualize it, and didn’t want to), she chose the path of welfare mom over working mom. I remember at the time doing the math and shaking my head. She was currently ‘entitled’ to $1100 a month from the welfare system, as the mother of three kids. Her ex-husband paid her $800 a month in child support, and welfare made up the difference, cutting her a cheque for $300. The father was spending about one third of his pay on child support, effectively forcing him to live in poverty. The mother chose not to work, choosing instead to live on $1100 a month, choosing to put herself and all the children in a life of poverty. Had she chosen to work even a minimum wage job at the time (the kids were all in school, and daycare would have been minimal), she could have brought home $1200 of her own, plus $800 in support and at least bumped the whole family up into a higher tax bracket.

But she chose not to.

Her choice not to work directly impacted five lives, all of whom were living in poverty as a result of her choice.

Of course, the social reprecussions of being a welfare-mom-my choice/SAHM-by-choice were daunting as well — alcoholism, smoking, working illegally under the table to make extra money for smokes and booze… a downward spiral for all involved. And the resentment of the father, who, if he chose to work extra to pull himself out of poverty, would pay a larger percentage of his income as child support, and still only have the exwife and kids capped at $1100, with welfare paying a smaller portion of that total.

I don’t understand how ‘choice’ is always considered to be the best option.