A dominant narrative in Western popular culture suggests that women can have it all. They can climb their way to the peak of their careers while wearing that expensive new matching set and getting their hair and nails done, unless of course, they’d rather stay home — the choice is theirs. Society tells women that they can and should balance career ambition with idealized beauty standards, domesticity and self-care, and there aren’t more barriers to accomplishing this.
As feminism becomes increasingly individualistic and marketized, it risks losing its political edge and inclusivity. Understanding feminism as a movement built on collective liberation is essential to its existence. This understanding, however, is in danger with the spread of “choice feminism”.
Choice feminism is the belief that every decision a woman makes is inherently feminist because she has the freedom to make a choice. However, choice feminism ignores structural barriers and fails to acknowledge that some choices uphold the patriarchy and lead to the marketization of the movement. Instead of upholding choice feminism, feminists should focus on helping women in society as a whole and targeting the systemic oppression that women face. On a global scale, governments should invest in women’s education, protect those affected by conflict and amplify diverse activists’ voices.
The term choice feminism first appeared in Linda Hirshman’s 2006 book “Get To Work: A Manifesto for Women in the World.” Hirshman calls for women to be financially independent and criticizes the very idea that every choice a woman makes is feminist.
Choice feminism goes hand in hand with the rise of neoliberalism, an ideology that prioritizes the individual over the whole. Neoliberalism, built on the logic of a free-market economy and personal responsibility, removes the state from the equation and treats social issues as matters of individual choice, ignoring structural inequalities. This same logic justifies choice feminism; if every woman’s decision is seen as inherently empowering, then inequality becomes a matter of personal failure, rather than a collective struggle.
According to choice feminism, buying certain products, engaging with specific content or adopting a particular lifestyle is equivalent to challenging the patriarchy. Companies use choice feminism to sell empowerment, focusing on consumption rather than political action. Packaging, hashtags and slogans reinforce individual empowerment and celebrate women’s independence as a mere marketing tactic. Whitman women’s studies teacher Linda Leslie believes commercial branding reframes empowerment.
“It’s like green washing, like femme washing,” Leslie said. “I’ll just buy this sticker, or I’ll buy this pair of underwear or buy the feminist bra, or whatever it is. And then you think you’re engaged in a process that you’re actually subverting your own liberation by allowing it to become capitalized.”
Despite its drawbacks, choice feminism is a simpler view of a complex practice: every single decision a woman makes is crucial to dismantling the patriarchy. However, choice feminism overlooks the women who never had choices to begin with. Even when women say they’ve “chosen” to step back from their careers to care for their families, it’s often not a choice for many. Globally, women still work almost twice as much unpaid domestic labor as men, a burden amplified for underprivileged women, who cannot afford to outsource care work.
In addition to its impact on feminism as a whole, choice feminism overlooks its “intersectionality,” a term coined by civil rights activist Kimberlé Crenshaw that describes how multiple forms of oppression interact to shape women’s experiences. Ignoring structural barriers leads to ignoring different axes of oppression. Choice feminism often gives a platform to white, middle-class women in certain areas, but none to the women from other cultures who remain voiceless. Leslie noted how Western feminism overlooks women outside its bubble.
“We’re so comfortable that we are leaving people out habitually and repeatedly,” Leslie said.
A truly inclusive feminist movement demands acknowledgment of these disparities and fights for reform, creating real change for all women.
In online spaces and popular media, influencers and content creators increasingly frame sex work and pornography as expressions of female empowerment, celebrating women who “choose” to participate in them. This dangerous framing falls into the trap that choice feminism promotes: if the choice is fully hers, then whatever a woman chooses will empower her.
This manner of thinking overlooks the patriarchal system that established women’s bodies as the norm for sex work. A woman choosing sex work may be a manifestation of society’s historical fetishization of the female body. For many women, this choice exists with severe limitations. Society has taught some women that their worth lies primarily in their sexual appeal and view no real professional alternative to sex work. Economic hardship, a lack of social mobility and restricted access to education or stable employment also push women into sex work as a last resort. A study by the Universitat Oberta de Catalunya found that 94% of sex workers see their job as their only way of survival. Understanding empowerment requires examining context and structures rather than celebrating isolated decisions.
Supporters of choice feminism point to the judgment and exclusivity that can be found in other forms of the movement. They argue that respecting individual authority is essential to keeping feminism compassionate, focused and adaptable.
However, individuality cannot be the focal point of the women’s rights movement. A feminist movement that strives for personal success by reforming existing systems, rather than promoting individual choices without question, would benefit all women and preserve empowerment.
To effect this shift, feminist movements should focus on organized action, political mobilization, education, advocacy for fair labor and international solidarity. Leaders should look towards the global international women’s strikes that mobilized women across dozens of countries to challenge labor inequalities as inspiration. Feminists should partner with organizations such as the Malala Fund, which expands access to education and labor unions like the International Domestic Workers Federation, which promotes labor rights for the predominantly female field of domestic work.
Choice feminism shouldn’t be the foundation of modern feminism. Collective efforts must enact change by addressing systemic issues while also uplifting the individual. This movement can only succeed when fights for change occur outside of everyday life — feminism isn’t meant to be convenient. Real change will come when feminism loses its individualism and comfort to reshape structures, uplifting all women.
***
Marta Marques is a grade 11 student at Walt Whitman High School in Bethesda, Maryland, USA
The article was first published in The Black & White, the independent student-run newspaper of Walt Whitman High School in Bethesda, Maryland, USA