Question Protected by Community
    Tweeted twitter.com/StackPhilosophy/status/852982847736610816
3 added 2 characters in body
source | link

Choice feminism see (see here, here, and here) includes the idea that women can occupy traditional roles (housewife, stay at home mom, etc...) and still be regarded as feminists, as long as it's their own choice to do so and they aren't being forced into such a role by their husbands or by the society around them.

But if women represent an oppressed category, isn't this notion contradictory? Nobody would have argued for "choice anti-slavery", where it would have been OK for African Americans to remain indentured servants to their owners, as long as it was their choice to do so.

If even after passing emancipation laws, some African Americans still chose to remain indentured servants, progressives would have questioned their judgement and tried to change their mind, and their owners would have been condemned for accepting such an arrangement.

So insofar as traditional female roles are oppressive to women, why is it still acceptable for women to take on these roles?

How do feminist philosophers justify choice feminism? Or is it an oxymoron?

Choice feminism see here, here, and here includes the idea that women can occupy traditional roles (housewife, stay at home mom, etc...) and still be regarded as feminists, as long as it's their own choice to do so and they aren't being forced into such a role by their husbands or by the society around them.

But if women represent an oppressed category, isn't this notion contradictory? Nobody would have argued for "choice anti-slavery", where it would have been OK for African Americans to remain indentured servants to their owners, as long as it was their choice to do so.

If even after passing emancipation laws, some African Americans still chose to remain indentured servants, progressives would have questioned their judgement and tried to change their mind, and their owners would have been condemned for accepting such an arrangement.

So insofar as traditional female roles are oppressive to women, why is it still acceptable for women to take on these roles?

How do feminist philosophers justify choice feminism? Or is it an oxymoron?

Choice feminism (see here, here, and here) includes the idea that women can occupy traditional roles (housewife, stay at home mom, etc...) and still be regarded as feminists, as long as it's their own choice to do so and they aren't being forced into such a role by their husbands or by the society around them.

But if women represent an oppressed category, isn't this notion contradictory? Nobody would have argued for "choice anti-slavery", where it would have been OK for African Americans to remain indentured servants to their owners, as long as it was their choice to do so.

If even after passing emancipation laws, some African Americans still chose to remain indentured servants, progressives would have questioned their judgement and tried to change their mind, and their owners would have been condemned for accepting such an arrangement.

So insofar as traditional female roles are oppressive to women, why is it still acceptable for women to take on these roles?

How do feminist philosophers justify choice feminism? Or is it an oxymoron?

2 added 197 characters in body
source | link

Choice feminism issee here, here, and here includes the idea that women can occupy traditional roles (housewife, stay at home mom, etc...) and still be regarded as feminists, as long as it's their own choice to do so and they aren't being forced into such a role by their husbands or by the society around them.

But if women represent an oppressed category, isn't this notion contradictory? Nobody would have argued for "choice anti-slavery", where it would have been OK for African Americans to remain indentured servants to their owners, as long as it was their choice to do so.

If even after passing emancipation laws, some African Americans still chose to remain indentured servants, progressives would have questioned their judgement and tried to change their mind, and their owners would have been condemned for accepting such an arrangement.

So insofar as traditional female roles are oppressive to women, why is it still acceptable for women to take on these roles?

How do feminist philosophers justify choice feminism? Or is it an oxymoron?

Choice feminism is the idea that women can occupy traditional roles (housewife, stay at home mom, etc...) and still be regarded as feminists, as long as it's their own choice to do so and they aren't being forced into such a role by their husbands or by the society around them.

But if women represent an oppressed category, isn't this notion contradictory? Nobody would have argued for "choice anti-slavery", where it would have been OK for African Americans to remain indentured servants to their owners, as long as it was their choice to do so.

If even after passing emancipation laws, some African Americans still chose to remain indentured servants, progressives would have questioned their judgement and tried to change their mind, and their owners would have been condemned for accepting such an arrangement.

So insofar as traditional female roles are oppressive to women, why is it still acceptable for women to take on these roles?

How do feminist philosophers justify choice feminism? Or is it an oxymoron?

Choice feminism see here, here, and here includes the idea that women can occupy traditional roles (housewife, stay at home mom, etc...) and still be regarded as feminists, as long as it's their own choice to do so and they aren't being forced into such a role by their husbands or by the society around them.

But if women represent an oppressed category, isn't this notion contradictory? Nobody would have argued for "choice anti-slavery", where it would have been OK for African Americans to remain indentured servants to their owners, as long as it was their choice to do so.

If even after passing emancipation laws, some African Americans still chose to remain indentured servants, progressives would have questioned their judgement and tried to change their mind, and their owners would have been condemned for accepting such an arrangement.

So insofar as traditional female roles are oppressive to women, why is it still acceptable for women to take on these roles?

How do feminist philosophers justify choice feminism? Or is it an oxymoron?

1
source | link

How do feminist thinkers justify choice feminism?

Choice feminism is the idea that women can occupy traditional roles (housewife, stay at home mom, etc...) and still be regarded as feminists, as long as it's their own choice to do so and they aren't being forced into such a role by their husbands or by the society around them.

But if women represent an oppressed category, isn't this notion contradictory? Nobody would have argued for "choice anti-slavery", where it would have been OK for African Americans to remain indentured servants to their owners, as long as it was their choice to do so.

If even after passing emancipation laws, some African Americans still chose to remain indentured servants, progressives would have questioned their judgement and tried to change their mind, and their owners would have been condemned for accepting such an arrangement.

So insofar as traditional female roles are oppressive to women, why is it still acceptable for women to take on these roles?

How do feminist philosophers justify choice feminism? Or is it an oxymoron?