Choice feminism is the belief that the individual choices of women are inherently feministic. Choice feminism emphasizes a woman's right to choose.

Many feminists have spoken up against "choice feminism" as they believe it to be problematic.

A lot of the very dedicated and devoted feminists who care so much about the wellbeing of women in general, take their dedication to female liberation a step further, by attacking women whose choices they feel aren't "feminist enough".

This, of course, includes women who say they want to be stay at home moms, women who say they would place family over getting a career, women who prioritize modesty, amongst others.

These chairwomen for female liberation will say that they attack women like the ones I have described above because:

"I have women's best interests at heart. I know what is best for them. Their choices won't help them or help feminism in the long run."

Bear in mind that the very women who attack other women's choices for these reasons, would cheer when a liberal woman practices and propagates a lifestyle that is actually harmful to women in general.

An instance would be the way Saidaboj's preachings were received by feminists online. Saidaboj says and does things that actively feed the problem of female objectification. The belief that a woman's worth is tied to the price tag she places on her body, amongst other flawed beliefs, uphold both patriarchal standards and worsen very crucial problems like female objectification.

A lot of feminists cheered her on when she said these things. That faux concern for the wellbeing of women was not present then. Or did they forget the implications of spreading beliefs like that?

When I said something along these lines in an argument, I was told to do more research on the topic of feminism. Apparently there were types of feminism and choice feminism was one of them.

I obliged. I did more research with Google, of course, because you would not catch me dead using TikTok or X as a reference point in this kind of argument.

Here is what I found.

The most simple definition of feminism is equality between the sexes. Feminism strives to ensure that women are given the same opportunities to thrive as men.

The feminism movement can be divided into 4 types and it has gone through 3 waves.

The first wave of feminism was defined by women's suffrage and the right to vote.

The second wave of feminism was defined by women's freedom and sexual liberation.

The third wave was defined by diversity and intersectionality of identity.

Each of the different types of feminism (radical, marxist, cultural and liberal) can be linked to one of the three waves of feminism I mentioned earlier. Radical feminism is linked to the second wave of feminism and it focused mostly on overthrowing patriarchal structures. I don't want to make this longer than necessary, so I won't go into more detail. I'm only trying to provide some context.

Women did not have certain rights in the past. In the past, due to patriarchal standards, men and women were forced to live a certain way. A man's job was to work and provide for his family. A woman's job was to care for said family. Women could not work. Women could not aspire to be more than just housewives. There were women who were not happy with this and decided that they wanted to be able to have a say in what paths they chose to take in life. The choice to be a housewife or career woman, a mother or child free woman, should remain solely theirs. It should not be preprogrammed for them. That was the entire point.

Feminists wanted women to be able to work, vote, own property, decide whether or not marriage was in their plans, and so on.

Notice how I have not said that they wanted women to "have to" work, vote, own property and fuck marriage?

There was always an avenue for these women to choose.

Their problem was that this choice of how to live was not there from the onset.

Now, if you can remember the definition of choice feminism I mentioned earlier, you will notice that there are a lot of problems with that definition and with the idea of "choice feminism" as a whole.

Choice feminism is not a thing. The term itself is meaningless tautology. Feminism has always been about allowing women to choose how they want to live their lives.

"Choice feminism" is a term used by women who want an excuse to tear down another woman for their choices.

Women like the ones I have just described are very diabolical even though they claim to be doing these things in the best interests of women in general.

Why am I saying this?

"No woman should be authorized to stay at home to raise her children. Women should not have that choice, because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one."

This statement was made by a woman named Simone De Beauvoi. Lovely woman. May her soul rest in peace.

I would also like to add another quote by a rather dull and uninspiring feminist I had the misfortune of interacting with once. She said, and I quote, "To hell with your choice".

Do these statements sound like the kind of statements you would expect to hear from someone who portrays themselves as the guardian of female liberation?

No.

Do these statements sound very similar to the statements misogynists make about women who decide to do away with patriarchal standards?

Yes.

There is a point to all of this; a point I have been driving at, slowly, since I started writing this.

There is a link between people who have a savior complex and people who are tyrants.

Feminists who show their devotion to female liberation by attacking women whose choices do not sit well with them, are dealing with a savior complex.

A person with a savior complex is likely to say things like "I'm doing what is best for them.".

They believe that they know what is best for others. In doing so, they deny the agency and autonomy of the people they claim to want to help. They justify their actions with some morally superior goal of "protecting" and "liberating". Hence, if you attack them and their methods, you are attacking the idea of liberation itself. A person with a savior complex requires people to be in a constant state of helplessness as a way to validate their own purpose. A person with a savior complex will often disregard the wishes of the person that they are trying to "save". They will say "You don't know what is good for you." Their "help" is imposed on these people.

These attributes are very similar to the attributes of a tyrant.

If you are the kind of person who obsesses over the idea of "helping" women so much that you begin to attack and tear down women whose choices do not sit well with you, you have a complex. It's a deeply rooted problem that requires solving. You are the problem, not these women.

I just want to remind you that if a woman's choice doesn't harm or affect anyone, you have no business shitting on it.

A woman deciding to be a stay at home mother will not stop other women from being career-driven women if they want to.

"But that's not what is best for them"

You do not know that. Not every woman would be happy as a career woman, the same way not every woman would be happy as a house wife. The key thing here is their happiness, not what you think. What you think should only affect your personal decisions.

If a woman's choices end up being bad for her in the long run, it shouldn't concern you either. People make mistakes all the time. People make choices they regret all the time. Let them make that choice that you think will hurt them.

It is much better to be in a bad situation because of your terrible choices, than to be in a bad situation because you were forced to take a path you did not want. The latter was the reality of women in the past.

In the quest for making a change, let's try not to repeat past mistakes.

Let's also try to be honest with our intentions. Do not use goodwill as a mask for your controlling behavior.

Hopefully this article helps the people I am criticizing (I know it won't) and, hopefully, it was educational enough to those of you with a neutral stance.

When made, this statement tends to evoke a lot of negative reactions. The speaker may come off as conceited, proud, arrogant, disrespectful.

How dare you think so highly of yourself?

How dare you not question your worth?

What gives you the audacity? Where is such confidence coming from?

I think the outrage that follows whenever a statement like this is made is unnecessary. I admire confidence and I think it is a very important attribute one needs to develop before getting into a relationship.

Now, when I say confidence, I do not mean baseless confidence -confidence without anything to back it up. I am not talking about a person who is full of unsavory attributes and, instead of finding a way to fix them, takes pride in them.

A person who has developed themselves physically, mentally, emotionally, financially, has every right to take pride in that. A person who can offer value and knows this should not shy away from making it known to others for fear of being labelled toxic or arrogant.

People in general should have this mindset. Take pride in their abilities. Flaunt them. Never doubt their worth. This mindset will prove to be very useful as it acts as a sort of filter in the dating world.

You will meet all sorts of people. People who do not fit your standards. People who, imperfect and unrefined as they are, would feel intimidated by someone who is seemingly perfect. Confidence enrages them. They seek to tear at this confidence by projecting their own incapabilities on you, bringing you down to their level or lower. They seek people with low self love. They want people who can make them feel better about themselves. You would be a fool to fall for this; to allow them to humble you; to bring you down to their level; to make you just as inadequate and as flawed as they are.

This mindset is not toxic. It is very helpful. People with this mindset rarely date nonentities. Because they can offer value and know this, they seek people who can offer value too. People with something going on for them.

"I am the prize" people rarely get into or stay in toxic relationships where their partner makes them question their worth. They leave at the slightest sign of silliness. In my opinion, this is how it should be.

One needs to build their confidence to the point where they don't feel like they need to endure shitty behavior that is clearly beneath their standards. Because they know that with the value they possess, they will always have people who want them and will treat them right. Why then should they endure shitty behavior?

I think everyone needs to attain this level of confidence in themselves. The dating world is cruel to people with low confidence. These people usually don't end up in healthy relationships. A lot of them endure shit because they don't believe in themselves. They don't think they are worth more than the treatment they get. They endure.

It should not be so.

It is okay to recognize your worth. It is okay to not settle for less. It's okay to be the prize.

I would describe delusion as the evasion of truth. The unwillingness to face what is staring right in front of you.

This can be for many reasons. Sometimes the truth is just too bitter. Sometimes the truth is a reality that we hate. Sometimes it is because the truth is unexplainable.

Impossible.

Does not abide by basic human laws.

You see a flying teacup and the next minute it's gone. Then you convince yourself to believe that it was just your imagination.

You hear something call out your name but when you turn around, no one is there. Then you tell yourself that it's all in your head. Evading the truth.

We like to run. We like to avoid what we do not understand; what we cannot explain.

I think this delusion is evidence of how fragile the human mind is; how incredibly vulnerable it is.

The most terrifying question of all may be just how much horror the human mind can stand and still maintain a wakeful, staring, unrelenting sanity.

- Stephen King

Pet Sematary

We are soft, weak minds in tough bodies.

It is funny how we can train our minds to be tough but when the time comes; when it really matters; when the laws of logic and reason are put to shame, we return to our default settings.

Fragile. Scared. Weak. Delusional.

We do the same thing when faced with unfathomable evil. Evil so horrifying that we immediately dismiss it.

I read a tweet earlier where a lady confessed to orchestrating the circumstances that led to the suicide of another lady who was married with children. She ended up marrying the deceased's husband. I noticed a trend in the comments. Disbelief.

"This didn't happen."

"This isn't true"

I had a brief moment of doubt too and I find it funny because I have seen worse things. I have read worse stories. I have seen pure evil. Serial killer documentaries, rape stories, stories about pedophilia and yet I still dismissed this tweet whose implications paled in comparison to the things I had seen.

Now, my disbelief didn't stem from the actions the lady confessed to, but rather, the fact that she had the gall to confess and brag about it.

How can a human being do such a horrible thing and not feel scared to talk about it?

That's just evil. Too evil to be true.

I have found that disbelief is the default reaction most humans have to things they consider vile and extreme.

I took some time to remind myself that I had seen worse. I have been exposed to evil. I know it exists. I know there is no limit to the level of evil the human mind can conceive and so I must not doubt things like this because they are very possible.

Like I said, we have fragile minds and delusion is our only way of protecting it. Delusion explains away the things we cannot properly define. It shields us from the possibilities we fear most. Protects us from the truth.

We hear stories of evil and immediately dismiss them as false.

"No human should be able to do that"

But humans have done worse.

Is this delusion so because we are scared that if we believe, then we might lose all of our faith in humanity?

That if we choose to believe, even for a second, then we will see the horrors the human mind is capable of unleashing; that our potential for evil knows no bounds.

Maybe this truth scares us also, because we are human.

I have been opportuned to argue with various people on this topic and now I'm writing about it, putting all of my opinions on this into one long essay.

Female objectification is the act of treating women as objects or commodities, rather than as individuals with autonomy.

By definition, this can involve reducing women to just their physical appearance, sexualizing them, using them for male gratification, or propagating stereotypes and norms that restrict women to one dimensional roles.

It is one of the many issues that feminism seeks to curb as many restrictions placed on women in the past could be traced back to this problem.

While the better parts of the effects of objectification have been curbed in present times, we can't deny that the problem still exists.

Whenever it is talked about, we do not hesitate to chastise the men guilty of it, as we should.

However, after thinking deeply about it, I have come to realize that the problem of objectification is two sided.

We have the men who display behaviors that are products of the mindset that women are objects.

We also have, amongst women, the enablers of these behaviors.

I realized too, that these enablers are almost never talked about, even though they play a huge part in the problem of objectification.

The enablers I am talking about are the women who see themselves as objects and market themselves this way.

Women who believe in the notion that a woman's value is tied to the price tag she attaches to her body. Like a commodity, if she wants to be seen as valuable, she has to be expensive. She has to put a high price tag on her body.

They also believe that when they do this, only high value men will be able to afford them.

I have, unwillingly, come across a major propagator of this ideology, Saida Boj, and it amazes me when I see feminists agree with her.

I have watched a few of her videos and I have seen how she glorifies objectification and teaches girls how to be "high-value women" by putting a price tag on their bodies for the highest bidder.

Now, the major flaw with this belief is that, no matter the price they place on their bodies, they are still cheap to the person that can afford them. All that anyone has to do to get them is flash a few wads of cash; jiggle some gold. They are still easy and accessible to anyone who has the money. To me, nothing about this screams "high value".

I am convinced, based on the reactions that people like Saida Boj get, that not very many people know just how problematic this way of thinking is. They also do not realize that this kind of belief is one of the major reasons that objectification still exists. This kind of thinking could even be the reason that objectification began in the first place.

The men who see women as commodities and the women who reduce themselves to the level of commodities are two sides of the same coin and yet, only one side is often addressed.

When a man comes out to say: "With money, you can have your way with any woman."

What do you think gives them the audacity to say this?

• The existence of women like the ones I have previously described. Women who follow men for money. Women who have reduced themselves to the level of commodities; objects to be bought with money.

We cannot truly say we are fighting against objectification until we address this issue. Attacking only the men who are guilty of this while ignoring the women who enable this behavior is counterproductive, because for every man you chastise, there is a woman to undo your efforts by proving them right.

It is amusing to see people who claim to be feminists, find excuses for the women who enable objectification.

They will say things like:

"It's not your business what a woman decides to do with her body"

This is both funny and very telling of where their interests lie. I am convinced that the people who say things like this, aren't actually concerned about objectification, in general, as a problem. Their only problem with objectification is when men do it.

They are hypocrites, simply put. These hypocrites are another reason why objectification is still thriving in our present society; the unwillingness to address and to admit the fact that there are two sides to objectification.

It is safe to say that the objectification problem may never be completely curbed. While the factors I mentioned earlier are indicators of this, the problem of objectification is deeply rooted in humans; their nature and interactions with each other and certain societal values. It may be curbed to a certain degree, but it will continue to persist in some form.