In her 2006 novel, “Get to Work: A Manifesto for Women of the World,” feminist author Linda Hirshman describes choice feminism as “the shadowy remnant of the original movement, tells women that their choices, everyone’s choices, the incredibly constrained ‘choices’ they made, are good choices.” In this work, Hirshman mostly derides the choices of highly educated, mostly white women who were fleeing the workforce in the mid-2000s to take care of their children. She asserts that the key to feminist liberation necessitates a return to the workforce. 

Hirshman’s presentation is quite capitalistic and a product of second-wave feminism. But her thesis about the dangers of choice feminism still persists today. 

Choice feminism devalues the feminist movement by excusing all decisions made by women as feminist, ignoring both the larger sociopolitical implications of the choice and the fact that many of these choices are not choices at all. It’s an apolitical, non-judgmental, bubblegum version of feminism that separates the personal from the political. 

A pernicious example of choice feminism that sidesteps the sociopolitical implications is women changing their last names when they get married. The Pew Research Center found in 2023 that eight in 10 women in heterosexual marriages change their name when they wed. It’s a choice that spans all ages, political affiliations and educational achievements. Although there are many reasons why an individual would want to change their name — i.e. lack of connection with their maiden name — the decision is nevertheless rooted in patriarchal ideas of ownership through marriage. 

The process of changing one’s last name derives from the concept of “coverture,” a legal doctrine where a wife’s identity merges with her husband’s after marriage. Despite social and political gains in the feminist movement, the idea of devotion to one’s spouse through forfeiting an aspect of one’s identity has been marketed as part of the courtship ritual. It’s patriarchy masquerading as romance. 

Even the commonly used idea of family cohesion with children ignores hyphenated names, children having the mother’s last name or the fact that having a different last name really has no impact on family cohesion. The foregone conclusion that family units must only have the father’s last name is innately patriarchal. Thus, the choice to abide by this patriarchal norm through marriage should not be championed as feminist. 

The aim of choice feminism was to extend the feminist movement that had previously been categorized as too judgmental and exclusionary to previously disparate groups. Ironically, this narrative only continues to assert that all women have the same access to the same choices. 

Makeup, for example, is a lower-stakes issue that illustrates a larger trend in choice feminism. The battleground of whether or not women should wear makeup has been a point of contention in feminist circles. Proponents of this kind of “lipstick feminism” would argue that women wearing makeup is re-asserting their femininity outside of the confines of the male gaze. Detractors claim that makeup, as an industry, profits on the insecurities of women. 

However, this debate about this “choice” ignores the fact that not all makeup is for all people. Eurocentric beauty standards pervade the cosmetic industry. From there, not being a diversity of shades in the makeup industry to colorism in terms of who is considered beautiful, Black women have not had the same options when it comes to partaking or not partaking in lipstick feminism. Beauty standards are racist and patriarchal, so asserting that a choice to wear makeup may be feminist ignores the intersectionality issue that already fills the beauty industry.

All of the aforementioned issues are political. Marriage is inherently political due to how it can be legislated. Makeup is political due to its weaponization within patriarchy and how it markets women. These tokens of politicization apply to not just marriage and makeup but also sex, children, clothing, music and more. Deeming that women should be exempt from criticism of choice by virtue of being a woman excludes the historical basis as to why women had or didn’t have these choices in the first place. 

Just because you changed your last name when you got married or you wear makeup doesn’t make you anti-feminist. But it would be short-sighted not to recognize that some choices are anti-feminist. Moreover, refusing to interrogate where these decisions come from under the guise of being non-judgmental cheapens discussions of how feminism ingratiates itself into the modern world. As Hirshman wrote, “A movement that stands for everything, ultimately stands for nothing.”