Is it true? "How Pinterest Is Killing Feminism"

[alcibiades_mystery]

15. Let me give it a generous read

I'll start out by saying that I don't necessarily agree (or disagree) with the article. I'm playing devil's advocate here, but really trying to clarify some of the positions I take to be implicit here.

So, I see a lot of folks responding that feminism is about "choice," and that you can "pin whatever you like" on Pinterest, etc. It's a typical sort of (consumerist) theme - it's all about what you as a person decide. That's all well and good, but that begs the question asked by most feminists theory since the second wave. If it were merely about "choice," you wouldn't have much feminism. That's because feminist analysis has generally considered "choice" or "preference" (liking) an effect of pre-existing social and economic forces. Choice and preference are conditioned, not originary, goes the theory. You like what you like not because of something inherent in the thing or in you, but because of social forces that position both that object/activity and your subjectivity in particular ways. In this sense, it is not merely natural or an effect of personal preference that more women like to knit than men. It is an effect of the way women's activities and knitting are positioned socially.

And if that's the case, how does such positioning happen? Through multiple communication channels, including social media. Indeed, from this perspective, there's nothing particularly surprising about this analysis.

This is basic, first-year women's studies stuff. The notion that the personal is political - the very rallying cry of the second wave - is rooted in the notion that personal preference is rooted in social forces. It's interesting to see so many people dispute that here! Certainly, third wave feminism has tried to call into question some of the more determinative aspects of the 'social forces" argument, but not really with that much success, in my view.

We can disagree with these readings or not (our "decision" to disagree is also an effect of social forces, particularly the force of consumerism, one might say, since we're trained to privilege an illusion of personal choice in our society), but simply restating the counter-argument is not really a rebuttal. The stasis here is between two fundamentally divergent understandings of "choice" or "preference." One says that chocie is an effect of the self, while the other says any given choice has its roots in the social. Which of these you "choose" does indeed matter, since that's where you'd have to work to change things - do we work on the self or on society? Some combination of both?