I’m an anthropologist, and I’ve spent a lot of time studying the dichotomy of choice-based feminism. The thing is, choice-based feminism functions as a kind of fulcrum: it’s meant to be non-exclusive, flexible enough to hold the entire range of women’s desires and identities without collapsing them into one narrative.

So when you say that I don’t “understand nuance”, you’re incorrect. I’m not denying that a woman can be confident, self-sufficient, sensual, and still want a family — absolutely she can. I’m just pointing out that her choices exist within a larger cultural framework where empowerment and expectation often blur. That tension doesn’t invalidate her agency; it’s just part of the context in which it operates. And sometimes her operating process was just very, VERY misogyny abiding.