Why "fun feminism" should be consigned to the rubbish bin

Interesting question about being in government. However, if that was the case, people would have had to vote for them. That's the whole point, a minority cannot change things without support from the majority. This means a compromise has to be found. It requires negotiation not radical intervention.

I'm not trying to change anyone's mind or educate you, that's seems to be the approach of rad fem. I am merely explaining my own viewpoint and thought process.

If a radical feminist political party came to government in the UK how do posters think they would change things?

Nyac- Do people understand the differences between politics and someone simply doing something in their lives? Because they are different.

It's the second time you've made this point today. It astonishes me. I was taught that this very statement is the apotheosis of hypocrisy; the philosophical equivalent of "Do as I say, not as I do."

Is it what you really feel? Do you deny that everything we do is political, whether we're thinking about the politics or not? If you see 'political' as separate from 'personal', how then do you justify your critiques of the sex industry, or even of other women's feminism?

Thank you for explaining it to us, EclecticShock.

Thank goodness you're here to put us right.

I've totally changed my mind about everything I believe, thanks to your brilliant explanations.

fun feminism is lame put down used by im more feminist than youse types
who naturally think they have the ideological and moral high ground
odd how it's permissable to use put downs to describe other feminists.but hell if a man used same quip it would be scandalous etc

Agree to an extent but you have to be very careful about the assumptions you base your argument on as that can render the following conclusions invalid. That's how i see radical feminism, based on over simplified mass generalisation and backed up with over complicated conspiratorial selective evidence.

On a large scale when looking at systems such as political structures analysis has to be done through caterigerisation and identification of patterns.
When doing more in-depth analysis is when the broader and more diverse catorgerisation happens.

There are two massive generalisations than underpin some of these posts.
All men are not the same. All women are not the same.

"how women's liberation now rests on how pleasing they are to the patriarchy. How palatable the message is and whether there is something in it for the guys"

Who are they guys? How do you expect anyone to take your discussion seriously when you over simplify and generalise everything? It's an immature approach to debate.

Yy frida (I've got your picture in my front room btw)

And social structures as well as political and economical.

Feminism isn't about 'individual freedom', it's about economic/political structures which systematically disadvantage women. The emphasis on individualism is a key ingredient of both neoliberal economics and libertarian social politics - two cheeks of the same arse

"A political movement to overthrow male supremacy".So do feminists want to have control over men?

Why would you make that jump? Overthrowing male supremacy, means stopping men having control over women, not inverting their horrible patriarchal system.

For me I want equality based on class as well.

amillionyears, it's the opening paragraph of the Bindel piece linked by OP.

For me it seems clear that feminism is about the overthrow of supremacy not women gaining supremacy over men. Anyway what use would power over men be? what might we become if we had it? "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely"

For myself I want equality and co-operation between men and women and for people not to be pre-judged because of their gender.

minimathsmouse, can you clear something up for me please."A political movement to overthrow male supremacy".So do feminists want to have control over men?

It's the marketing coup of the century duchesse. Clever how women's liberation now rests on how pleasing they are to the patriarchy. How palatable the message is and whether there is something in it for the guys.

Fifty Shades of Grey. That book is really bugging me at the moment because it is bringing into wider mainstream culture the idea of submission as a lifestyle.
And that is one thing that bugs me about the BDSM scene is the idea that because you enjoy something sexually, you should define your whole life around that aspect of yourself, which correct me if I am wrong, is a concept that is hugely fought against within feminism and is likely to have a larger impact on the person in the submissive role both within and outside of the scene.

I believe that this so called "fun feminism" is some crap spun by people who want women to behave in a particular way, but realise that women know they have self-determination and would only do if they wanted to. So they have somehow managed to convince some women that they are in a position of power if they choose to pole-dance or become a sex worker. Jeeseus only knows how they achieved it, but the end result is still the same as when women felt they had to be people-pleasers- girls who feel the need to appeal to men to get along in life. You only have to ask yourself who benefits from women playing along with this? It's a marketing coup.

OK I get what you're saying about potential slut-shaming SGB, but I have never heard radical feminists express it in those terms.

Believing that doing sex work is a harmful choice, a choice that harms women, is not condemning the woman who makes that "choice" (except in a tiny minority of cases, it's not a real choice). It's making a political analysis of that choice. It's not condemning a woman any more than it condemns a woman for wearing lipstick; it's just not pretending that it's somethign women do in a cultural, social and economic vacuum.

"What is feminism? A political movement to overthrow male supremacy, according to us radicals. These days, however, young women (and men) are increasingly fed the line from "fun feminists" that it is about individual power, rather than a collective movement"

From the first paragraph in the article. So SGB and other sex positives or fun feminists, are individual freedoms more important than the emancipation of ALL women?

I have never met a woman who chose sex industry
yes I do think sex industry choses them is a good summation
I know await someone repackaging the happy hooker as the bright as a button law student turning tricks to pay way through uni

a cornerstone of patriarchal thinking is the idea that women exist for other people's benefit, not their own

A cornerstone of patriarchal thinking is the idea that women exist for men's benefit not their own. Unless there is a third sex.

Thank you FridaKahlo you have put that far more succinctly & clearly than I could.

I think one of the unintended consequences of the hard won freedoms in regard to sexual liberation has been the fact that so many younger women now engage in situations and relationships where they have little or sometimes no power. Feminism isn't about and up to very recently has never been about glorifying, normalising or ignoring the abuse of other women in the name of personal liberation. My freedom should never have the knock on effect of denying you yours.