Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

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

562 replies

Nyac · 07/05/2012 18:43

article by Julie Bindel in the New Statesman.

www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/08/fun-feminism-women-feminist

Quote:

"We need to bring back the radical edge to feminism, and do away with any notion that slutwalking, lap dancing, sex working or Burkha-wearing is liberation for women. If men like a particular brand of feminism, it means it is not working. "Fun feminism" should be consigned to the rubbish bin along with the Lib Dem party."

Agree with Julie, that it's extremely irritating to see a bunch of interlopers attempting to elbow their way in and co-opt feminism, redefining it to suit patriarchy's needs. I've even seen people who support patriarchal institutions like marriage, BDSM or the sex industry calling themselves radical feminists. There is so much misunderstanding and misinformation about feminism out there that people feel like they can grab what they like without making an actual political commitment or any kind of challenge to the patriarchy.

Really liberal feminism (the old kind, not the sex industry supporting kind) and radical feminism are the only kinds of feminism that have ever effected any kind of positive change for women. They need to be reclaimed and supported, not erased by third wave non-feminist feminism.

She's right about the lib dems too. :D Or maybe they are in the same boat and need some classic liberals to reclaim their party from the Tory party's whipping boys.

OP posts:
minimathsmouse · 09/05/2012 13:46

I agree LRD. It's interesting that in view of the fact that not ALL women have access to education/higher education, better wages and more parity with men on wages that anyone should even make an argument in favour of women choosing lap dancing as a job.

garlicbutty · 09/05/2012 13:34

if that's what proper feminism is I want no part in it

Don't be put off by the handful of feminists who claim the right to proscribe feminism, Warren! We need feminism and feminists.

The fact that we don't always agree with everything the others say is irrelevant. I'm with Mooncup on what she said about Palestine and her views not making her an islamist. I am a capitalist but mourn the Labour party. I agree with about half of SGB's views, loathe the rest. I often agree with Nyac and hate the way she makes her arguments. I defend freedom of expression. That means I respect other people's right to express themselves, and insist on mine.

I've often been told here that I'm not a feminist. I have a long history of making real, measurable improvements to women's freedoms at international, national and personal levels. Therefore, I believe, I'm a real feminist and my feminism is valuable. It doesn't matter that some other feminists dislike what I say or the way I say it. I hope you'll do the same, in your own way.

Nyac - people do find it hard to separate the personal from the political. Huh? The personal is the political, and vice versa, surely?!

LRDtheFeministDragon · 09/05/2012 13:29

Oh, no, you were right to make the point. The first time I wrote my post I'd put more of it inside inverted commas than outside!

mini - what's stopping us from doing everything together? IMO they are all interconnected - it'd be a really hollow victory if women gained 50/50 representation in parliament but we did it by ignoring what's happening elsewhere.

Original poster
Nyac · 09/05/2012 13:24

Here's what Dworkin said about female masochism (she was in a sadomasochistic relationship, she actually brought the practice to the relationship, and then had to flee her partner because he became so violent):

"I believe that freedom for women must begin in the repudiation of our own masochism. I believe that we must destroy in ourselves the drive to masochism at its sexual roots. I believe that we must establish our own authenticity, individually and among ourselvesto experience it, to create from it, and also to deprive men of occasions for reifying the lie of manhood over and against us. I believe that ridding ourselves of our own deeply entrenched masochism, which takes so many tortured forms, is the first priority; it is the first deadly blow that we can strike against systematized male dominance. In effect, when we succeed in excising masochism from our own personalities and constitutions, we will be cutting the male life line to power over and against us, to male worth in contradistinction to female degradation, to male identity posited on brutally enforced female negativitywe will be cutting the male life line to manhood itself. Only when manhood is deadand it will perish when ravaged femininity no longer sustains itonly then will we know what it is to be free."

OP posts:
AbigailAdams · 09/05/2012 13:23

Sorry LRD, I wasn't meaning to suggest that you didn't understand how loaded the term sex worker could be. It was a comment more for lurkers.

minimathsmouse · 09/05/2012 13:22

Maybe it would help if we had some sort of agreement about the possible ways in which "sex positive" feminism might harm all women and try to strike a balance by saying in what ways it might further the cause of all women's rights. Rather than discussing loons.

Would it not be better for all women to have equal access to education and greater social equality first before we decide if sex work is a valid and sensible choice for some women. It seems to me that the vast majority of women who work in the industry are not there through choice.

Does this mean that the sex positive argument about self determination undermines or diminishes the great suffering of those who are coerced into it?

Original poster
Nyac · 09/05/2012 13:21

Puffin, BDSM fetishises dominance and submission, which is what male supremacy is based on. It also institutionalises and sexualises male sadism towards women.

Basically feminism doesn't support male violence towards women and is fighting for it to end, so there's no reason to begin to support it just because sexual enjoyment is involved.

OP posts:
Puffinsaresmall · 09/05/2012 13:20

But BDSM isn't always male - D, female - S is it? So is BDSM where the man is submissive ok? Confused

Original poster
Nyac · 09/05/2012 13:19

Men who indulge in sadistic practices towards women are behaving in a misogynistic way and are expressing their own misogyny.

Unless we start actually holding men accountable for harm they inflict on women individually and collectively then nothing will change. This isn't politically complicated. But it's true what Julie Bindel says, that it does make feminism difficult for heterosexual women, particularly those who are taking part in BDSM practices with their male partners. It doesn't make feminism or the feminists saying those things wrong though.

OP posts:
LRDtheFeministDragon · 09/05/2012 13:18

abigail - I'm aware of the terminology issues re. 'sex worker' - rightly or wrongly, in this case I wanted to use it because that's the terms in which people who make this argument put it.

I totally agree it is not just about one set of people getting enjoyment but harming others, it's about all the many sets of people who get enjoyment by harming others. Same argument IMO extends to porn, in exactly the same way.

The basic point is, someone's right not to be hurt will always win out over anything relating to other people's enjoyment.

AbigailAdams · 09/05/2012 13:18

You don't want a fight but you come out with phrases like extremist loons? What exactly were you expecting postingthat? That we would all bow down and say "Oh yes, Warren you are right, I've seen the light". It was deliberately provocative. Don't be disingenuous.

Puffinsaresmall · 09/05/2012 13:17

Probably not the place for this question, but why is BDSM a problem? Is there already a thread on this? I get lapdancing/prostitution as very harmful obviously but not quite sure I understand consensual BDSM.

MyNameIsntFUCKINGWarren · 09/05/2012 13:15

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Original poster
Nyac · 09/05/2012 13:14

It's great when people can call people extremists loons and then claim they aren't looking for a fight.

My god the fingers on the report post button would be going mad if I did that.

OP posts:
Original poster
Nyac · 09/05/2012 13:12

I think people do find it hard to separate the personal from the political and thus do take it personally when anti-woman practices are criticised. Given there's such a long list of them that rad fems stand against, because men have found so many ways to exploit or harm women, generally someone will end up upset about something.

BDSM and underage sex seems to be the issues today.

OP posts:
MyNameIsntFUCKINGWarren · 09/05/2012 13:12

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Alameda · 09/05/2012 13:10

I can't believe anyone thinks it is 'extremist' to point out that activities which are harmful to women are, um, harmful.

AbigailAdams · 09/05/2012 13:08

LRD I think it is more than the rights of those "sex workers" (and if we are talking about language there is a whole thread there for that phrase) taking precedence over the majority who don't. It is the rights of men to enjoy raping, objectifying, molesting these sex workers which is taking precedence. After all, they aren't even doing the work. And all this is done under the damaging guise that the women have a choice or that they enjoy it. Focussing on women who may enjoy it, is taking away from the fact that it is men's entitlement that has created the industry in the first place.

Original poster
Nyac · 09/05/2012 13:07

I mean we could have a proper discussion about the responsibilities of feminists not to promote anti-woman practices as feminist, thus leaving the women who are being harmed by institutions such as pornography or prostitution with nobody to stand up to them.

Or we could run a popularity contest about who is lovely and wonderful and BFF and who the extremist loons are.

Which choice looks more Mumsnet-friendly I wonder.

OP posts:
Original poster
Nyac · 09/05/2012 13:02

Fight, fight, fight.

OP posts:
Alameda · 09/05/2012 13:02

which few posters are you attacking personally, then, by calling them names like 'extremist loons'?

MyNameIsntFUCKINGWarren · 09/05/2012 13:00

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Original poster
Nyac · 09/05/2012 12:57

SausageEggBacon, you don't need to read MacKinnon or Dworkin to come to the conclusion that the sex industry is deeply harmful to women and that feminists shouldn't be promoting it as feminist. I'd recommend that Survivors Connect blog to you as well as to SGB. It's very clear what they are saying about what happened to them.

OP posts:
Original poster
Nyac · 09/05/2012 12:52

That's just more personal insults Warren. Calling people extremist Loons. It's just really unncecessary and designed to cause a fight.

The topic of this thread is women who call themselves feminists promoting anti-woman practices as feminism. It's a real problem.

OP posts:
AbigailAdams · 09/05/2012 12:52

"extremist loons". Remind me again who is doing the name calling?

Yes separating the personal from the political is a problem when discussing feminism.