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:
KRITIQ · 08/05/2012 23:13

Folks selectively quote from Dworkin's writings and speeches, just as they tend to do from other great thinkers who are no longer with us. They aren't around to corroborate or refute what is attributed to them and those who knew them in life rarely share identical experiences or interpretations of their engagement with them. Many of those who despised her views (and extended that to hatred of her as a person,) in life continue to misquote and wrongly attribute ideas and beliefs to her even now, (well, not surprisingly, really.)

Regardless of the origins of the term "fun fem," or the context in which which you say (and I also think) Julie Bindel chose to use it, I still don't think it's a helpful term. That was the point I was making. It's too porous to have a useful definition and like "politically correct" can be easily used as or experienced as just a throw away "slur." I'd prefer to get beyond what could be seen as just name calling to actually challenging and questioning people about those specific points about prostitution, sexualisation of children, pornography, collusion with rape, etc.

Equally, I despise the term "sex positive feminism." It suggests that those who don't think prostitution, porn, stripping, etc. are tickity boo are "negative" about sex, which ain't the case. Similarly, I don't like the term "pro life" for those who oppose a woman's right to choose. Advocates of reproductive rights and choice aren't anti-life, fgs.

Notthefullshilling · 08/05/2012 23:13

I suspect that those "other" feminists would disagree with your water tight test NYAC. I do not say that you are wrong or they are wrong I ask how do each find a way to move forward, if they do not then the entire movement is forever split, and even if you want to argue that it is the work of mra it wont change the fact that women cannot be strong enough to agree on the vast majority of the commonalites.

scottishmummy · 08/05/2012 23:08

lol no idea
if I want to be called troll I post on fem topics
troll
MRA
ant feminist
derailer
...you need to accumulate those too. oft used put downs of choice

EclecticShock · 08/05/2012 23:06

Just out of interest, does anyone believe I'm a troll?

EclecticShock · 08/05/2012 23:02

NYAC, please explain how that is "water tight"?

amillionyears · 08/05/2012 23:01

Fyi, MN hates sites to be limited.It likes as much debate as possible.It likes money and advertising so wants things to be lively!!Getting rid of posters is counterproductive!

EclecticShock · 08/05/2012 23:01

Can't find page 40, on phone. What was the gist?

ecclesvet · 08/05/2012 23:01

Sorry, amillionyears! I thought the hash with the post ID number after it would direct you straight there, but now I guess that only works if you have the whole thread on one page like I do.

scottishmummy · 08/05/2012 23:00

in fairness no one needs to agree and no one can confer acceptance to another
I do expect these topics to become name calling spats
it's just they way it seems to go
however,despite the aggro I do like reading and participating. and after all it's words on the screen and heated riposte

Original poster
Nyac · 08/05/2012 22:59

A lot of women share the truth that pornography, prostitution, BDSM and the sex industry are harmful to women, and agree it's outrageous that anybody calling themselves a feminist would be promoting them as a route to women's liberation.

I think the charge against sex positive feminsits is that their actions are harmful to women and that they are also getting in the way of the actual fight against male supremacy.

Mind you, I think this is watertight:

"What bidle et al said is her thinking backed by her reading and how she formed her ideas based on her reading. It is her argument nothing more. It is not truth as in her truth is not the truth that others share. so therefore it is only her truth."

OP posts:
EclecticShock · 08/05/2012 22:58

No comments on the transgender thread either. What a surprise. Can e bothered to defend and agree but not challenge and disagree? Or am I mistaken?

amillionyears · 08/05/2012 22:58

EclecticShock, see the post that ecclesvet kindly put on here at 22.22pm
What she did not do was tell us that the page we needed was page 40 out of 41!after I scrolled through most of them!

EclecticShock · 08/05/2012 22:56

I answered the question about female supremacy and no response. We're you interested in my answer?

Notthefullshilling · 08/05/2012 22:54

How would you hold people to account, what would be the charge, what method of investigation would you use, who would make the judgement about the impact that those sex positve fems made.Lastly how could any reasoned argument be agreed by people who fundementaly disagree. What bidle et al said is her thinking backed by her reading and how she formed her ideas based on her reading. It is her argument nothing more. It is not truth as in her truth is not the truth that others share. so therefore it is only her truth.

EclecticShock · 08/05/2012 22:54

I like the point made about the feminist section being uncomfortable but challenging. Unfortunately, I don't get the impression that I would be a welcome regular poster although if I held radical feminist views I would be accepted?

scottishmummy · 08/05/2012 22:53

fun Fems,does sound ghastly
like Jordan or the towie lassies,bein all empowered innit
empowered to get plastic tits,tans and agents

EclecticShock · 08/05/2012 22:50

Sorry, challenge them... Typo

EclecticShock · 08/05/2012 22:49

When I say do something about them, I purely mean be bothered to challe be them, although I can see that would be time consuming.

Original poster
Nyac · 08/05/2012 22:48

You're addressing the wrong person Eclectic, SeaHouses said the thread was one long personal attack. Not me.

Kritiq, the quote "I'm a radical feminist, not the fun kind" was a remark that Dworkin made in a debate with Susie Bright and some other sex industry positive feminist. It's probably been repeated in quite a few books, maybe in Radically Speaking too, although I'll take your word for it, I can't remember. It's a long book.

I think it's a bit of a shame you've seized on that one phrase. Julie Bindel was a friend of Dworkin's, she knew what she'd suffered at the hands of the "fun fems", some of whom made careers out of attacking Dworkin. Careers that were much more lucrative than Dworkin herself ever had. Dworkin also used to have to take bodyguards to speaking engagements because of of the death threats she received because she did speak out against male cruelty against women, including sexual cruelty. She believed, pretty understandably, that she would be attacked one day for what she was saying, but she didn't stop. So in comparison to the sex positive feminists who don't face that level of hatred, she wasn't a fun fem.

Sex industry positive feminists should be held accountable for their defense of pimps, johns, voyeurs, pornographers and male sadists. That's Julie Bindel's argument, and the main point here.

OP posts:
MizK · 08/05/2012 22:47

eclectic I don't think anything should be 'done' about extremist views, rather that the people who hold them should listen to others as well, rather than steamroller over less radical feminists. I don't get some of the hardcore stuff that's posted but it's all part of the discussion. I suppose it would be good to see less preaching and more talking. (She says, preachily :) )

EclecticShock · 08/05/2012 22:47

Make that last three posts.

EclecticShock · 08/05/2012 22:46

flatulette, I don't fully understand either of your last two posts, please expand.

Notthefullshilling · 08/05/2012 22:46

If fun feminism relates to those that are sex positive, although I think that is another contestable term. It seems that the idea that women who want to live a life that involves casual sex and many partners for pleasure or lifestyle choice, is a woman of value. Those that do the same for money are being oppressed and used by the patriarchy, hence to be treated as suspect especialy if they say that they are the ones making the decisions. Same with porn.

flatulette · 08/05/2012 22:45

don't forget the fundamentalism etc

flatulette · 08/05/2012 22:43

lol