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

Sorry crap PC with v. cslow connection so keep x posting

And I didn't say non radicals don't have ideas.

I said without radicals, there are no ideas.

Perhaps this needs qualifying for those with a fragile ego. What I mean by this, is that there are ideas, but they're not particularly new or challenging ones. They don't take things any further on.

A good example of this is the Liberal Party. In the last century, they have basically been slowly dying. Partly, this is because there is no radcial thought in the liberal party, they haven't had any ideas to take forward the raison d'etre of the party. They grew out of an incredibly radical movement - the Englightenment - which became so mainstream and comfortable, that when a new radical movement came along - socialism - and a new political party came along, the liberal party were simply blown out of the water. In contrast the Tory party managed to survive and the reason it has done so, is because it has been re-invigorated every generation, with radical thought. I don't like them, I hasten to add, I'm merely pointing out the dynamic. Without radicalism, a movement becomes stagnant, part of the establishment or just irrelevant. That's the point I'm making, which appears to be so bloody offensive.

In terms of radical, lots of ideas start of as radical that later become mainstream. For example, women getting the vote or equal pay. Both were incredibly radical at the time and the women and men campaigning for it were dismissed as extremists.

X posts with Basil.

Perhaps Basil will clarify but I didn't read her comment as meaning only those who identify as radical feminists can have ideas.

Rather she said that in all movements, it is the people who push boundaries of thought who move things forward - people like this are referred to as radicals no matter what the movement (as in radical change, radical thought, radical solution, etc - radical is a word that is applied to all sorts of movements, not just feminism).

I am a radical feminist but I do not consider myself to be a radical thinker, I'm pretty sure Basil doesn't either, nor does anyone else in the feminist section (although Bidisha does post here sometimes and she is pretty mega). I do not take offence at the notion that I am not a great feminist thinker who will bring original thought and creativity to the movement. I'm just glad that such women exist and share their thoughts.

You do seem rather determined to take offence however - it seems a shame to let a general comment that contained nothing about you personally affect your desire to start up a campaign against FGM.

at this teenage level of debate.

Sorry but ffs, to say that I'm attacking all women for not being radicals, when what my statement was was this:

"All movements are driven by the radicals .... without radicals there are no ideas"

is just plain silly. That statement is demonstrably true. Go and look at the great radical movements of history. Christianity, Islam, the Enlightenment, Anti-racism, anti-colonialism, feminism, universal suffrage, socialism, environmentalism... I could go on and on and on. There isn't a single idea in history that hasn't been influential and important, which wasn't radical.

It is just histrionic to take that as a personal attack.

I would love to see all arguments being valid but look how some people word things here. Prison, all non radicals, all I see is a group who want things as they see them with no room for compromise or for acceptance that we are all different. Mini sorry just that rather than becoming more active I feel like saying what's the point and not bothering. Which is probably why the patriarchy loves radical feminism and publishes it in the New Statesman. Divide and conqueror and best yet the division is being done by the people who claim they want to break the chains of power.

Sausage, do not be put off. We are not all radicals but equally so we are not all liberal or "sex positive" I personally think we need to be more open and more welcoming of all women but then I see feminism as a class struggle as well. We are all different, we all add something to the argument and all arguments are valid.

Beachcomber sorry by saying only radicals have ideas I see that as an attack on every woman who does not hold radical views. I really wanted to get this board and MNHQ on board with campaigning more about FGM but as I am not a radical obviously I am not going to bother. Sweeping statements tend to drive away a lot of foot soldiers before they even start.

"A burkha does literally dehumanise a woman"

it is not the sum and total of body parts that maketh the person but their mind and their individual human experience.

I will stick my neck out here, we need to examine history and the material conditions in which humanity has developed. We have developed in stages and those stages are related to both material conditions and in response to advances in production and the means of production. Women are not immune from this and the conditions and freedoms of past generations were stripped from women of different classes at different times according to the means of production. Just as the means of production and the profit imperitive and changes in technology in western society have brought about more freedoms, many women have been able to take advantage of this but just as many haven't. ie women from disadvantaged social, racial groups and women who are economically disadvantaged syphoned off into the sex industry, people trafficking etc...

As an example the conditions and freedoms of women in the medieval period were such, mainly because there had been divisions of labour much earlier, when men started to cultivate the land and domesticate animals. It meant the role of women became more closely tied into producing children. Children were need to work the land to create the surplus, which created the wealth on which men continue to use to dominate women. It isn't driven just by biology but from historical changes to the means and ownership of production with society. The church acted as a tool to opress women but also to impose capitalistic forms of production and the supporting family structures on different groups around the world. Read up on church missionaries! it isn't as simple as pointing a finger and saying, well that is the patriarchy.

When we look back over history we need to use that knowledge to move forward and we need to reassess the tools we will use according to what the threat is. What is the greatest threat to women? Class and we are a class within a class and a class apart, and the threat now has been historically determined.

www.isreview.org/issues/02/engles_family.shtml Interesting reading here from a feminist writer and academic Sharon Smith.

You seem to be taking all this very personally sausageeggbacon.

I don't consider myself to be the sort of women who drives feminism forward by being a radical cutting edge feminist, but in no way do I think Basil's comment suggested that I can't think for myself.

I'm no Dworkin or Jeffries or MacKinnon. But I can read their work and think about it and discuss it and see how it fits into my life. And I'm glad that there are women who push boundaries, propose a different perspective and help me frame my own thoughts, I consider Bindel to be one such woman.

We can't all be important feminist thinkers but we can all be foot soldiers .

how else are you supposed to read it?

like an adult? it's a very general statement that you can agree or disagree with, no need for the teenage outbursts really

But without the radicals, there are no ideas.

To me says I don't have the ability to think as I am not a radical. How else am I suppose to read that?

what is the current craze with rewriting posts to absurd effect?

'radicals drive ideas' becomes 'you can't think for yourself'

"it dehumanises her" is actually the sort of rhetoric which is so discriminatory. Clothing alone does not strip people of their humanity. In the same way that women wearing mini skirts shouldn't. A women in lipstick is no less human than one without.

I have read a great deal about the middle east and as a socialist I am primarily concerned with class, as someone from Jewish ancestors I have spent years trying to understand the material conditions of Muslim people, in particular the conditions under which the palestinians are forced to live.

The Arab spring is broadly speaking a socialist movement and within that there are many women, some who choose to observe both religious and cultural practices and others who are desperate for women a to be free not to wear the Burkha, both camps wish to see democracy and both want to be free to study and work just as men are. However in supporting all women we have to be empathic and sympathetic to their culture. Otherwise we become little better than their oppressors.

So I have no ideas to advance feminism because I am not a radical. Wow just wow. Going to leave this thread for a bit after that because I am not a radical I obviously don't have a brain and cannot therefore think for myself!

Having actually read a few radical and separatist feminist texts, I do think that accusations of man-hating and sex-hating are not entirely made up by evil patriarchalists, though I can appreciate that there are divisions even within radical feminism. According to some of these, you can't be a 'real' feminist if you are the mother of a son, unless you abandon him. One book I read seemed to boil down to 'all other feminists are untrustworthy misguided Tools of thd Patriarchy apart from me and my three mates and one of them once smiled at a man so I'm not sure about her either.' It's such comedy gold that I almost wonder if it was actually written by an MRA to discredit feminism.

All movements are driven by the radicals within those movements.

The ideas filter down and get adjusted, tweaked and watered down for the mainstream.

But without the radicals, there are no ideas.

Nyac sorry if you see it as a prison. How many women in the UK do not see it that way? I have a few friends who are Muslim and putting Bindel's statement to them they were horrified. I am sure you will say they are programmed to react that way from birth but many women at the present time would not want to change. When feminism mixes with religion you are really going to polarise people.

Sorry am I missing the point or is everyone else. The OP is about Bindels statement. People wondered why it would go in the new statesman? Well probably because the sweeping statement made by Bindel will drive the average woman away from feminism. Not every man is good or bad but there seems to be a massive brush tarring them all. And I can see the patriarchy approving of Bindel as she alienates many women with statements.

Think of it this way 512 messages and we are still not on common ground. Now take the average woman reading the start of this thread. How will they see what Bindel wrote? Certainly any muslim woman is likely to react negatively, those women like myself with a good husband/partner that has an equal relationship is going to question why every man seems to be the target. To get the message across to more women we do NOT want to be radicalising the movement or we just find that even amongst our own sex feminism is frowned upon.

I do understand that generalisation need to be used but if the people using them do not caveat them we can expect the division of feminism being caused by feminist (on both sides). So long as we point fingers at each others arguments we get nowhere. I am prepared to re-examine some issues but Bindel needs to get off her high horse and remember the masses as we are what will empower the movement long term.

Minima my position on the burkah is to support the right of any woman who wants to wear it, while critiquing the patriarchal conditions in which wearing it makes sense.

Women make choices that are in their interests within a context which has been set up to ensure that any other choice made, are problematic. So of course it makes sense to wear a burkah in Afghanistan. I sometimes feel how pleasant it would be to wear a face veil and anonymous long robe to stop feeling so fucking invaded by men's impertinent assessing looks.

The rad fem approach however, would be to get men to look at us as human beings, rather than as a collection of different body parts, so that when they look at us, it is not with appraisal of our body parts, but rather as fellow humans. Then the need for a burkah or a veil, would be gone, except for practical purposes like protecting yourself from the sun or doing houseowrk in dusty environments.