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

This kind of article just encourages feminist infighting which plays in to the hands of MRAs.

He suffragettes were extremist in their own sacrifice like a Tibetan monk how burns himself. That's their choice as a method of communication. They were not forcing any beliefs upon people, they were expressing the own beliefs and it worked. No issue with that. The issue is when you tell people they are not feminist because they don't believe in radical feminism or that they aren't helping men and women to be equal because they are not following radical feminism. Its like saying, if you don't believe in Jesus you will go To hell, no matter how you have live your life. It's a form of control.

Yes, I often find this section of mumsnet scarier than AIBU.

Extreme views are not the same as violence. I have never seen a feminist of any description advocating violence, let alone carrying it out.

frida I don't like 'fun feminism' as a term, or the fact that Julie Bindel puts down millions of women in her horrid article..and yet I am grossed out by lap dancing clubs! Crazy, huh?
In response to other posters, I agree that I can't moan about not being represented if I don't post - but do admit, there can be a sneering attitude towards dissenting views quite a lot of the time. Look how many first time posters plead for leniency as evidence!

"The problem is we haven't yet defined an authentic sexuality of our own. We were so long repressed, now we are in the middle of faux liberation. And we're as boxed into that as we were in old role"

You may be but I am not. Freeing people from this kind of situation you discuss is not about making them radical. It's about them understanding that we ate equal to me and anything else is rubbish. You don't have to undermine men in order to be equal to them. That is an ideology based on insecurity and fear.

I have never heard the term 'fun feminism' before reading this article, so I think it is a journalistic shorthand. I think JB is actually damaging her own cause by effectively referring to poledancing, prostitution and wearing a niqab as 'fun'. The article sounds as though she's accidentally/deliberately buying into other people's conception of radical feminism as radically opposed to 'fun' rather than radically opposed to women's oppression. She castigates another woman for daring to tell a joke in public - how dare she waste a single moment when she could be making a serious point? Why is that criticism feminist? Are men being weak 'fun patriarchs' when they take up public space with their own jokes and discourse? IMO no, they are filling up the space they have as men. For women to take up space in the same way is, IMO, progress. Is progress a dirty word in JB's world?

I also object to slutwalking being categorised in the same group as poledancing, since the point of slutwalking IMO was to say that sexual display can be something women want to do and that they should not be punished for it; poledancing is about women selling their sexual display. I think they are different and I object to them being lumped in together.

What about the suffragettes? How much attention would they have garnered if they were going around politely knocking on peoples doors and handing out leaflets.
It took loud protesting, force feeding and suicide to make sure the cries for sufferage were heard.

What about the Suffragettes?

Agree, don't agree. That's discussion and debate

No, I don't think that you are owned. I think that the structure you have placed on your relationship (and my own, I am married too) is of benefit to the patriarchy and not for equality for women.

"Without extremism, there will be no change because people demanding things in moderate forms will be ignored."

Do you really believe that? What about brevik? Or Osama?

I think it is something to do with male version of sexuality being held up as the standard and we should all aspire to it. I have heard many men say oh I'd love t o have sex and get paid for it etc etc
The problem is we haven't yet defined an authentic sexuality of our own. We were so long repressed, now we are in the middle of faux liberation. And we're as boxed into that as we were in old role
Neither is real.
It definitely suits some women, as I've said before. But not others yet we're corralled in thereby.the common sense view that sec is just a laugh, you must not be a prude, etc.

No, I did not say relationships with men are bad. I said that the institution of marriage was formed in a time when the concept was about ownership and this is yet to be fully reformed and will struggle to be whilst we live in a patriarchal society.

fridakahlo so my being in a happy and equal marriage is to you me being owned? So should I lose my happiness for the greater good not that I would

Also, I have only been reason about radical feminism for a day, but the same arguments are trotted out again and again, without any evidence. It reminds me of people who disbelieve darwinism because, only God could have made something as wonderful as a human eye...

Without extremism, there will be no change because people demanding things in moderate forms will be ignored.

this is bindel preaching be more be more me
and you're adopting similar if it ain't radical it ain't feminism stance
well fortunately that's not a view universally shared

Who is seeking female supremacy? Please say where you have seen it.
Because I have spent a lot of time on here and I have not come across it.

Marriage is detrimental? I'm not married but you are insinuating any relationship with a man is patriarchal and detrimental?

Slutwalks are meant to be based around the concept of women being able to wear what they want without fearing rape. This is the wrong approach as the focus needs to be on educating men (and sometimes women) not to assault people in the first place.

They were, but a lot of feminists didn't agree with the idea of them.

Turnip, I am not saying all people on this board are seeking female supremacy. I'm saying, some are and I really don't understand why the feminists on this board don't challenge that. However, I can understand it must be tiring, with all the twisting of words and psychological bullying. Seriously, the feminists on this board should try to balance the extremism. As in any ideology, extremists don't help the cause, they give a bad reputation. From what I've encountered today, that's how this board comes accross. It's a shame, I know it's only one day, but seriously, stand up for beliefs. I'm not a regular and I find it vitriolic, don't know how regulars must feel.

Quick question and apologies if this isn't the place for it, but I thought the 'slutwalks' were by feminists?

I don't mind the occasional what about the menz discussion; I have a son and I do sometimes want to chat about how we bring boys up because gender roles can be damaging to men and boys in specific ways. I think that is rather different to people turning threads that are about women into ones about men.

I also wear makeup, dresses and low cut tops. I have admitted all of this on here and have not been demonised for it. I don't feel got at by the Bindel article. She isn't criticising women for doing these; she is criticising women who make out that it is empowering and a feminist statement to do those things.