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

'Nyac, The Burkha wasn't created by men and it isn't necessary to religious observance. It is cultural and came about in the midlle east and north Africa in response to the sun and the hamazans.'

Do you have a source for this, minimathsmouse? Certainly head coverings and loose garments are a response to the blazing sun, and are therefore worn by both genders. But the burkha covers a woman's face, and even her eyes - it dehumanises her, and prevents her from eating or drinking anything in public (thus non-coincidentally barring her from Middle East cafe culture). It is a horrible thing, and had nearly died out before the recent resurgence of radical/Salafist Islam with its accompanying woman-hating.

"Supporting the rights of sex workers not to be harassed and stigmatized"

All feminists do that. Radical feminists do that, while also critiquing the place of the sex industry within the patriarchy.

If that's all sex positive feminism does, then it doesn't do anything different to radical feminism.

However, what it also does which radical feminism refuses to, is legitimise the sex industry, porn and prostitution. It legitimises men's right to use their economic power to access the bodies of women who have less economic power than men as a class and if they didn't, might not make the choice to allow those men to access their bodies. It refuses to look at the economic and social context in which the transactions between men and women with regard to sex, take place.

In other words, sex positive feminism, has a closer relationship to post-modernism, than it does to feminism. Post modernism has been incredibly successful at infiltrating most radical and progressive political movements and changing the terms of the debate within those movements - it's done it to the socialist and anarchist movements as well. It is fundamentally a right-wing, reactionary way of looking at the world because it refuses to acknowledge the relationship everythign has to everything else and it enables right wing people to argue that something that is profoundly regressive, is actually progressive.

When normal people look at post-modern arguments, they can instantly see the lack of common-sense but are afraid to point it out because post-modernism annihilates common-sense with bullshit academic language which expresses ideas that don't come out of reality; they come out of theoretical bullshit unrooted in reality, unlike radical feminism which is absolutely rooted in women's experience and reality and therefore, like any ideology rooted in material reality, makes it difficult for post-modernism to gain a foothold. Sex positive feminism is just the wing of feminism that post-modernism has managed to colonise most successfully IMO.

Nyac, The Burkha wasn't created by men and it isn't necessary to religious observance. It is cultural and came about in the midlle east and north Africa in response to the sun and the hamazans. Once many muslim women realise this "walking cage" as you put it, serves no purpose, they can start to question why they wear it. In many areas in the world women are working towards liberation but are choosing to continue to wear it. It may be men (not moderates) who insist now that women wear it but there are women who choose to wear it. How we go about liberating one culture or race or religion must be sensitive and empathic to their culture. IF they choose to wear it, they have as much right to do so, as I have not to wear it.

Alienating muslim women from feminism entirely on grounds of dress code is in no way going to help their emancipation.

Maybe that is why radicals insist on strict adherence to their way or the high way, they wish to create a hierarchical feminism where one sort is better than another. Any movement which now very narrowly focuses on a "doctrine" is always going to alienate people. A strict doctrine in feminism would be little different than strict religious doctrine.

Also the Slutwalk was considered to be extremely alienating to a lot of women. Lots of women neither want to reclaim the word slut, nor think it is possible (it cannot be reclaimed as it has always been a slur).

Many women of colour felt that they could not march in support of something which used the word 'slut'. I very much agree with this - these women put into words why I felt very uncomfortable with the Slutwalks.

Black women have worked tirelessly since the 19th century colored women?s clubs to rid society of the sexist/racist vernacular of slut, jezebel, hottentot, mammy, mule, sapphire; to build our sense of selves and redefine what women who look like us represent. Although we vehemently support a woman?s right to wear whatever she wants anytime, anywhere, within the context of a ?SlutWalk? we don?t have the privilege to walk through the streets of New York City, Detroit, D.C., Atlanta, Chicago, Miami, L.A. etc., either half-naked or fully clothed self-identifying as ?sluts? and think that this will make women safer in our communities an hour later, a month later, or a year later. Moreover, we are careful not to set a precedent for our young girls by giving them the message that we can self-identify as ?sluts? when we?re still working to annihilate the word ?ho?, which deriving from the word ?hooker? or ?whore?, as in ?Jezebel whore? was meant to dehumanize. Lastly, we do not want to encourage our young men, our Black fathers, sons and brothers to reinforce Black women?s identities as ?sluts? by normalizing the term on t-shirts, buttons, flyers and pamphlets.

Slutwalks, and indeed sex positive feminism is general, just feels to me like privileged women embracing patriarchal values of women as primarily having a sexual function. I see no political analysis and no analysis of the feminization of poverty by these women so I'm not too sure how they think they are going to make things better for women as a group. I don't think fucking your way to liberation when you are oppressed through your sex and your sexuality, in the context of a gender binary hierarchy, is a very good plan. Feels pretty doomed to failure.

I agree - radical feminists don't wish to restrict women's sexual activity nor shame women for being sexual.

SGB you appear to be mixing up rad fems with the moral right.

I constantly see the myth, that radical feminists are anti women's sexual freedom, spouted by sex positive feminists (even calling themselves sex positive suggests that they think other branches of feminism are sex negative).

Like I said I don't get it - either these people don't actually understand what radical feminism is about or they wish to attack and undermine it. And I find that very very odd.

Sex positive feminism is not specifically designed to attack other feminists; slutshaming and restrictions on women's sexual freedom come from the patriarchy in far greater proportions, particularly in the US where reproductive rights are under attack (all the pro-abstinence crap, the stuff about a girl asking for contraception not to be charged for and being called a slut by a government official) and you have maniacs like that bloke who wants to change the legal wording for rape trials so that a victim cannot be referred to as a victim but must be described as an 'accuser'.

But radical feminism does not judge women who work in the sex industry - nor does it engage in slut shaming. Quite the contrary.

So I'm kind of at a loss as to why sex positive feminists expend so much energy claiming the opposite.

I Don't Get It.

On this phrase from Bindel "if a man approves of a brand of feminism it's not working" - I think what she means is that true feminism asks men to relinquish male privilege. And that is never going to be easy. It doesn't mean that all men are the enemy - it means that all men benefit from male privilege, and by definition, for women to be equal/liberated, men will have to give up that privilege. And, of course, the sort of adjusting of the status quo that the above would entail is going to be uncomfortable for men (for historic, social and individual reasons). I think, within that context, it is a reasonable statement.

I do agree with that point of view. Not all men are the enemy. Interestingly though when I think of the men I know, my dh is the "work in progress" - though recently he is heading up the the diversity committee for his employer, and learning A LOT. But I work with some genuinely lovely guys - very family orientated, non presenteesim types. Due to the industry I work in, it is not uncommon that I am the only female in the room, yet I have NEVER felt intimidated by this. I feel judged by my professional performance, not by my breasts.

See.. if Sex positive feminism is what SGB says, then it doesn't sound damaging / anti feminism to me.

It sounds much better than anything that takes the view that "if a man approves of a brand of feminism it's not working" as that is just stoopid frankly.

Thank you Minimath

Look, the main motivation of 'sex positive' feminism is objections to slut-shaming. It is not about saying 'Oh just buy some lipstick and learn to pole-dance and you won't have to worry about DV, reproductive rights or unequal pay any more'. Supporting the rights of sex workers not to be harassed and stigmatized is not telling all women that taking up sex work is their best option if they don't want to do it. The Slutwalk was a fightback against the rape myth that if a woman dresses in a certain way she deserves to be raped. The insistence that women who refuse to condemn all forms of commercial sex and/or sexual display are Bad Feminists who want us all back under male control is as much a stupid caricature as the idea that all Proper Feminists are unwashed, hairy bullies who want to put men in extermination camps.

The definition of free choice and the right to exercise it. Bindel exercised her right when she wrote the article. The fact she was able to to is a comment in and of it self. However getting to the key issue I don't like porn and I don't like prostitution and I don't like Bindel's opinion. That is my free choice which as a woman I have the right to exercise. I could not and should not stop people exercising their free choice.

I can comment on it, I can put forward suggestions and can express my opinion. I am grateful for that as I am grateful for the ability to read, listen observe and learn. I have not walked in another woman's shoes so judging her by her job is very difficult if she believes it is what she want's to do. I do dislike claims that the only reason a woman says she enjoy's a job around sex work is because she is brain washed. Yes some women make poor choices but it is their choice.

And at this point there are several things that wont get done unless I start them now. BBL

ladypoverty.blogspot.co.uk/2010/03/my-marxist-feminist-dialectic-brings_05.html this is a great read Sanjeev

"In a "dictatorship of production" largely run by men for their needs, which is additionally ever-expanding into new realms of human experience, the commodification of female sexuality is plain to see, not only in the strict sense of pornography, but in the pornographic forms in which women, presented as "finished products," are distributed within the mainstream. This "consumer-oriented" approach to women is very deeply held by men, reinforced by that personal liberty which is the exclusive domain of market relations, and which men do not experience anywhere else. That creative capacity which men naturally possess remains unreferenced; it is not used at work, and it is not applicable in the market. It lies undeveloped to a significant degree.

It is important to emphasize the extent to which the creative impotence which men experience through a subjugated work experience is mutually reinforced by the power-urge men experience as consumers, where their creative abilities don't apply. The very social relation which men most desire but struggle to navigate has been commodified into an object which must now compete with others of its kind for mens' approval. Men have been transformed through market relations from objects of production into gods which the female-sexual-commodity is designed to serve"

I'll look out some books, Engles is really the original proponent that women are disadvantaged under the capitalist mode of production but would be difficult to digest in it's entirety. The one thing you have to be quite careful of is the fact that Marxist-feminism has also been devalued as a critique and when you do internet searches it will throw up all sorts of contradictions.

Broadly speaking it's a socialist movement concerned with all forms of class discrimination, incl sexism, Lots of Marx analysis is difficult and impenetrable but many great books and some online courses on capital, if your interested.

IF it is a free choice

And therein lies the major difference between radical views and fun/sex positive views - in how we conceptualise free choice.

If dancing round a pole in nipples tassels were such a free choice, it wouldn't be predominately young pretty women who did it for the entertainment/titillation of paying men.

I have found that even if I don't agree with something - maybe some of the more "extreme" radical views, I have found it very useful to think about WHY I don't agree with them. Personally I found that going through that exercise has completely challenged some inherent beliefs that I always held as truths before.

To give an example, I always believed that males/females behaved differently mainly because of biology. I grew up believing that, and it is hard to get my head round that it is not true. That, yes there are biological differences between the sexes, but I never appreciated how much influence social/cultural expectations and pressures had on the way we raise children. My 8 yo recently did a workshop at school where they discussed this. I was very impressed.

My experience of sex positive values is that they argue that being against the gendered institution of prostitution (for example) is oppressive. I wonder if they think being against human organ selling, due to how the poor and oppressed are likely to be exploited, were it legal to trade in organs, is also oppressive?

Beachcomber I am very much a creature of Milton/Sartre so I tend to be in favour of people exercising free will. I do not see myself having the right to decide for others IF it is a free choice. I much more keen on seeing the work of Forward UK promoted and all feminists no matter what type supporting the work against FGM. It is probably closer to me as a friend suffered this when she was quite young and it is not something she discusses easily.

I'm familiar-ish with it but from what I can see it doesn't seem to insist that people cannot object to pole dancing etc. It is anti-censorship, but thats not the same thing

Catgirl are you not familiar with the sex positive movement and its criticisms of radical feminism? There are loads of blogs, books, etc on the subject - I'm not the right person to direct you to them as I avoid them.

Sausageeggbacon that's fine if you disagree with Bindel. I happen to agree with her but I won't tell you or anyone else that their way is wrong - I will however robustly argue why I disagree with people who support the porn and prostitution industries for example.

Great thread, Nyac - twenty pages of genuinely interesting discussion.

Minimath - can you recommend some introductory reading on Marxist-feminism, plus anything that might grab the interest of my 15 year old daughter?

catgirl1976 Thu 10-May-12 12:07:52
If a significant issue with "fun feminism" is that it is alientaing many women from feminism, could the same not be said of radical feminism?

Nope, but rad fems know better than anyone else. They are right and we are wrong, and if we are alienated, its just cos we are brainwashed idiots and we should convert to their ways of thinking.

I think that just about sums up the lack of respect, for other forms of feminism or for anyone else not in their 'gang'. Not exactly a great state of affairs.