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

'Fun Feminists' - Splitters!!

I think what generally gets termed fun feminism is part of the backlash.

Women have been accorded a number of gains in terms of equality but we are a long way off liberation and the end of male supremacy. We are allowed to vote, earn money, etc but woe betide any woman who thinks she has the right to real sexual freedom (as opposed to patriarchal capitulating sexual expression). Women must be constantly reminded that we are the sex class and fun feminism does just that (excellent tool of patriarchy - one that on the surface appears to be about women's liberation but is actually about embracing oppressive practices).

Fun feminism often looks to me like it has taken the gains (many of them fought hard for by radical feminists) and then used them to express women's culture in ways that are highly patriarchal.

One of the main ways in which women are oppressed is through sex - we are the subhuman sex class. For women to claim that they choose to be the sex class just smacks of internalisation to me.

Fun feminism looks like a survival strategy to me at best, and very individualistic and therefore not political, at worst.

From this link

"Fun feminism is a term used to describe that curious branch (brand?) of "feminism" that looks suspiciously like what a bunch of misogynists would come up with if they were defining the terms of feminist existence. That is, fun feminists are "empowered" by embracing and performing male-centered, male-sanctioned (and usually male-created) expressions of toxic femininity.

Fun feminists are deeply enmeshed in what sociologists call "patriarchal bargains".

I don't agree with liberal feminism either, but IMO liberal feminism is a very different beast to fun feminism. AFAIK, liberal feminism doesn't claim that misogynistic beauty practices and sexual exploitation are liberating for women.

And I don't wish to tell any woman what to do with her genitals - I do think we should be able to discuss how what we do with our genitals is influenced by patriarchal paradigms however.

Because autonomy, a strong sense of self and of being an individual are very important to most people. Ditto not being a sheep, or following the crowd.

Same reason why "advertising doesn't work on me".

Thanks for the compliment. I started a chat thread to ask for ideas, so I didn't come up with it.

Why do you think people resist the idea so much that they are so strongly influenced in their choices by socialisation, childhood, etc? It is very relevant to feminism, but also to other things.

Absolutely, EatsBrains (love the name!)

I think if "fun Feminism" high jacks feminism it actually becomes just another tool of the thing we are in opposition to. It leads people up a path on a very dodgy ideology to a dead end.

Lots of people seem to think they make their own choices in life and fail to see or acknowledge that all of our choices are heavily influenced by lots of stuff in our lives, socialisation and the structure of society. You can only beginto make real choices (and even then not fully), if you understand and acknowledge the influences.

I don't know Nyac, but I guess it's because feminism doesn't exist in isolation but within this wider individualistic and capitalistic culture. People are unable to understand how media and advertising impact upon their thinking. Feminism needs to be antagonistic to the prevailing culture when that culture harms women.

I agree Abigail. I'm just listening to R4 because they are discussing Game Theory en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory

Which I think is very apt when discussing the balance between personal liberties and collective freedoms.

Game theory plays out in simple games of Rock, Paper Scissors, on the stock markets and in politics and it is also a great way of looking at decision making in general.

The main thrust of the theory is that sometimes we lose if we always play our most competitive strategy.

Supposing we take individualism to it's absolute end game, we all play our individual best strategy, we make decisions in isolation to everything/one else. What happens is we meet with blockages to those liberties where they come into competition with another's liberty. Their best strategy might be better/worse than yours, you might win, you might draw or you worse still lose.

Nobody says you aren't allowed to shave your muff. Saying that the rise in shaving pubic hair is down to the increase in the pornification of women by society, is not saying don't shave your muff.

It is just recognising that the political influences the personal. And that goes back to what Nyac said bloody ages ago upthread.

I consider myself a feminist. Quite a stroppy one, actually...

But here's where I hit a sticking point. I don't want anyone else to get a say over what goes on in my pants - whether that's patriarchal doctors, controlling boyfriends or people who insist that I am not allowed to shave my muff because it's porny.

When ANYONE starts trying to control what happens to my muff, it's a step too far. It's MY body, it belongs to ME, if I share it with someone they should consider themselves fucking privileged, so to be told that I'm doing "Being a woman" wrong is an affront to my self image. I am being myself, therefore I cannot be wrong, and what kind of freak wants to control my pubes for me anyway?

minimathsmouse you are v persuasive, I've always thought Marxism and feminism were natural enemies despite or because of what I learned of Marxist-feminism at university too long ago

anyway thanks for making me think, process might be helped by old age and poverty too

A lot of 'sex-positive' feminism is about making clear the difference between sex engaged in through choice (whether or not money is involved) and sex which is coerced. It's about defending the rights of women to make choices without being forced into changing their minds to benefit someone else's ideology or idea of what women 'should' be and 'should' like, and reaching out to those who are coerced into sex, or sex work - or marriage - and saying, it doesn't have to be like this, you don't have to accept this, you can walk away right now and make a different choice.

Oh, I must be really wrong... I thought Cameron and Clegg were both white and middle/upper class men? Are you saying I'm wrong?

If you genuinely have evidence that there are fewer white, middle-class men in government than you'd expect given the total number of white, middle-class men ... prove it, please?

By the way I am atheist too in the same way I am opposed to any extremist doctrine.

"No-one is saying there are not lots of powerful people who're not white or male.

The basic question is - are you happy with the fact that most powerful people are white and male, and middle or upper class? If you genuinely belive that there is something special about being white, male, and posh that makes a person more suited to being rich and important, then please say so. The current government in the UK will be so glad of your support"

It's a fallacy, the majority of powerful people are not white and middle class. Fwiw I am no fan of the current government in this country. But at least they realise that white middle class men are not the majority power holders in the world. Yes, the majority of power may be in male hands but they are not white. That's a very outdated view of current world politics.

SGB A very good point & one of the reasons I was a proclaimed atheist by my early teens as opposed to continuing in a pretense of belief to keep others happy.

Without historical context, it is impossible to explore the issues that face us currently.

No-one is saying there are not lots of powerful people who're not white or male.

The basic question is - are you happy with the fact that most powerful people are white and male, and middle or upper class? If you genuinely belive that there is something special about being white, male, and posh that makes a person more suited to being rich and important, then please say so. The current government in the UK will be so glad of your support.

But the biggest enemy of women's freedom and the biggest tool of the patriarchy is still religion, not some women choosing to wear high heels or speaking openly about a fondness for group sex. You still get plenty of white men banging on about racism and 'respect for other cultures' as a silencing tool when feminists criticize serious institutionalised oppression of women by religious organisations.