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

Lots to catch up on since last night.

Getting back to Nyac's original post, there are some points I'd take issue with. In the main the statement that 'if men like a particular brand of feminism it isn't working'. I realise this could be a flip journalistic statement, but this board and what i've seen & experienced of rad fem discourse, flip statements get short shrift. Suffice to say I don't think men approving of or supporting a feminist act or approach invalidates it. Men have wives, sisters and daughters too.

I've already mentioned upthread that I'm uncomfortable with the use of interlopers, because while I agree that many feminist theories are defined, I think it Ivey difficult I most cases to take the label of 'feminist' away go someone who agrees with the basics but may take part in activities that are incompatible with radical feminism. I really do believe there are better ways to wine hearts and minds than to sneer at these people.

I've also met many sex positive feminists. I've not met one who said the road to feminism was through shagging or as work, so I'd love to understand where the OP is getting that from.

For the record and in the interests of disclosure I do label myself as a feminist but would not take the label of rad fem or sex positive, so I am genuinely curious.

And having the freedom to explore my sexuality is not going to sort out all the other disadvantages we find ourselves facing as women. Like the fact that there is hardly any proper recourse against rape.

Historical maybe, but aren't we talking about now? In actual fact china, Japan and middle east have much more monetary and political power than most western predominately white nations. Anyway how can you lump in racial background with feminism?

The view of white men being supremist is completely outdated in this day and age.

At least nowadays, in a large part thanks to feminism, I can walk away from a marriage with my children and take anything with me that I brought in the first place. It's less than two hundred years since women were in a situation where a)getting divorced was nigh on impossible and b)if you did manage you had no right to your children or your property.
But at the same time, just because it is better than it was, does not negate the fact that women are still at a disadvantage just because they happened to be born female.

FWiw, I'm not dependant financially or emotionally on anyone, male or female...it's not a fact of life that all women are at the service of men.

White is mainly historical. If you look back over history you find that western nations have had imperialistic ambitions over much of the world.

There are many many powerful people who are not white or male. China, japan, middle east? What has white got to do with it?

by earning my own money,not being housewife I feel autonomous, not dependent upon a male partner. money does give a freedom and a choice.you only have to read the housewife posts on mn about dp stingy with money, no individual account,no savings.to see this represents a limited choice

Radical feminism isn't asserting anything about stupidity or complicity, the basis of it is that all forms of oppression spring from the original and oldest form of oppression, which is male domination over women. This can also be read to mean male domination in business, in public spaces, privately within the home and politically.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist_feminism

In what way do women copy men's excesses? I'm interested because I have always thought that freedom should also allow women to behave in any way especially female and still be accorded the same respect. So I can wear pink and I can speak softly if that is my natural character without conceding freedoms.

I agree re America now and feel that this is capitalism and neo-liberalism gone mad. Its about making a commodity out of everything.

How does money represent power or freedom?

I would say that, since money represents value in a patriarchial society, it represents a power dynamic that discriminates against groups who are not male, white, upper-class, Western people - no?

Tis insidious though, Eclectic. I would recommend the Equality Illusion as a starter. Easy to read, and blows many myths wide open.

Sorry basil don't understand your post, please explain.

Money represents power and freedom to everyone not just women...

lol that you have claimed that as your behaviour, eclectic. you weren't top of mind, but you recognised yourself.

" It's about saying that women should have the right to explore and have fun with their sexuality if they choose to without being slut-shamed or blamed for men's bad behaviour"

Interesting point. All of that is sound with me until you bring money into the equation. Because women are often disempowered economically and we know money/property is power, money brings a dynamic to it that undermines freedom and equality. I think it's fine for women to enjoy freedoms that in past generations would have been off bounds.

What I have so far gathered by the term radical feminism, is for all intents and purposes trying to protect women from inequality. However, the approach to me seems more like overestimating the power of men. Rad fem suggests that everything women do (who are not rad fems) is for the service of men, mostly unwittingly as we are too stupid to understand the consequences of our actions on other people, mainly women.

I agree with protect women against inequality, what I don't believe is that we have to repress ourselves and limit our freedom of expression in order to counteract inequality against females.

I strongly disagree that just because I am not rad fem, I am somehow contributing to discrimination against women.

Ironic, being patronised by a radical feminist.

yes but do stop instructing posters to get back on topic (ie your agenda)
and c&p prompts to remind us of what you want to discuss
just as you talk bout what you wish...so will others

Another reason for attacking the fundamental dishonesty of Bindel's piece (and a lot of her work) is that she is claiming that the women she calls 'fun feminists' are harming feminism just by refusing to buy into the cover-up-and-censor mindset and either ignoring or completely suppressing how much sex-positive feminists have contributed to campaigns against DV, or in favour of women's reproductive rights, or for equal pay or other feminist issues. No, she's just slamming them for being 'men-pleasers' ie engaging in slut-shaming. Sex positive feminism is not about telling All Women to go learn to pole dance, any more than preferring to concentrate on childrearing rather than work while your DC are small is telling All Women to get back indoors and breed. It's about saying that women should have the right to explore and have fun with their sexuality if they choose to without being slut-shamed or blamed for men's bad behaviour.

basil lots of people who don't enjoy the board are feminists too! Just not so extreme or addicted to copy and paste as others.....
nyac I think you should consider that the thread is a conversation so should be allowed to be organic. The way you keep bossing everyone to stay rigidly on topic reminds me of my old boss at meetings, harrumphing when we strayed from the agenda for a moment.

"oh the fem topic is always so tiresome and pointless and bickery and bullyish, but I can't help posting on it in a really aggressive, confrontational, preremptory, rude or passive-aggressive manner.

What is it about this board?

Is it just that I'm bonkers, or is it that the narsty feminists pull me in and make me post words on a screen?

I just can't work it out. What am I doing here? Wossitallabaht?"

Just because my name is not mentioned surely doesn't stop this being a personal attack. Or am I mistaken and it's all about the way you post rather than the content of the post ?

Wanting to learn means exploring alternatives not neccesarily agreeing with them. Why is that difficult to understand?