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

[Nyac]

article by Julie Bindel in the New Statesman.

www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/08/fun-feminism-women-feminist

Quote:

"We need to bring back the radical edge to feminism, and do away with any notion that slutwalking, lap dancing, sex working or Burkha-wearing is liberation for women. If men like a particular brand of feminism, it means it is not working. "Fun feminism" should be consigned to the rubbish bin along with the Lib Dem party."

Agree with Julie, that it's extremely irritating to see a bunch of interlopers attempting to elbow their way in and co-opt feminism, redefining it to suit patriarchy's needs. I've even seen people who support patriarchal institutions like marriage, BDSM or the sex industry calling themselves radical feminists. There is so much misunderstanding and misinformation about feminism out there that people feel like they can grab what they like without making an actual political commitment or any kind of challenge to the patriarchy.

Really liberal feminism (the old kind, not the sex industry supporting kind) and radical feminism are the only kinds of feminism that have ever effected any kind of positive change for women. They need to be reclaimed and supported, not erased by third wave non-feminist feminism.

She's right about the lib dems too. :D Or maybe they are in the same boat and need some classic liberals to reclaim their party from the Tory party's whipping boys.

"Women again are being made vulnerable for the purpose of exploitation by the patriarchy."

Some women have made gains through the massive steps that previous waves of feminism made. Not many women would now think it acceptable to take home less pay than a male colleague for the same job. If women are being educated and taking up posts in well paid jobs they are less vulnerable to many forms of exploitation.

However as more women become higher earners and more economically independent the patriarchy must find a way to perpetuate itself, both along sex and class lines. The porn industry, the media, advertising, fashion, sex education in schools is not designed to empower women to take control of the own sexuality but rather to see sex as like any other commodity to be bought and sold. Where once it was just women from socio/economically disadvantaged backgrounds that could be recruited into the sex industry, rich white men have now found other ways that ensure they have a never ending and very large pool of women complicit and amenable to the aims of the patriarchy/capitalist. (I believe the two are the same)

Something radfems don't seem to address when telling other women that by working willingly in the sex industry they are betraying all other women and the feminist struggle: how does radical feminism suggest those women earn the same money if they stop working in the sex industry? If someone has no qualifications or there are no suitable jobs, or at least none that pay what she can earn in the sex industry and she decides that she is prepared to do that job for that money, that's a choice she has the right to make, and not one that she should be condemned for by someone who's coming at it from an ideological viewpoint and no practical experience. There are also women working within the sex industry trying to make it safer for each other without insisting on an abolitionist agenda - and some who are demanding the right to explore and perform sexuality on their own terms rather than falling back into the 'decent women don't like dirty stuff' trap.

So you're basically saying that women have no other choice than to work in the sex industry SGB. It's not really an argument for it, is it? That men have corralled women into the sex industry by denying them access to decent incomes any other way?

I don't know why you're claiming this is slut shaming or "decent women" crap morality - quite a lot of anti-sex industry feminists, including a good number of radicals, have worked in the sex industry themselves.

Nyac: I'm saying that feminism should not be about restricting other women's choices, and the radfem obsession with the sex industry (and sexual behaviour in general) is the same dead end for feminism that it has been for the last 20 years. The 'Domestic goddess' bullshit and the airspace given to women who advocate SAHM as though everyone has a rich hubby to support them is damaging to women's rights. The attack on reproductive rights and the destruction of the benefits system are far more immediately damaging to women's freedoms than the choices of some women to work in the sex industry.

And the biggest problem with the agenda-driven, anti-sex-industry campaigners is that they are dishonest scaremongers who talk a lot of bullshit and seem more concerned with squawking about what shoes another woman wears than the problems of people-trafficking that are not directly related to the sex industry.

how does radical feminism suggest those women earn the same money if they stop working in the sex industry? If someone has no qualifications or there are no suitable jobs, or at least none that pay what she can earn in the sex industry

That is the most ridiculous pro sex industry argument possible. Women are economically disadvantaged and they shouldn't be. Women are not commodities and it shouldn't be possible in a egalitarian world for women to be sold the idea that sex is a commodity to bartered in exchange for food or other commodities. Unless of course men are similarly coerced and disadvantaged.

Who dictates that women can or should or could earn more money selling sex? Why is it possible that selling sex is more profitable than selling sweets or bread?

Oh for god's sake SGB, the sex industry - porn, prostitution etc - cause enormous harm to women. It's absolutely right that feminism is focusing on it, and working to end this male abuse of women.

Just because a few women enjoy it does not detract from the suffering and destruction of the many.

I suggest you read this blog run by survivors of the industry and start waking up to what you're really defending:

survivorsconnect.wordpress.com/

If someone has no qualifications or there are no suitable jobs

What predisposes women to not having qualifications and why are there are no suitable jobs? What are the forces at play that decide what wok is waged and what isn't. Who creates work and decides what a single unit of exchange or the price of the good is? Who decides that women can not find well paid work in other sectors. Who decides whether it is possible to study? because even studying required money.

When women and their bodies are diminished to a single product of demand and exchange it means that women are less than other humans. People are not for sale but their waged labour is, someone always makes a profit from it, but women in the sex industry are both the product and the waged labour, usually poorly paid, working 1 hr to pay for a loaf of bread and a gallon on petrol, so that means that the a women as a commodity is worth very little indeed. All the time someone stands to make far more money both from her as a product and as waged labour.

problems of people-trafficking that are not directly related to the sex industry

Sorry about all the typos, multi tasking here, phone to ear.

Of course there are other reasons for people trafficking other than the sex industry but again that rests on the fact that the trafficked people are both labour and commodity, to be sold. Are women and children more or less likely than men to be trafficked?

NYAC the problem is women who are just trying to start out their journeys on feminism are learning, people recommended certain things to read and whilst I haven't read them all I find MacKinnon and Dworkin harder to relate to than say Martha Nussbaum. I don't know all the arguments yet, I am just coming to terms with negative and positive objectification and in some ways there is a resonance in Soble's work.

Maybe in a few years I would have become more radical but what I have read of the more modern UK radicals like Bindel and Banyard is there is no middle ground, no compromise or effort to understand other women who disagree. This is where I certainly find that the radical element hard to digest and therefore it has caused me to shy away. I may be the only one or they may be other women who feel the same. I find it strange that whilst feeling so driven away though I feel I have to explain and defend myself. I am a feminist but radical feminism is not my choice.

I know quite a lot of people who would say they are feminists but they're 'sex positive'. I agree with kritique the terminology is very important here (as with that debate we hate about the word 'misandry' - these are not 'just' words).

What bothers me is, finding a small minority of women who 'enjoy sex work' seems always to be put forward as if this is a really convincing argument. I want to leave aside for a minute the question of whether there might be complicated reasons for women to say though even though I am convinced there can be as I have heard them from the horse's mouth.

But if we accept this premise that some women enjoy sex work - why on earth should that justify perpetuating something that harms a whole lot more women? Are we saying the women who 'enjoy sex work' somehow deserve a bigger say? Or they're more important?

Because, to me, the right of one person to enjoy themselves is always going to be less important than the right of another person not to be hurt. And how can you, in this situation, have them both?

It comes across as incredibly selfish. I would rather we used that term rather than 'fun feminism' because at least it's accurate.

I'm really hoping that was just a coincidental juxtaposition with my post! If not, tell me what you're annoyed by and I will try to respond.

I didn't mean to call anyone on here 'selfish', btw. I do think there is selfishness involved in saying the rights of one set of people to enjoy themselves are more important than the rights of another group to be harmed, and I'd stand by that.

"extremist loons". Remind me again who is doing the name calling?

Yes separating the personal from the political is a problem when discussing feminism.

That's just more personal insults Warren. Calling people extremist Loons. It's just really unncecessary and designed to cause a fight.

The topic of this thread is women who call themselves feminists promoting anti-woman practices as feminism. It's a real problem.

SausageEggBacon, you don't need to read MacKinnon or Dworkin to come to the conclusion that the sex industry is deeply harmful to women and that feminists shouldn't be promoting it as feminist. I'd recommend that Survivors Connect blog to you as well as to SGB. It's very clear what they are saying about what happened to them.

which few posters are you attacking personally, then, by calling them names like 'extremist loons'?

Fight, fight, fight.

I mean we could have a proper discussion about the responsibilities of feminists not to promote anti-woman practices as feminist, thus leaving the women who are being harmed by institutions such as pornography or prostitution with nobody to stand up to them.

Or we could run a popularity contest about who is lovely and wonderful and BFF and who the extremist loons are.

Which choice looks more Mumsnet-friendly I wonder.

LRD I think it is more than the rights of those "sex workers" (and if we are talking about language there is a whole thread there for that phrase) taking precedence over the majority who don't. It is the rights of men to enjoy raping, objectifying, molesting these sex workers which is taking precedence. After all, they aren't even doing the work. And all this is done under the damaging guise that the women have a choice or that they enjoy it. Focussing on women who may enjoy it, is taking away from the fact that it is men's entitlement that has created the industry in the first place.

I can't believe anyone thinks it is 'extremist' to point out that activities which are harmful to women are, um, harmful.

I think people do find it hard to separate the personal from the political and thus do take it personally when anti-woman practices are criticised. Given there's such a long list of them that rad fems stand against, because men have found so many ways to exploit or harm women, generally someone will end up upset about something.

BDSM and underage sex seems to be the issues today.

It's great when people can call people extremists loons and then claim they aren't looking for a fight.

My god the fingers on the report post button would be going mad if I did that.