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.

Probably not the place for this question, but why is BDSM a problem? Is there already a thread on this? I get lapdancing/prostitution as very harmful obviously but not quite sure I understand consensual BDSM.

You don't want a fight but you come out with phrases like extremist loons? What exactly were you expecting postingthat? That we would all bow down and say "Oh yes, Warren you are right, I've seen the light". It was deliberately provocative. Don't be disingenuous.

abigail - I'm aware of the terminology issues re. 'sex worker' - rightly or wrongly, in this case I wanted to use it because that's the terms in which people who make this argument put it.

I totally agree it is not just about one set of people getting enjoyment but harming others, it's about all the many sets of people who get enjoyment by harming others. Same argument IMO extends to porn, in exactly the same way.

The basic point is, someone's right not to be hurt will always win out over anything relating to other people's enjoyment.

Men who indulge in sadistic practices towards women are behaving in a misogynistic way and are expressing their own misogyny.

Unless we start actually holding men accountable for harm they inflict on women individually and collectively then nothing will change. This isn't politically complicated. But it's true what Julie Bindel says, that it does make feminism difficult for heterosexual women, particularly those who are taking part in BDSM practices with their male partners. It doesn't make feminism or the feminists saying those things wrong though.

But BDSM isn't always male - D, female - S is it? So is BDSM where the man is submissive ok?

Puffin, BDSM fetishises dominance and submission, which is what male supremacy is based on. It also institutionalises and sexualises male sadism towards women.

Basically feminism doesn't support male violence towards women and is fighting for it to end, so there's no reason to begin to support it just because sexual enjoyment is involved.

Maybe it would help if we had some sort of agreement about the possible ways in which "sex positive" feminism might harm all women and try to strike a balance by saying in what ways it might further the cause of all women's rights. Rather than discussing loons.

Would it not be better for all women to have equal access to education and greater social equality first before we decide if sex work is a valid and sensible choice for some women. It seems to me that the vast majority of women who work in the industry are not there through choice.

Does this mean that the sex positive argument about self determination undermines or diminishes the great suffering of those who are coerced into it?

Sorry LRD, I wasn't meaning to suggest that you didn't understand how loaded the term sex worker could be. It was a comment more for lurkers.

Here's what Dworkin said about female masochism (she was in a sadomasochistic relationship, she actually brought the practice to the relationship, and then had to flee her partner because he became so violent):

"I believe that freedom for women must begin in the repudiation of our own masochism. I believe that we must destroy in ourselves the drive to masochism at its sexual roots. I believe that we must establish our own authenticity, individually and among ourselvesto experience it, to create from it, and also to deprive men of occasions for reifying the lie of manhood over and against us. I believe that ridding ourselves of our own deeply entrenched masochism, which takes so many tortured forms, is the first priority; it is the first deadly blow that we can strike against systematized male dominance. In effect, when we succeed in excising masochism from our own personalities and constitutions, we will be cutting the male life line to power over and against us, to male worth in contradistinction to female degradation, to male identity posited on brutally enforced female negativitywe will be cutting the male life line to manhood itself. Only when manhood is deadand it will perish when ravaged femininity no longer sustains itonly then will we know what it is to be free."

Oh, no, you were right to make the point. The first time I wrote my post I'd put more of it inside inverted commas than outside!

mini - what's stopping us from doing everything together? IMO they are all interconnected - it'd be a really hollow victory if women gained 50/50 representation in parliament but we did it by ignoring what's happening elsewhere.

if that's what proper feminism is I want no part in it

Don't be put off by the handful of feminists who claim the right to proscribe feminism, Warren! We need feminism and feminists.

The fact that we don't always agree with everything the others say is irrelevant. I'm with Mooncup on what she said about Palestine and her views not making her an islamist. I am a capitalist but mourn the Labour party. I agree with about half of SGB's views, loathe the rest. I often agree with Nyac and hate the way she makes her arguments. I defend freedom of expression. That means I respect other people's right to express themselves, and insist on mine.

I've often been told here that I'm not a feminist. I have a long history of making real, measurable improvements to women's freedoms at international, national and personal levels. Therefore, I believe, I'm a real feminist and my feminism is valuable. It doesn't matter that some other feminists dislike what I say or the way I say it. I hope you'll do the same, in your own way.

Nyac - people do find it hard to separate the personal from the political. Huh? The personal is the political, and vice versa, surely?!

I agree LRD. It's interesting that in view of the fact that not ALL women have access to education/higher education, better wages and more parity with men on wages that anyone should even make an argument in favour of women choosing lap dancing as a job.

garlicbutty

"I've often been told here that I'm not a feminist. I have a long history of making real, measurable improvements to women's freedoms at international, national and personal levels. Therefore, I believe, I'm a real feminist and my feminism is valuable. It doesn't matter that some other feminists dislike what I say or the way I say it. I hope you'll do the same, in your own way."

This is exactly what my next post was to be about. Surely, the extent to which you are a feminist is defined by how successful you are at it, i.e. making measurable differences at all levels.

That's a difficult thing to define obviously, but I think it's much more significant than saying I'm a feminist because I've done some reading on the subject and I agree with all the arguments put forward by such and such, irrespective of the actual value those arguments create in the real world when helping women in oppressive situations.

mini - true. And something that I find very uncomfortable is when women like Brooke Magnanti, who have been highly privileged in terms of education and choice, act as role models and make out there's a similarity between them and other women who do not have the same privilege and choice.

Wow, just caught up on this from last night.... lots of different povs.

Without personally attacking anybody, my rule of thumb is that I don't trust anybody who completely toes a party line. For example, I would class my political views as left leaning, but that doesn't mean I don't take a more conservative view towards certain issues like crime and punishment. Life is not black and white and people who seem to spout doctrine rather than actually talking like a real human being are hard to relate to.
My views towards the sex industry are probably ambiguous. If my son had a porn mag or watched a porn film when he was in his teens, I wouldn't feel I'd failed as a mother or that he hated women. I don't necessarily see that as the evil influence that others do.
My views on prostitution are different though, I used to walk to my nice all girls school, and had to pass a pretty notorious road - basically at the edge of the red light district. The women would be out on the street in the mornings and afternoons looking like hell. Pale, skinny, dirty looking and aggressive. The contrast between my friends and I was shocking but probably some of them were not much older than us. Even at that young age it would make me want to cry as it was so obviously wrong that a woman could end up in this state. When I found out that prostitutes are often controlled by horrible vicious men it made the whole thing worse and I will never agree with anybody who thinks prostitution can be a good thing. maybe it's a simplistic view but I form my opinions according to the world around me. I don't see all, or indeed most, men as abusers and exploiters of women because I have far too many amazing men in my life, not to mention a beautiful son.
NYAC Can I ask a genuine question of you? How does your radical feminism inform your daily life? (Hope this doesn't seem facetious just that you have stood out on the thread as having strong views and being very well informed). Do you have like minded friends and family or do you clash with them re feminism?

I always thought feminism was about both, action and philosophy, silly me, it's about choices, rights and liberties even if those go against or defy all logic, all sense and even in some respects might harm others. For every action there is an intended consequence and an unintended consequence. Its what makes all of our relationships to each other and nature so anarchic.

Do you know it's more women friendly in politics than in feminism these day. Should that not mean something to us. Will women ever achieve that which they claim is their prize when they spend more time attacking each other than the patriarchy

Who drove the wedge in there? I think you'll find it's the thing you claim to by fighting against, it alludes us because we fail to see how clever and how powerful the influences are around us in shaping how we feel and think.

Thanks for sharing Dworkin Nyac, powerful stuff.

not ALL women have access to education/higher education, better wages ... make an argument in favour of women choosing lap dancing as a job.

Can we cut this back to basics please? Not all men have those privileges either. For economically oppressed men, the option of lapdancing isn't available. That's because of patriarchal economics, which deem it acceptable for men to rent sex but not the other way around.

I'm not postulating that women should buy sex or men's bodies (and am aware some do). I'm pointing out that this form of exploitation is gendered and patriarchal. Also fundamental to the whole problem, imo.

Nice of you to be interested MizK, but this isn't a safe thread to be answering personal questions on, given the number of personal attacks launched at me either directly or in an underhand way. It's also got nothing to do with the topic of the thread.

I'm thinking the question here is how we get these sex positive feminists to stop promoting their distorted view of feminism. Because sadly they have had a detrimental effect. One or two generations of young women have grown up believing that feminism has nothing to offer them except pole-dancing and lipstick wearing, and have no idea what feminism actually fights for. I can't count the number of younger feminists I've come across who say that had to fight their way through the fun feminism before they could find the useful radicalism. It wasn't at all easy for them and some I know did give up.

Mumsent is quite unusual in that radical feminism does have a voice here. A voice quite a lot of people would like to see silence, either through trolling or personal attacks.

Who said all men did?

You are naive if you think men never get into prostitution etc. They do. We just happen to be talking about women.

If you recognize this is gendered exploitation, why insist on pointing out men don't always have access to education? That is also a gendered issue.

"Do you know it's more women friendly in politics than in feminism these day. Should that not mean something to us. Will women ever achieve that which they claim is their prize when they spend more time attacking each other than the patriarchy "

This has to be the quote of the day :). Interpretation: Feminism is more oppressive to women than the profession of politics.

I have to say I don't agree but I do think you have a point. Radical feminism might well be more oppressive to women than something like the professional political arena.

What that a Freudian slip, I wonder.

No, not a Freudian slip. I actually think that radical feminism is the way forward (I'm Marxist that won't appeal to the rest of you, that's fine) but women have been subverted by the media, by politics by institutions that support and renew the patriarchal influences around us. I fear some younger women, esp teenage girls are being sold the idea that freedom is all, freedom to sell out to the people that will exploit you. It's become a sort of inverse pervasive and damaging message that something like pole dancing or porn, or fashion or plastic surgery is liberating young women. Its a lie and that lie is put there by the influences that are controlled by the patriarchy (i believe to make money) Nyac believes so that men can continue their domination over us.

So, you would like to see the freedoms afforded to women reduced as you don't believe some women are capable of using their freedom wisely. So you want to oppress all women. What a strange logic and not one I have come accross before in terms of equality thinking.

LRD, I could have put it a lot better if I weren't trying to keep my posting time down

I wanted to think, not so much about the gender imbalance in education & opportunities, etc, as about why the sex trades exist as employment for less-privileged women.

I said patriarchal economics deem it acceptable for men to rent sex but not the other way around. I deliberately didn't say "rent women for sex" because men also rent men for sex. As you say, we're talking about women here so that's the focus.

While typing, I was thinking about all the complexities of economic oppression and how it has been enacted almost systematically to make the bodies of the poor available to the rich. With men's bodies, that historically includes doing unsafe jobs and going to be killed in war as well as zillions of other abuses against the oppressed. Wherever there is an oppressed class, the women of that class get it worst and often with more fiendishly imaginative abuses. My thoughts were also reaching into the realms of women's economic dependence on men and to what extent a traditional marriage may be viewed as a style of prostitution.

But I can't put everything I'm thinking about in one post!

One of the reasons I consider the anti-sex, anti-sex-industry strand of feminism to be both dishonest and self-righteous (and driven by a fondness for self-righteous bullying rather than an interest in women's freedom) is the insistence that BDSM is 'all about' men inflicting pain on women when probably the overall majority of people into BDSM who like to be the 'sub' or 'bottom' are male.

The type of laws called for by anti-sex feminists are claimed to be about helping women in the sex trade, but in practice they make it more difficult and dangerous to work in this industry and offer no help at all unless the woman accepts the abolitionists' agenda: it's not about making sex workers safer, it's about making it impossible for them to do the job safely.

Is fun-fem being used as a euphemism for liberal feminists?

As liberal-feminism isn't being mentioned much.