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.

Feminism isn't about 'individual freedom', it's about economic/political structures which systematically disadvantage women. The emphasis on individualism is a key ingredient of both neoliberal economics and libertarian social politics - two cheeks of the same arse

And social structures as well as political and economical.

Yy frida (I've got your picture in my front room btw)

There are two massive generalisations than underpin some of these posts.
All men are not the same. All women are not the same.

"how women's liberation now rests on how pleasing they are to the patriarchy. How palatable the message is and whether there is something in it for the guys"

Who are they guys? How do you expect anyone to take your discussion seriously when you over simplify and generalise everything? It's an immature approach to debate.

On a large scale when looking at systems such as political structures analysis has to be done through caterigerisation and identification of patterns.
When doing more in-depth analysis is when the broader and more diverse catorgerisation happens.

Agree to an extent but you have to be very careful about the assumptions you base your argument on as that can render the following conclusions invalid. That's how i see radical feminism, based on over simplified mass generalisation and backed up with over complicated conspiratorial selective evidence.

fun feminism is lame put down used by im more feminist than youse types
who naturally think they have the ideological and moral high ground
odd how it's permissable to use put downs to describe other feminists.but hell if a man used same quip it would be scandalous etc

Thank you for explaining it to us, EclecticShock.

Thank goodness you're here to put us right.

I've totally changed my mind about everything I believe, thanks to your brilliant explanations.

Nyac- Do people understand the differences between politics and someone simply doing something in their lives? Because they are different.

It's the second time you've made this point today. It astonishes me. I was taught that this very statement is the apotheosis of hypocrisy; the philosophical equivalent of "Do as I say, not as I do."

Is it what you really feel? Do you deny that everything we do is political, whether we're thinking about the politics or not? If you see 'political' as separate from 'personal', how then do you justify your critiques of the sex industry, or even of other women's feminism?

If a radical feminist political party came to government in the UK how do posters think they would change things?

I'm not trying to change anyone's mind or educate you, that's seems to be the approach of rad fem. I am merely explaining my own viewpoint and thought process.

Interesting question about being in government. However, if that was the case, people would have had to vote for them. That's the whole point, a minority cannot change things without support from the majority. This means a compromise has to be found. It requires negotiation not radical intervention.

I think it would change the UK's policies on aid. We would get behind the FAO's ideas about disaggregating gender when looking at food shortages.

What does "disaggregating gender when looking at food shortages." mean, please?

Please can you expand on that?

I'll see if I can find a link. I think we have had a few previous discussions on it when we were talking about Marilyn Waring's work. I think you might have been on those threads, GB.

The FAO page is here:

www.fao.org/gender/en/

garlic I don't think it's hypocrisy. It's like fridakahlo said, pages back -

'I like BDSM because it gets me off. But I also see how it reflects the patriartchal framework of society.'

frida, I thought that was a very brave and honest post.

Well your viewpoint and thought processes are fascinating and inspiring, EclecticShock.

And add so much insight to this debate.

Dreadful article - lazy and badly written. I think its the writing of Julie Bindel that needs consigning to the rubbish bin.

I agree plenty - honest, and not an easy thing to say.

Hmm, not quite the same, Plenty, as frida recognised a political angle to her personal choice - she didn't claim the two are unconnected. I feel that, when we find ourselves wanting to go "It's not political! It's just personal!", we are hiding something uncomfortable from ourselves. Not that this seems worth remarking in everyday life, but it does matter in a conversation about politics.

Do you know what is truely hilarious. I have been emailed by mn to say that I have been reported frequently on this thread. I haven't reported any posts on this thread, in fact I have only ever reported one post this year, when I was worried for someones welfare.

People are reporting me as they don't like what I'm saying. I don't like what some people are saying either but I don't resort to reporting.

The mind boggles how you can out down a whole section of society and discriminate transgender but I can't challenge a poster who has extremist discrimatory views I don't agree with.

Can anyone explain what exactly I said that was more offensive than the other stuff on this thread?

Electic, I could counter that, with twisting another's words or taking them out of context and reading into them something which isn't there, is childish. We might not agree, that's fine by me.

I think Julia expressed the difference quite well, some people put individual rights above everything else, neoliberal economics and libertarian social politics dominate the culture under which we live, it influences current thinking. Maybe it is the difference between collectivism and individualism.

I could say the same has been done to the views I've posted. Why is everyone ignoring the discrimination element. I am truely astounded and confused by the new set of socially acceptable rules on this board, which don't exist in mainstream. I feel like I've stepped into a twilight zone.