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.

I think probably MN want you to know you maybe need to tone it down?

Why would you report people unless you had a problem with them?

You are coming across a bit rude, if you don't mind me saying. I don't think I've responded to a single post of yours and I've noticed it, so it's obviously not that subtle.

I guess it was related to my posts which have directed at Nyac. Unfortunately, it got personal as there was only one poster that I vehemently disagreed with, hence why it was directed at them. So it would be acceptable if I directed my posts at more than one person?

Ok, fair enough, what imparticular is coming accross rude?

The main problem with the article for me is the author does not really address what form of feminism she is taking issue with. She refers to "fun feminism" but does not define it. She seems only to be saying that any form of feminism she doesnt agree with is wrong and lumps it together under the term "fun feminism" It is a very poorly written article. Lazy, sloppy and with no clear point

Did we forget to talk about the article again? Let's get back on track. Still nobody seems to interested in talking about the devastation that sex positive feminists have wreaked on feminism. To repeate:

"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."

it's slack to make up lame put downs
competitive feminism,posturing to be most rad. not like the fun fem who are drippy

your bossy tone makes me laugh.threads go off at tangents.and lots of c&p can't compel people to stick to your agenda

eclectic, your first post started with 'I'm new to this section of mn. I find it patronising that it seems some people on this board think that those that don't agree with them just haven't seen the light yet. It's like talking to a born again Christian. Radical feminism has really put me off this board to be honest.'

Did you mean to sound so rude?

Would it have been really difficult to express your disagreement without being rude about radical feminism and 'some people' (which is a rather nasty thing to say as it is clearly intended to offend someone, but because you don't name them, no-one knows who)?

Lots of posters manage to explain they're not radical feminists, and still post here and are valued.

But Nyac - that's not in the article

Actually what she says is that "fun fems" (sex positive) feminists are only focussed on individuality, and have forgotten or are even trying to hide that feminism is a collective movement for the well-being of all women. Sex positive third wave feminism promotes the idea that everything a woman does is feminist as long as it was her choice to do it, which is ridiculous if you think about it for more than half a second.

It's a political point, not: "they're drippy".

Welcome to the home of extremists who like propaganda.
Favourites here include:
Labelling, Black & White fallacy, Oversimplication, Demonisation, Stereotyping or Associative fallacy, amongst others.

It is the twilight world. One that isn't particularly healthy, especially if you aren't aware of half the crap thats going on.

are you going to c&p your way through thread til we submit and all agree

The point that they are damaging feminism certainly is Catgirl:

"These "fun feminists", who have little or no idea about the theory or practice of this movement, take advantage of the benefits that radicals have fought long and hard for, whilst contributing nothing. In fact, they are damaging to other women, and are destroying progress won by those of us who do not weep when men disapprove of our views."

She at no point makes reference to "sex positive" feminism - which is lay uf that is what she means by fun fem - nor does she define what ff or spf are (given she is not writing in a feminist publication this is poor). She does ascribe a focus only on indviduality to "fum fem" which is not entirely accurate and is in no way explained or explored

Very poor writing

Scittish, that isn't at all helpful.

Just reading that paragraph it strikes me that if lipstick wearing and pole dancing were our greatest gains some younger women surely would see through that and would give up. Radical feminism and indeed from my point of view marxist feminism has been sidelined. It isn't that accessible to women. Is it because the media has promoted this one strand to use to dismiss all feminism?

How could you submit SM. It's just words on a screen. I'm just making my points and arguments, same as you're making yours. Surely you don't object to that?

and habitual c&p adds little to discussion
other than battering home points already made

"Welcome to the home of extremists who like propaganda"

Don't you think that comes across as very rude?

It is a very aggressive thing to post.

Did you mean it to be?

But she does not expand on how she believes fun feminism is damaging feminism. So how would a reader assess the point she is making? How would they be able to understand this? She also makes silly statements about women "weeping" when men dissapprove of thier views.

Appallling writing I am afraid

yes dreadful article it would flunk higher english

Well it's not the writing that's the main issue catgirl, especially given that it's a matter of taste, it's the politics.

Are her politics correct? I'd say they are. She's right that sex positive feminsim (fun feminism) has had a malign influence on feminism. For example people like Caitlin Moran who go around saying that porn is fine, and claiming that they are doing it from a feminist perspective and that theirs is a feminsit position need to stop it right now.

you clearly hold the writing in some regard?you keep asking us to return to article , keep c&p it in case we missed any pertinent points

Does it matter how well or otherwise Bindel has written this, she still raises a really crucial point, there is an obvious implosion in modern mainstream feminism which is likely to set back women's rights and not advance them.

Being rude is subjective surely.

I don't see it as a crucial point
I see low level sniping, and competitive feminism who is most rad and/or worthy