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.

clearly

but we concur slutwalk misguided
and no I don't think Jordan or towie lassies are empowered by plastic tits and agents

So anyway, back to the attempted fun fem takeover of feminism. Ariel Levy wrote about this in Female Chauvinist Pigs, which must be nearly ten years old now. She blamed it on women however. And forgot to notice that it's men at the top of media encouraging these women, giving them jobs and publishing contracts (see Moran's useless book), which ensure that the unfeminist feminist voice drowns out actual feminism or criticism of male harm to women.

Its a shame but feminism might be imploding from within but again everyone is foxed by the word Radical. Maybe someone should have asked electic what she understood by the term radical feminism. I have read back through the post and she said at one point she is here to learn.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_feminism

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?

And I have to come here regularly to get turned off feminism.

If I didn't, I'd be Andrea Dworkin by now.

Basil ,

Why did Levy blame it on women? I can see she must have done from the title but why? I haven't read it.

Seal Press is a good example of a fun fem publishing house.

Published the horrific Full Frontal Feminism by Jessica Valenti (naked woman on the cover) and Amanda Marcotte's book (whose name I forgot) together with its racist illustrations which she was warned about but failed to remove. When you compare the quality of the books that were published as feminism in the 90s and noughties compared to the sixties and seventies, it's difficult to believe there actually was once a vibrant feminist movement that did seek to over throw men's power, not just fuck them as many different ways as possible.

Of course that's the US, but they seem to get the bad ideas first, and then pass them over to us.

Basil!

Basil - you mean you're not Andrea Dworkin!?

Well, I am upset now.

Freedom of speech and all that, so
I won't be reporting your personal attacks. Maybe because I'm secure in my beliefs and not offended by your posts.

I think Levy just didn't want to take her analysis any further than what was right in front of her minimath, which was women copying men's misogynistic excesses in the name of their freedom.

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

Which personal attacks? Where are they exactly?

"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 ?

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.

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.

I think I'll post the way I like MizK. It works for me. Thanks for your interest though!

"cover-up-and-censor mindset"

What's THAT when it's at home?

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

Ironic, being patronised by a radical feminist.

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.

" 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.

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

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