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.

Sorry basil don't understand your post, please explain.

Tis insidious though, Eclectic. I would recommend the Equality Illusion as a starter. Easy to read, and blows many myths wide open.

How does money represent power or freedom?

I would say that, since money represents value in a patriarchial society, it represents a power dynamic that discriminates against groups who are not male, white, upper-class, Western people - no?

Radical feminism isn't asserting anything about stupidity or complicity, the basis of it is that all forms of oppression spring from the original and oldest form of oppression, which is male domination over women. This can also be read to mean male domination in business, in public spaces, privately within the home and politically.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist_feminism

In what way do women copy men's excesses? I'm interested because I have always thought that freedom should also allow women to behave in any way especially female and still be accorded the same respect. So I can wear pink and I can speak softly if that is my natural character without conceding freedoms.

I agree re America now and feel that this is capitalism and neo-liberalism gone mad. Its about making a commodity out of everything.

by earning my own money,not being housewife I feel autonomous, not dependent upon a male partner. money does give a freedom and a choice.you only have to read the housewife posts on mn about dp stingy with money, no individual account,no savings.to see this represents a limited choice

There are many many powerful people who are not white or male. China, japan, middle east? What has white got to do with it?

White is mainly historical. If you look back over history you find that western nations have had imperialistic ambitions over much of the world.

FWiw, I'm not dependant financially or emotionally on anyone, male or female...it's not a fact of life that all women are at the service of men.

At least nowadays, in a large part thanks to feminism, I can walk away from a marriage with my children and take anything with me that I brought in the first place. It's less than two hundred years since women were in a situation where a)getting divorced was nigh on impossible and b)if you did manage you had no right to your children or your property.
But at the same time, just because it is better than it was, does not negate the fact that women are still at a disadvantage just because they happened to be born female.

Historical maybe, but aren't we talking about now? In actual fact china, Japan and middle east have much more monetary and political power than most western predominately white nations. Anyway how can you lump in racial background with feminism?

The view of white men being supremist is completely outdated in this day and age.

And having the freedom to explore my sexuality is not going to sort out all the other disadvantages we find ourselves facing as women. Like the fact that there is hardly any proper recourse against rape.

Lots to catch up on since last night.

Getting back to Nyac's original post, there are some points I'd take issue with. In the main the statement that 'if men like a particular brand of feminism it isn't working'. I realise this could be a flip journalistic statement, but this board and what i've seen & experienced of rad fem discourse, flip statements get short shrift. Suffice to say I don't think men approving of or supporting a feminist act or approach invalidates it. Men have wives, sisters and daughters too.

I've already mentioned upthread that I'm uncomfortable with the use of interlopers, because while I agree that many feminist theories are defined, I think it Ivey difficult I most cases to take the label of 'feminist' away go someone who agrees with the basics but may take part in activities that are incompatible with radical feminism. I really do believe there are better ways to wine hearts and minds than to sneer at these people.

I've also met many sex positive feminists. I've not met one who said the road to feminism was through shagging or as work, so I'd love to understand where the OP is getting that from.

For the record and in the interests of disclosure I do label myself as a feminist but would not take the label of rad fem or sex positive, so I am genuinely curious.

But the biggest enemy of women's freedom and the biggest tool of the patriarchy is still religion, not some women choosing to wear high heels or speaking openly about a fondness for group sex. You still get plenty of white men banging on about racism and 'respect for other cultures' as a silencing tool when feminists criticize serious institutionalised oppression of women by religious organisations.

No-one is saying there are not lots of powerful people who're not white or male.

The basic question is - are you happy with the fact that most powerful people are white and male, and middle or upper class? If you genuinely belive that there is something special about being white, male, and posh that makes a person more suited to being rich and important, then please say so. The current government in the UK will be so glad of your support.

Without historical context, it is impossible to explore the issues that face us currently.

SGB A very good point & one of the reasons I was a proclaimed atheist by my early teens as opposed to continuing in a pretense of belief to keep others happy.

"No-one is saying there are not lots of powerful people who're not white or male.

The basic question is - are you happy with the fact that most powerful people are white and male, and middle or upper class? If you genuinely belive that there is something special about being white, male, and posh that makes a person more suited to being rich and important, then please say so. The current government in the UK will be so glad of your support"

It's a fallacy, the majority of powerful people are not white and middle class. Fwiw I am no fan of the current government in this country. But at least they realise that white middle class men are not the majority power holders in the world. Yes, the majority of power may be in male hands but they are not white. That's a very outdated view of current world politics.

By the way I am atheist too in the same way I am opposed to any extremist doctrine.

Oh, I must be really wrong... I thought Cameron and Clegg were both white and middle/upper class men? Are you saying I'm wrong?

If you genuinely have evidence that there are fewer white, middle-class men in government than you'd expect given the total number of white, middle-class men ... prove it, please?

A lot of 'sex-positive' feminism is about making clear the difference between sex engaged in through choice (whether or not money is involved) and sex which is coerced. It's about defending the rights of women to make choices without being forced into changing their minds to benefit someone else's ideology or idea of what women 'should' be and 'should' like, and reaching out to those who are coerced into sex, or sex work - or marriage - and saying, it doesn't have to be like this, you don't have to accept this, you can walk away right now and make a different choice.

minimathsmouse you are v persuasive, I've always thought Marxism and feminism were natural enemies despite or because of what I learned of Marxist-feminism at university too long ago

anyway thanks for making me think, process might be helped by old age and poverty too

I consider myself a feminist. Quite a stroppy one, actually...

But here's where I hit a sticking point. I don't want anyone else to get a say over what goes on in my pants - whether that's patriarchal doctors, controlling boyfriends or people who insist that I am not allowed to shave my muff because it's porny.

When ANYONE starts trying to control what happens to my muff, it's a step too far. It's MY body, it belongs to ME, if I share it with someone they should consider themselves fucking privileged, so to be told that I'm doing "Being a woman" wrong is an affront to my self image. I am being myself, therefore I cannot be wrong, and what kind of freak wants to control my pubes for me anyway?

Nobody says you aren't allowed to shave your muff. Saying that the rise in shaving pubic hair is down to the increase in the pornification of women by society, is not saying don't shave your muff.

It is just recognising that the political influences the personal. And that goes back to what Nyac said bloody ages ago upthread.

There isn't a radical feminist on the planet who will tell you what you can do with your pubic hair colditz. What she will say is that pubic hair removal has become popular in culture because of its promotion in porn. What you do with that information is up to you.

It's not possible ever to have a discussion about radical feminsit ideas if responses always boil down to "waahhh, you're telling me what to do".