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.

Umm, I like the word 'empowerment'. Besides the misuses so regularly pilloried on here, it has genuine meaning. It signifies a recognition that certain sectors of society have less power than others, and attempts to rectify that. If you dismiss every word that's been abused by politicians, you'll end up with a limited vocabulary.

In a not unrelated vein, I thought the slutwalks successfully raised the profile of rape myths, consent and victim-blaming. The media's predictable focus on superficial aspects of the walks got the story seen (a bit), the message promoted (a bit) and fed into a general tide of changing opinion. You only have to look at the 'sleep sex' thread to see how many rape myths still need busting. The majority of people will not see stunts like slutwalks through the narrowed eyes of radical feminism; they'll go "What's that all about?" And some will pay attention.

Pole dancing's an odd one. I refused to 'like' a friend's FB photo of her prize-winning pole routine (done in gym kit, in a gym) out of feminist principle. I felt like a right old meanie. The woman was a competition gymnast at school and had chosen this readily-available gymnastic activity as part of her self-affirmation programme following an abusive relationship. It's a great deal easier to find an advanced pole dancing class than an advanced gymnastics class. I'm sure this is partly to do with the fact that you only need one piece of equipment per gymnast and can squeeze more students into a room.

Should the activity's provenance taint its sport value? I don't know. If so, for how long? The waltz was originally considered a dance for harlots!

All a bit waffly, sorry, and nothing new from me. I do worry about feminism being unduly negative, though, and potentially self-limiting in consequence.

BTW this happens with all radical campaigns - the progression from desire for the majority to accept the radical view to resentment when they do is predictable. It was the sort of running joke about communism that was satirised by Monty Python with the 'people's front of Judea' joke - People want to hold on to their 'radical' identity despite their objectives being (closer to) being achieved.

The Real IRA is another example. Its a sign of the mission working that some people want to cling on to the old battles.

SeaHouses, I do believe now that saying that abortion is a women's issue is transphobic. I'll see if I can find the source. I think it's Feministe.

Here it is:

feministing.com/2011/04/11/why-i-wont-be-talking-about-abortion-as-a-womens-issue-anymore/

Porto, that's the last 4 posts of yours I don't understand. Must be a record, please explain, I obviously don't get the subtlety.

Feministing not Feministe.

Did you really just liken feminists to murdering terrorists WB? I feel quite sad you did that. :(

Radical feminists' objectives are nowhere near being achieved. We want to end male violence towards women in all it's forms. We haven't come close to that yet. As Dworkin said "I want a 24 hour truce during which there is no rape". That would be just for starters:

www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/dworkin/WarZoneChaptIIIE.html

Worriedbetty, please expand, that's a new and interesting concept.

Yes, I've seen that before, but I think it is a concept that very few liberal or even fun feminists would ascribe to. Most liberal feminists would say that abortion was a women's issue in the same way that poverty was a women's issue.

Actually I wonder what fun fems would say about poverty. It is perhaps not in the range of topics they are particularly engaged with.

Nyac, I'm not derailing. I'm only suggesting that language IS important and there is the risk that many feminists won't get beyond the term to actually engage with the issues Julie presents. I think feminists DO need to engage with those issues.

Having known Julie "back in the day," I'd be surprised if she herself would claim any exclusive/superior understanding of Andrea Dworkin's views based on her personal relationship with her.

I didn't say that she had superior understanding of Andrea Dworkin, just an accurate understanding of her views probably given that they were colleagues.

I think you're nitpicking language here Kritiq, and I don't see it as very productive but I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

Moving on, what do you think of Julie's view that sex positive feminsits need to stop diluting or twisting feminist politics in order to better support male interests.

Wow I have just realised how at odds I am with the infighting older feminists! The mantra has gone from 'its time women who aren't feminists adopt feminism' to 'it's time that feminism was reclaimed by actual feminists'

I'm sorry to say this, but this to me sounds a but 'in my day we really had it hard' .. ie. a bit miserable. Do we call working class people with cars 'hobbiest class warriors'?? Its just an odd angle for someone older who has framed their image of feminism and gender politics in the 1960s to wag their finger at someone learning it now and say that 'the old ways were the best'

How can something as radical as feminism once was have become so conservative??

Mind you I do think the 'slutwalk' would have been better if it had been all men in shoes they couldn't run in, and women standing by and whistling etc.. oh dear, even I am sounding a bit 'on the buses switcheroo'

Julie Bindel was only born in 1962, so I doubt she framed her ideas during activism in the sixties. Although it would be quite impressive if she had been leading some kind of demo in infant school.

Sorry, what was unclear about my posts?

I didn't form my politics in the sixties. I became a radical feminist in 2002. My more "modern" (patriarchy-friendly) feminist politics previous to that were rubbish. Just because something is new, doesn't make it good.

Julie Bindel was a radical feminist in Leeds in the 80s when they were running Take Back the Night against the Yorkshire Ripper and taking all sorts of other exciting direct action.

Radical feminism is just starting, not ending.

Oh bloody hell Nyan, I wasn't equating the two I was using that as an example of a type of radicalism progression. I could just as easily have used, say, punk music (how busted are considered punk blows my mind because of what I think punk was all about). That progression is all over the place.

What Bindels' (and Dworkin's) views boil down to is good old slut-shaming, really. A feminist can support women's right to explore their own sexuality and engage in performance and sexual display, yes, including doing so for money if they want to (doing something you enjoy for money is not a bad thing) while equally campaining for women's right not to be assaulted or to be forced into any aspect of the sex industry. All of the anti-sex-industry feminists I've ever encountered have always been remarkably happy to pal up with people and organisations who have no interest in women's freedom at all; what they mainly share with the type of 'radfems' who they make friends with is a deep and abiding belief that people need forcing into 'correct' ways of behaviour and women in particular can't be trusted to exercise their own judgement.

Okay Nyac, I'll duck out of this one. If you believe I'm just being pedantic about language, then I think any further discussion will just generate more heat than light. I actually think we share more common ground on this one than might first appear to be the case. But, I'll leave it there.

Good night all.

For example the international fight against male violence against women (it's a US foreign policy objective now) comes directly from radical feminism.

Before radical feminism people didn't even see male violence against women as a political issue, it was just part of the scenery, committed by individual men against individual women.

Similarly, the new fight against prostitution, which treats prostitution as a human rights abuse against women, children, and other prostituted people also comes from radical feminist politics and analysis. A number of countries are passing laws that reflect this view. Like I said, radical feminism has only just begun.

That's fine Kritiq, I'd already said we could just agree to disagree. I didn't want to take it further.

I was hoping you might be interested in talking about another aspect of the discussion i.e. sex positive feminism's co-optation of feminist politics for male interests. Maybe tomorrow.

Nyac, have your views on feminism always been this fully formed, or did they come about as a result of growth and research?

As a result of growth and research Dione. I came across radical feminism in 2002 as I said, although I'd read Dworkin much earlier, and found it was the most logical, consistent and accurate politics that I'd ever come across. It's based in women's reality and represents women's interests. It's very important.

Nyan, why are you so dismissive of women's views if they don't agree with you especially as a feminist, You seem to say that anyone who doesn't hold your view is secretly working for the patriarchy. How about they could be working for themselves and taking the mantle of feminism forward for new generations?

Why does that idea trouble you so much?

I very rarely venture over here to feminism because I find myself completely out of sync. I think Nyac has raised a really important issue. I am not terribly well read but I am inclined to think reading and discussion is the key to understanding and educating (young) feminists.

There is so much pressure in the media, controlled by the patriarchy, so many freedoms hard won by previous waves of feminism and so many convenient half truths peddled that many women seem to think that equality is now about their right to lap dance.

I wouldn't call myself a radical feminist (I'm a marxist feminist) I believe that our current political, educational est, our media and the interests of private business has high jacked women's freedoms. It causes deep insecurities, markets us the cure (often self hating/defeating) and makes us buy into the beauty myth, the sexual liberation with bells on myth and now we are left discussing equal pay and whether to buy pink toys and not much else.

Are you sure you haven't got that the wrong way round? I think people are pretty dismissive of my views WB. Look at the way you're talking about them.

e.g. "You seem to say that anyone who doesn't hold your view is secretly working for the patriarchy."

Um, no I don't. Please don't misrepresent me.

I argue my case. Everybody thinks their own opinion is right. Don't single me out for that.

Someone called my views fascist today. That's really not OK.

Nyac, given that you had a journey to this point, do you think that there should be no gateways for others, or that they should be put off before they start because their starting point is not your current position?