Last edited Fri Mar 16, 2012, 08:10 AM - Edit history (3)

How will something like this help to promote equality.

In my opinion, it won't.

Messaging is very important. It needs to be thought about carefully. Not with a complete lack of understanding of society.

Edit to add: It is well worth reading. While I find some of it to be very disagreeable, it is worth discussion.

"What is feminism? A political movement to overthrow male supremacy"

Yes it is.

Male supremacy must come to an end in order to achieve equality.

"It is not enough to call yourself a feminist because you are a strong woman."

I believe it is enough. If you are working to become a stronger woman you are on my side. If I don't agree with your direction I will tell you.

"Some younger activists are radical in their approach, such as those who organise the annual Reclaim the Night marches across the UK, but increasingly, so-called feminist blogs are full of articles on how radicals are responsible for creating an image of feminism as being "against men". Did anyone notice white people, who were by definition responsible for the introduction and maintenance of apartheid in South Africa, being placated and excused by black civil rights activists? Do members of the hard-left doff their caps at the ruling classes in the hope that they will "keep them on board"?"

This paragraph really introduced me to the mindset of the author. And it really doesn’t have much to do with feminism.

"For heterosexual women, feminism can be a nightmare. Women are the only oppressed group who are expected to love their oppressor."

Wow. Don't know what to say.

I think it is well tailored for this group. Don’t you? Do you have an opinion on the article?
If you did will you paste them in this thread? Thanks.

I myself think the article is rubbish and hurts Feminists. And seeing the people that agree with the article in the other thread, I can see why they are not posting in this Group. birds of a feather flock together.

I'm sure one could read it and find some form of valid opinion in it, or something of interest to think about; however, considering it is sexist, dehumanizing and marginalizing trollery--I don't need it. There's no actual arguments made in the article except to complain about other people's choices in reflecting an idea. The entire article reads as followed: I have an idea; a group of people don't use my idea; therefore, they're inhuman and need to be destroyed.

As far as I'm concerned, the author is anti-Woman and a bigot. I don't care what her history is; if this article is the summery of her life, then she is a bigot.

And, yes, it should’ve been posted here. I don’t know why it wasn’t.

"The entire article reads as followed: I have an idea; a group of people don't use my idea; therefore, they're inhuman and need to be destroyed."

That is what I got from most of it. The author seems to want to be in opposition to her perceived enemies more that she wants to stand for something in order to create solidarity. The authors perceived enemies also seem to be those I am willing to fight for and try to give a voice to. Pretty low self-standards if you ask me.

And it involves a rubbish bin, too.

Every one of them. My current theory is, if you take a discriminated against group, 5% will be like this author, 90% will have more standard opinions on equality and diversity and 5% will be collaborators with the group that is oppressing them.

Every discriminated against group has Farrakhans, Rabbi Kahanes, etc., that take things so far they end up being just as belligerant and discriminatory as the worst of the priviledged group. Every group also has Clarence Thomases, Camp Kapos, and Michelle Bachmans & Ann Coulters that are collaborators.

This article seems a bit mean.

The world would have been a better place if the sexes were much more equal. Having said that, I've know some women who were more equal than most men.

who are not exactly like her or don't espouse her exact beliefs.

specifically i agree that being a strong woman doesn't translate into being a feminist. to be a feminist you have to care about other women and their rights and privileges or lack thereof

Even those teaching in womens/feminist/gender studies pretty well rejected it.

more of the same old "my brand of feminism is the only brand".

Like that website, I blame the patriarchy for any wrong that needs to be righted.
I stayed out of the whole slutwalk controversy although I will support young feminists and young ideas like Hollaback.

Why did I stay out of it? I asked a few people men and woman about it. The woman wrinkled their noses about the term slut, and the men 'slutwalk'? Where?

I didn't think at that point the word could be successfully used.

When we have 24 hours without rape, so eloquently stated in Dworkin's essay, and we dont have a national backlog of unprocessed rape kits, when violence against woman is no longer a national past time on CSI shows, much less in real life, when choice is seen as a human right, when woman are equally represented in the sciences and jobs, when appearance doesn't destroy young woman, God I could go on and on, feminism still wouldn't be dead.

I am a fun feminist. I can describe how high heels puts the body in a mating posture, add bright red lipstick for frontal entry, and you have something similar to early primate mating. I think it's bloody hilarious to point that shit out.

Even in very sexist times, there have been women that have been "honorary men" or otherwise had good standing amongst men within their own social group. While sometimes these women tried to help other women, other times they were less likely to do anything positive for women out of fear that their male benefactors would remember that they were women too.
In my own life, I have interviewed with the token high ranking women at rather sexist companies where women are very poorly represented. Some of these women don't seem to desire helping other women either.
In my own life, I have been more nerdy, more athletic, and less girly than average for women. This has seemed to bring me the acceptance of some male aquaintances who are rather sexist. While I did not remain totally silent, I did not speak out to the extent that maybe I should when they seemed upset about what I was saying. I felt that I was just banging my head against the wall anyway. At my new company, my boss has made sexist comments about women in general and a few other female employees. It does not seem that he is sexist towards me or another woman in our department who has an advanced degree though.
One of the things that concerns me about the whole sexualization is power thing is that personally it seems that men respect women less that they see as sex objects. They may respect women that have proven themselves as capable colleagues at work but those women that they want to hook up with are just "bimbos". Maybe this is changing for people in their 20's or in less socially conservative areas but I think this is still an issue and attitude held by many men, especially the one's who are now leaders in business and politics.
I guess that these are my main issues with what the author seemed to describe as "fun feminism." I do think that not all men are not our enemy. There are average men who don't think that they are sexist though that do have sexist attitudes towards women either as a whole or certain types of women (sexualized women, poor women, single mothers, pregnant/lactating women, etc.). I think that as feminists that we do have a duty to talk to men in our lives like that about it. I do think that we do still need to talk about issues that might offend men since these issues still affect women. I also think that we do need the dialogue of "Radical Feminist" to arrive at good solutions to these problems just as we need Marxism to help us arrive at things like Unions, better working conditions, and shorter work weeks.

She's called "fascist, old hat, irrelevant, and man hating" by "so-called third-wavers," and a whole lot of other people as well, for very good reasons.

Furthermore, Julie Bindel was born in 1962, one year after Obama. He considers himself to be part of Generation X. Julie Bindel is not a second-wave feminist.

"If men like a particular brand of feminism, it means it is not working." So, feminism should be defined by what men think of it?

Pursuing a course of action because it doesn't please men is merely the flip side of doing something because it does please men. Maybe we should please ourselves, and not waste time worrying about what others think of it.

Her point being, after that hateful screed? That's she's tired? Then STFU and go rest somewhere.

Like it or not Ms. Bindel, the post 70s generations that you want to dismiss as 3rd wave funbots are carrying the torch now.

All your insults do is increase the likelyhood they'll dismiss anything of value more militant 2nd wavers might have to say.

Great going!

Works every time.

She believes she can lecture women out of heterosexuality, and she's a documented transphobe and bigot.

All this kind of gibberish was barely taken seriously in 1974, and it's far less so now.

I suspect that's what's behind some of these "get off my lawn" temper tantrums.

so people will be more inclined to listen to her.

but the so called 3rd waivers don't have to do the same, so that she might be more inclined to listen to them.

got it.

and before anyone gets their knickers all twisted getting on their high horse, this does not mean i agree with what the author states. just pointing out what is to me, and should be to others, obvious hypocrisy.

Basically, if you're not a "born woman" who is in your 50s or 60s with proper dworkinite credentials on your resume, who has sworn off all relationships with men in favor of "political lesbianism", you're not meeting her strict ideological criteria.

This isn't name calling, it's a realistic appraisal of her views.

I think it's hardly surprising that the "fun feminists"- as well as a lot of other people- would tell her to fuck off.

but since we don't like what she says, we don't have to be careful what we say (about her) so that she might listen to us.

perfectly clear.

That sound you hear is the fading howl of a dinosaur.

I noticed the same thing and also thought it hypocritical. I have just lost my will to butt heads about it on DU. So thanks for writing that.

It seems like 3rd wavers want to include and tolerate everyone in the world except... second wavers.

(And I am not supporting the author either, I don't know much about her. I despise transphobia so if that's what she's about then ick, no thanks. People get to be whatever gender they feel they are, I am pretty hardcore about that and argue/discuss that with people who are binary-gender-determinists until I am hoarse.)

From what I have read, second wave and third wave both have things to like and things that aren't so great. I take the bits I like from each and leave the rest.

Julie Bindel doesn't represent the second wave of feminism or anything else except herself. She is a well-known bigot, intolerant of all kinds of people. Not a nice person.

...just sayin'. I realize that is a slightly harsh simile, but to those of us who have embraced the third wave, where the 2nd wave differs, it feels like second wave thinking is an unproductive anachronism at best.

Everyone on the left side of the political spectrum has a tendency towards progress and throwing off the old in favor of new and better. Third wave feminism is just an obvious better fit with progress and progressivism, with women of color, with the full spectrum of the LGBTIQ community, etc. Not to mention, the third wave doesnt seek to impose labels on people (or worse, legislate against them) who dont conform to their Victorian ideas of what desire and intimacy should be. Third wave thinking on that is exactly where you would expect a progressive person to be, consenting adults. Period.