I was over at Ren’s place and came across a concept mentioned there that I have encountered before: “fun feminism.” Frankly, I’ve never found feminism to be that much “fun,” so I’ve never really paid much attention to the concept, other than formulating a vague notion that “fun” feminism had something to do with makeup or wearing high heels or bikini waxing or something like that. (The fun-ness of those activities has been highly variable for me personally–making up my face for work was always a chore but fun for a night out on the town, for instance. High heels got a boost up on the “fun” scale when I realized that one particular boss of mine, who was a total ass, found my heel-wearing height of six feet to be massively intimidating next to his five-foot-nine stature. Bikini waxing only occurs when I’m going on a beach trip lasting more than a few days, sort of like my Scopolamine patch-wearing for a boat trip lasting longer than half an hour–unpleasant at the time, but worth it in terms of suppression of nasty rashes or vomiting later).
But really, the chick Ren was blogging about appears to have some serious issues directly related to the concept of “fun feminism.” Nobody could possibly get that worked up about makeup/heels/waxing etc. so clearly, I realized, I have not actually understood what “fun feminism” is all about. So I decided to look it up.
Being a child of the Internet age, by “look it up” I mean “Google it.” This brought back many hits, among which was a blog entry from Feministe–I like and respect the Feminist blogsite, so I thought that would be a good place to start:
..but I have a confession. I’m one of those feminists who wraps herself up in the trappings of femininity. I have yet to give up on buying into all the stupid crap that separates the girls from the boys. Sometimes, I even convince myself that silly girly shit confers some power onto me within the context I live in.
Yes, I am a “fun feminist.” I wear the high heels and I spend too much money on lip gloss and I get Brazilian bikini waxes and I secretly liked Sex & the City,* even though I swore I would never, ever admit that on a feminist blog.
Well, Sex and the City has always either made me hurl or bored me to tears, but at least I nailed the makeup/high heels/waxing meme! Yeah!..but somehow, I can’t help but think there’s more to it than that. So I continued reading:
But I still think that Twisty is right.
Uh-oh. I used to read Twisty, aka blogger supreme of I Blame the Patriarchy, because she was funny as hell…in between her fairly unhinged rants about men in general and in particular, which was why I ended up removing her from my blogroll. But maybe looking at what Twisty had to say, that she was right about, might give me a clue as to the deeper meaning of fun feminism:
…several years ago I purposely subscribed to BUST. I was intoxicated at the time. I mistook the magazine’s glossy indie-hip chick-centric schtick for feminism. I did this partly because BUST told me it was feminism, and partly because I wanted it to be feminism. At last! I said, a publication that doesn’t think “feminist” means “humorless frigid ugly bitch who can’t get laid.”
My enthusiasm would wane after a couple of months, however. …as BUST editor Debbie Stoller sez, in the highly imitable girlfriend-to-girlfriend style of women’s fashion magazines the world over, “Of course, we devote space in our pages to typical “feminist issues” such as abortion and equal pay, but we’re also determined to create a truly embraceable women’s culture, so that reading BUST can help you feel good about being a girl.”
Or, more precisely, it can make you feel good about fashion, fucking, and shopping.
In printing “all kinds of great girly stuff” BUST may be entertaining, but calling it ‘feminism’ is quite the howler. Feminism isn’t ‘fun.’ It’s not about shopping for cheap campy crap at the ‘Boobtique’ or getting off. It’s about political action on behalf of a class of people who are culturally, socially, politically, intellectually, physically, and violently oppressed, impoverished, abused, enslaved, objectified, raped and murdered.*
Ah, okay. I think I get what fun feminism means now…it is an attempt to mesh said above political action on behalf of women (ie, feminISM) with traditionally feminINE pastimes such as materialistic obsession with both the process of acquiring and then actually adorning oneself with items that make men want to have sex with you. The intersecting ground appears to be that, among other things, true equality means that there since there is no shame, indeed there is vast approval for, men actively pursuing women with sexual intent and doing things that supposedly attract women to want to have sex with them, then there is no shame and indeed should be vast approval for complete role reversal.
The reason for my confusion is that I never once thought of my makeup, heels and waxing as empowering, and therefore never conflated them with any sort of feminism at all. Apparently this is a step of the feminist journey that I personally managed to sail right past. The only women who have ever complained at me about the way I look, which is in part conferred upon me by the judicious use of traditionally feminine paints, clothing, hair removal practices etc., were clearly doing so for very NONfeminist reasons. I never felt the remotest need to justify what I looked like or how I did or didn’t achieve that…that may partly be because I joined the Army so young and spent a fair amount of time rendered as sexless as possible (in bulky shapeless field gear with a layer of green and black paint covering every inch of my face). I think some women, of the kind that agonize over Fun Feminism, have never really spent much time in the company of a shitload of young virile heterosexual men while they themselves were absolutely bereft of makeup, heels, waxing, etc. I feel comfortable saying that patriarchal-style oppression is absolutely unhindered by even as much as a hiccup in the absence of so much as a scrap of “girly” accessories. In short, the course of your life personally is going to be far, far less affected by what you choose to do or not do in terms of appearance modification than it is by practically every other gendered aspect of our society, not to mention your personal racial/ethnic/socioeconomic status.
But going back to the sexual equality basis of considering traditional feminINE trappings empowering–back to the original post that Ren was commenting on, where the objection to “fun feminism” isn’t about makeup, heels and waxing at all; it’s about sexual equality. According to the post author, “sexual equality” as defined by fun feminism means:
a) Sex is just sex, ie, a physical activity that feels good–that’s all it means to men so that’s all it should mean to women, too.
b) Monogamous relationships are bad because it’s wrong and anti-feminist to “objectify” anyone by trying to “own” him or her sexually and
c) Another good reason to have “open” relationships is that way the woman doesn’t feel like she HAS to put out whenever the man wants sex, that’s traditional sexual oppression of women right there.
I can’t totally pooh-pooh this whole mess as being conflated with feminism, because when I was in my clubbin’ phase some years ago, I definitely felt the pressure from my girlfriends to have casual sex with men and from men that were friends to have casual sex with them. From my girlfriends, it was presented to me as like, TOTALLY empowering! And for some of them, it may well have been, and for at least two of them, I know it did make them quite happy. However, for at least two of them, I know that it made them miserable. For the rest, I’m not really sure–I suspect a mixed bag of results.
But the point is that how you regard sex, for you personally, is neither feminist nor anti-feminist. It is anti-feminist, certainly, to try to pressure any woman into either remaining chaste as a nun or compulsively bed-hop–but it isn’t Fun Feminism! to compulsively bed-hop. It may be Fun! if it’s what you want to do, but it hasn’t got anything to do with feminism, and anybody who says it does, really is either out to get you personally for whatever evil reasons of their own, be they related or unrelated to gender-based oppression, or is determined to make themselves feel better about it by getting validation from you. Or, as in the case of the original post…as as I said in my comment on Ren’s blog…
“My 20′s didn’t work out the way I fantasized they would so ZOMG U KNOW THAT CAN’T BE BECAUSE I WENT INTO IT WITH MASSIVE FEELINGS OF ENTITLEMENT OH HELL NO IT MUST BE THE FAULT OF”
A. Women
B. Men
C. Feminism
D. The Patriarchy
E. etc.The villian changes but the refrain’s always the same. Sigh.
(Another recent example of this meme can be found here, where instead of the villain being either “men” or “fun feminism,” it’s traditional feminism.)
More later on “fun feminism…” Stay tuned!
I wish to say intelligent things about this post, so I vow to return and attempt a better comment on the subject sometime tomorrow, when it’s not 4:30 in the morning.
Ah, now it’s 6 in the morning. Much better!
I think Twisty’s got a point too.
It’s tough to know where to snip here. When Twisty’s on, she is on:
Speaking as a default human who is addicted to the sight of Patriarchy appeasing feminized girls, it takes a special act of will for me to consider the possibility that Twisty has a really good point here. Nonetheless, I think she does. If there’s something to disagree with here, it would be worthwhile to figure out, with as much precision as possible, exactly what.
Lisa:
This may be true, but I have some doubts. Appearances do matter. If they didn’t, we wouldn’t put so much effort into it. People– of both genders– treat us vastly differently depending on how well we choose to conform to the accepted gender norms. Though it is true that your racial/ethnic/socioeconomic status is going to act as a filter reducing the number of appearance choices which you personally consider to be plausible.
Maybe it’s worth taking a step back for a minute, to consider that people, before they are feminists or antifeminists, before they are Patriarchal oppressors or rebels, first of all they are human. And the vast majority of humans want to have sex, and want to attract other humans to have sex with (regardless of their particular fetishes for men, women, or other). So it makes perfect sense that in a world in which the Patriarchy rules, mainstream forms of sexual courtship would involve men dominating and women submitting. As the cultural-specific features of our sexual desires are programmed into us when we are tender babes in the wood, it makes sense that the courtship displays which feel the most “right” to most of us then involve abstracted symbols of male domination and female submission.
The question then becomes, how much does our sex life really matter when it comes to taking down the Patriarchy? Can’t we take down the Patriarchy while enjoying fashion, fucking, and shopping in Patriarchy-approved ways which happen to make us feel sexy? Can’t help how we were raised, after all.
Can’t we solve global warming while still keeping our car culture? Can’t we stamp out animal cruelty while still eating at McDonald’s every once in a while? Can’t we end poverty worldwide while still keeping our access to cheap Nikes and iPods?
Well, I don’t know. Maybe we can. Unexpected breakthroughs do come along every once in a while. And even if we can’t, that’s not to say that the right answer is to completely stop using cars tomorrow, or burn down all the McDonalds’s or whatever. (Not all on the same day, anyhow!) Maybe there’s less aggressive path which could get us to the same goals. Maybe.
Or maybe we just don’t care enough about reaching any of these goals. But the more of our cultural addictions we hold on to, the absolutely less likely any real changes are ever likely to occur to that culture. And what’s the point of any activism–including Feminism– except change?
On the other hand, I’m painfully aware that if I take up Twisty’s position too strongly, I’ll probably come off as an even bigger tool of the Patriarchy than I already am, since I’d essentially be a guy counseling girls to not feel sexy (at least according to how they were programmed). Damn. Please come up with an argument to demolish Twisty’s position so I return to guilt-free ogling of toned girls in high heels and bikinis.
I’m looking forward to part two!
(Apologies if half of this turns out to have been insomniacal gibberish, but I’m hitting “submit” now.)
Hmm.I agree that we’re all humans first thus sex isn’t as big a deal as consuming or wearing makeup all the time. I’d say enjoying or engaging in sex isn’t wrong. After all, isn’t the goal of feminism to bring about a new equal world where women can express themselves in the way they choose without danger of punishment or oppression? And this surely includes sexual expression?
Of course women should dress or act how they like at all times, even if this means ways that signal cultural submission in various ways. But it’s two different things to argue that women should always have the right to choose this themselves, vs arguing that acting in ways which signal your submission to the system will actually help you fight the system. The second is what “Fun Feminism” seems to be saying.
Can you imagine a “Fun Dieting” which said “Eat anything you like, and still lose weight!”? You’d think, “surely there must be a catch here…”
True,but I do think sexual expression can be a revolutionary act, especially if you’re of the lgbt community. For example, I did come across a transsexual anarchist blog that advocated public sex.
I think you’ve misunderstood something. Nowhere did I say that enjoying sex is wrong, engaging in sex is wrong, or that sex is somehow inherently submissive to the system. Sex, just like money, is value neutral. So it’s fine if you can find ways for it to be a revolutionary act.
When it comes to making yourself “fuckable”, though, if your tastes skew mainstream, it gets pretty tough to make that any kind of revolutionary act.
Once again, I do not blame anyone if their sexual tastes run mainstream. Mine do. It’s something beyond our conscious control, programmed into us by our environment (and who knows, maybe by genetics, too). We just shouldn’t try to justify whatever our tastes happen to be by claiming that by acting on them, we’re helping to take down the system, when we’re not.
Actually, all three of the terms “fashion, fucking, and shopping”, are value neutral, aren’t they. I suppose there could be non-Patriarchal submissive ways about going about each of those three things while still enjoying them for their own sake. I do doubt bikini waxing would be involved.
I don’t get “fun feminism”. I don’t ask for “Fun liberalism” or “fun naturalism” so why do I need “fun feminism”?
I feel that the best thing about being a feminist is the recognition that stuff like make-up, jewelery, and clothes are COSTUMING. I like to put on costumes every once in a while, including female costuming. But doing it every day would be exhausting, wearing, and it would loose it’s appeal.
Feminism says that my primary purpose does not have to be a decorative item. I don’t care beyond that.
What Antigone said. I never wear makeup at work, for instance, because my male coworkers are not decorative objects and thus neither am I.
All these comments deserve another post of their own…so I’m gonna write one before Monday! (which means “Fun Feminism” may be a three-parter, apologies in advance!)
Ah okay. I understand the argument now, I think. Though I’d say in some sense, S&M is kinda deviant: it takes one emotion(pain) and transforms it into another(arousal or lust). I apologize if I’m concern trolling,I’m just thinking outloud.
One other thing: that factcheck me blog is pretty fucking transphobic.
I think you nailed it in the comments on Ren’s blog.
What I don’t like about the definition of “fun feminism” is how it essentially implies that “one of these days, its practitioner will see the light” – when in reality, this process isn’t one you ever “win” at. I encounter the same mentality in religious communities quite a bit – “don’t blame the sister for wearing nail polish, it’s OK, she will realize that it is sinful eventually,” and it makes my skin crawl. It sets this impossible standard that a woman, with her body, her behaviour, must endlessly strive for, whether she likes it or not.
People describe me as a fun feminist – regardless of what I do, but based on how I look – and I personally would never apologize for it, or attempt to mollify them, or suggest that if only I worked hard enough, I wouldn’t be that way. Screw that. I am who I am, I know why I am who I am (the constant refrain in these discussions is, “but you must examine…” – Oh, really? And you think that I, as a politically conscious adult, have not?), and am comfortable with it, and I’m not going to pretend that I desire to swap my one uniform for another.
Eh, fun feminism isn’t just limited to the BarbieBimbo clothes, at least to me. It’s the idea that stripping and prostitution, and BDSM, etc etc etc, are empowering.
Btw, there’s nothing “wrong” with wanting to be attractive, attract one’s preferred sex partner, or just have fun expressing oneself in a creative way. The bit which seems “wrong” to me is the idea that there is any authentic power which accrues to those who engage in stripping, BDSM, etc.
Authentic or “real” power requires the presence of a specific quality. If that quality is not present, then authentic power cannot exist. What is this mysterious quality?
It requires that the Empowered Person is free from coercive brainwashing. When someone is brainwashed from birth to believe that activity X is the most fun thing ever, it’s not surprising when an individual derives more pleasure from activity X then what actually exists. Without a coercive environment, the individual may take some pleasure in activity X, but not as much.
Authentic power is when you are pleasantly occupied doing whatever the hell you want without any brainwashing coercion being present, and when you tell someone to jump, they ask “how high?” Faux power is when you have to meet or exceed THEIR requirements BEFORE they would ever consider responding with “how high would you like me to jump?”
Barbie has to meet somebody else’s stringent requirements before she can order that other person around.
I’m genuinely asking, what part of that didn’t make any sense, or what part is objectionable?
To clarify, it seems that “funfeminists” (and gee I’d like to find a less insulting term) clearly recognize the part where Barbie “gets” someone else to do something for her, but funfeminists ignore the part where Barbie had to do something for the other person first.
I wondering how the funfeminists can assume, first of all, that Barbie is “empowered” by a reciprocal exchange. Why would “empowerment” mean “equal”? Power actually means that someone has power over another, it doesn’t mean equal.
The other thing I’m wondering about, is how funfeminists can assume that the end result is more beneficial to Barbie than the guy. Personally, I find focusing attention on my sexuality only reduces me to a collection of mastatorbory aids — my humanity is ignored. The guy gets a simpering fool, and what exactly did he give up in order to get this?
It’s the answer to that last question which makes me think that he has all, or most, of the power. Which means Barbie has little or no power, which means she isn’t empowered at all.
I’m sincerely trying to understand the perspective of the funfeminists (yes I want a less insulting term) and understand how they are reasoning through this dynamic.
Hm funny, all the people damning “Fun feminism” seem to hate transgendered people too,
Andrea: I have to say that you’re the one being rather demeaning to those who may actually be involved with sex work or BDSM. No, really:I’m not joking.
Jenny-
Pardon me? Because I’m not impressed by “fun feminism” I have a problem with trans people? WTF?
Additionally, I don’t see where Andrea was talking about BDSM at all.
I just don’t see how a girl who prefers to play with boy’s toys needs a sex change. And really, Jenny, you must be quite invested in protecting them, to go off on a tangent about them, which just seems wierdly skewed.
Funfeminists keep chanting how everyone should play well together — but only as long as everyone agrees with their opinion. You don’t notice that about yourself, do you? Whenever I don’t agree with something, I give an actual reason. Which anyone is free to refute. I don’t sit there and whine.
Btw, I really liked Quinn’s comments. I was going to find your blog and tell you how much I love you! And I found it!
m Andrea mentions BDSM in the first sentence in her first comment.
And I suspect Jenny was referring to Factcheckme and m Andrea, both of whom have posted some pretty hateful, transphobic, and misogynist things about trans women, and constantly impose their own fictional narratives about trans people over trans people’s real lived experiences for pure rhetorical convenience.
(here by way of Natalia’s blog)
Antigone:
I wasn’t refering to you, I was referring to M andrea. Sorry.
The girl who loves boys toys might not need an immediate sex change, but as they grow up, and if there’s an extreme desire to be a boy, unhappiness to be called a female, yes, sometimes a sex change would be recommended. Or at least a gender change. If they are unhappy with their assigned gender, there’s no need to box them into it.
The “girl” who loves “boy’s toys” might not be a girl at all, but trans people aren’t defined or diagnosed by the toys we play with. My sister played with Star Wars action figures, Micronauts, Shogun Warriors, and Transformers, and I’m pretty sure the idea of transitioning is pretty alien to her.
But m Andrea doesn’t want to engage the fact that trans people actually have experiences, thoughts, and agency of our own. it’s always superficial crap like what toys she thinks we played with, or what clothes she thinks we like to wear, and the assumption that we only want to transition to make those clothes and those toys okay. When it comes to trans people, she’s not insightful.
Wow, leave the place for a while and everything gets weird. Just how did a conversation about Fun Feminism become a conversation about the validity of trans existence? I don’t quite see the connection between the two, other than Jenny’s assertion that people against Fun Feminism seem to hate transgendered people. As I don’t happen to hate transgendered people, or feel that their existence is invalid in any way shape or form, I think that’s one generalization too far. However…
M Andrea, I really like and agree with quite a lot of what you wrote. And you did say nice things about me. (And do I know you in real life? I didn’t quite understand the last sentence of your last comment.) But as for this bandwagon which has formed against you on the issue of transpeople, I guess I’m going to have to jump on, too. Saying something like “I just don’t see how a girl who prefers to play with boy’s toys needs a sex change” is a hateful thing to say. With that one sentence, you’ve dismissed the whole self-identity of a whole lot of people in a very patronizing way. If you really support women’s (and all people’s) right to determine their own actions and identities, then you should include every kind of choice possible, as long as those choices are not ones which deny other people choices. Even if those choices seem completely alien to you.
As for everyone else, though, if you disagree with something that I or anyone else has written, please try not to respond with too broad a brush. If, say, you think there’s a connection between anti-transgender and anti-Fun Feminism, you might try articulating exactly what you think that connection is (–maybe there is one, and I didn’t see it before!–), rather than just loosely implying that only transphobic bigots could ever possibly be skeptical of a brand of feminism which claims to fight patriarchy in ways that give men exactly what they want.
I know, I know, I NEED to find time to follow up on all this. It just requires a lot more thought than, like, mocking Ann Coulter and “Male Studies,” you know.
Well, hypothetically, if a trans woman were to happen on this discussion, she might mention that while it would perhaps be nice to not wear makeup at work, that’s hardly a privilege all women have.
She might further express skepticism as to whether problematizing matte foundation and liquid eyeliner has led to any breakthroughs in feminist thought or helped any actual women, ever.
Finally, she might note that every oppressed group in the history of oppression has developed a culture of one kind or another, and that culture is never entirely imposed by their oppressors. Some aspects of it are, of course. But much of it is rooted in survival; much of it, in celebration. Wherever there is a culture of women, she may continue, it is foolish to expect it to be any different. And it is likewise foolish to expect that culture to be static. Cultures grow and shift and change and critique, in this world, is fundamentally an act of love. But it’s also dependent on love and that’s why, “We don’t need this,” is different from, “You shouldn’t do this,” is different from, “You are no longer Us, because of this.”
That’s the thing of it—she might say (softer). It’s easy to go from critiquing this to critiquing you. It’s easy to say someone isn’t a feminist because their culture of woman is shaped a little differently than yours. It’s harder to say she isn’t a woman. Unless, that is, she’s a monster—unless she’s crazy; unless she’s broken; unless she’s brown or red or black or yellow. Unless her body is the wrong shape. Then you’ll find it to be the easiest thing in the world.
That’s what she might say, at least.
Hypothetically.
Yea, I’m pretty annoyed by fun feminism as I have been stuffed and shoved and policed and nagged about how I need to be more feminine- wear this, do this, etc,etc, and fun feminism makes those experiences invisible- they are for ‘bad’ feminists who scare away cute fun feminists who base their political beliefs on people thinking their eyeshadow is cute* People say that [cis] women aren’t gender policed to be feminine- to shave, wear makeup, be hetro, but I think they are wrong.
*I think the sort of woman who bases her political beliefs on whether people think feminists are cute and sexy are way rarer than believed. They are just used to scare women into accepting the status quo. You don’t want to criticize any of the hundreds of hours of unpaid unappreciated work foisted on women unless you want people to think you’re an evil demon feminist!
Also, it’s assumed that traditionally feminine women are more valuable feminists than the rest of us. You can’t accept us deviants or else people might not like us!
Fun feminism is fun for men. And it’s women embracing the usual shit that appeals to men because let’s face it—it’s easier than real feminism, which requires that you face awful shit day after day and get attacked day after day. It’s just kind of funny how doing the traditionally feminine thing is being repackaged in some corners as rebellious. It never went away, and it never stopped being compulsory.