Funfem Versus Radfem

Published by

Clarissa

January 17, 2012

How come people don’t realize that classifying feminists as sex-positive and not sex-positive is a profoundly anti-feminist act in itself? You are reducing feminist activists and thinkers to sex, for Pete’s sake.

And then the same people start whining about how they are sexualized and objectified by some mysterious all-powerful entity when they are incapable of seeing a woman without classifying her in terms of her completely irrelevant attitude to sex.

This is a response to the jerkwad who called me “a sex-positive feminist.” You know who you are. Jerkwad.

And there was also another idiot a while ago who referred to me as “funfem.” I wish all those miserable creatures who can’t function without assigning stupid labels to people in order to make the universe more understandable would just go stuff themselves.

Rate this:

15 responses to “Funfem Versus Radfem”

Keith

January 17, 2012

I am aware of 27 different kinds of feminism the list does include radfems but unfortunately funfem is not on the list.
Curiously Clarissa as a feminist which flavor are you or conversely which feminists have influenced you. What is your feminist focus. . . Equality Feminist? Just curious.

LikeLike

Reply
1. bloggerclarissa
  
  January 17, 2012
  
  Well, I’m, of course, a true feminist and a golden standard for feminists everywhere. 🙂 I’m kidding.
  
  The truth is that I haven’t been able to find a group of feminists with whom I would be able to share at least a significant portion of my beliefs. I have read mountains of feminist literature, theory, and research. Visited tons of websites. Tried participating in several feminist organizations and conferences. But that was all in vain.
  
  So I decided to start expressing my ideas on this blog to see if people who share my opinions start finding me and engaging in a dialogue. And I discovered that my (yet nameless) brand of feminism resonates with quite a few people.
  
  Soon we will start working on finding a name for our movement.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  1. Keith
    
    January 17, 2012
    
    Maybe gnostic feminist might be suitable. My impression reading your blog is honesty and integrity. I like what I read and the no bullshit context from you and many of the commenters. I am not a feminist myself since Im not a woman. If I have issues they focus on power and powerlessness so I see context in alot of different groups and their focus.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
    1. bloggerclarissa
      
      January 17, 2012
      
      “Maybe gnostic feminist might be suitable. My impression reading your blog is honesty and integrity. I like what I read and the no bullshit context from you and many of the commenters.”
      
      – Thank you so much, Keith!
      
      LikeLike
      
      Reply
Jennifer Frances Armstrong

January 17, 2012

rational feminism

LikeLike

Reply
1. bloggerclarissa
  
  January 17, 2012
  
  I like the word “rational.”
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
2. Keith
  
  January 17, 2012
  
  Just curiois JFA as a rational feminist is it common to include a strategy for solutions when discussing negative social conventions. I notice alot of disscusion revolves around gender discord centering on oppression. I think oppression olympics is a term Ive read.
  
  Whats better than getting a medal at the oppression olympics?
  
  Not being oppressed!
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  1. Jennifer Frances Armstrong
    
    January 18, 2012
    
    Well, I’m far from being a rational feminist in some respects. I’m a shamanistic feminist, which means a different strategy from Clarissa’s. In my view, if patriarchal systems are irrational, it is useful to up the ante. One owes an irrational system no obeisance. Instead, one should have fun with it.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
  2. Keith
    
    January 18, 2012
    
    Well I do happen to agree with you but unfortunately there are to many people unable to imagine organic ethics and default to patriarcal property rights and bemoan being classified as property. Absolutely entertaining and should be mined for all the entertainment that can be extracted. . . with patriarchal shovels and equipment of course.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
Stringer Bell

January 18, 2012

Speaking of radfems, did you have a chance to read this?

http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2012/01/15/fairy-tale-sunday/

She compares breast augmentation surgery to female genital mutilation and concludes that they’re both pretty much the same.

“But really, what’s the diff? The two practices occupy overlapping points in the oppression continuum. They are both the result of misogynist social conditioning, they are both carried out on victims who have little or no personal autonomy, they are both justified by the notion that conformity to a patriarchal ideal will improve their chances of success. Either they are both a human rights violation, or neither is.”

LikeLike

Reply
1. P. rhoeas
  
  January 18, 2012
  
  *sigh* Oh Twisty you and your shenanigans!
  
  From what I’ve seen the funfem vs. no-funfem [?] problem boils down to whether you feel that porn, sex work, and sexual objectification are in and of themselves always harmful to women. [Short answer: yes with an if. Long answer: no with a but. Typical answer: lots of yelling from all sides.]
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
2. bloggerclarissa
  
  January 18, 2012
  
  I know, I saw the title and the first sentence and scrolled down without reading because my blood pressure started rising immediately. I’m not an advocate of breast augmentation, but this is just too insulting.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
Stringer Bell

January 18, 2012

From what I recall it’s been visitors from her blog that have called you ‘funfem’, both here and in the comments of IBTP’s blog.

LikeLike

Reply
1. bloggerclarissa
  
  January 18, 2012
  
  There was also a creature who wrote a post about me on her own blog and her only commenter who agreed. I have no idea if they are part of that crowd but I’m annoyed.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
bloggerclarissa

January 18, 2012

P. rhoeas :

*sigh* Oh Twisty you and your shenanigans!

From what I’ve seen the funfem vs. no-funfem [?] problem boils down to whether you feel that porn, sex work, and sexual objectification are in and of themselves always harmful to women. [Short answer: yes with an if. Long answer: no with a but. Typical answer: lots of yelling from all sides.]

That’s exactly what I’m saying. It’s all about sex. Because women cannot possibly be about anything else.

LikeLike

Reply