Funfem Versus Radfem

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.

15 thoughts on “Funfem Versus Radfem”

  1. 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.

    Like

    1. 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.

      Like

      1. 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.

        Like

        1. “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!

          Like

    1. 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!

      Like

      1. 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.

        Like

      2. 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.

        Like

  2. 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.”

    Like

    1. *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.]

      Like

    2. 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.

      Like

  3. 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.

    Like

  4. 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.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.