Often when arguing about feminism on the internet, I hear from my opponents – well there are just sooo many types of feminism – how can my brain handle all this variation. Let’s just simplify the notion a touch. There is the feminism that pleases men and there is the feminism that doesn’t. The feminism that does not please men has held on to its political character and theoretical basis.
bell hooks describes these two flavours of feminism:
“Lifestyle feminism ushered in the notion that there could be as many versions of feminism as there were women. Suddenly the politics was being slowly removed from feminism. And the assumption prevailed that no matter what a woman’s politics, be she conservative or liberal, she too could fit feminism into her existing lifestyle. Obviously this way of thinking has made feminism more acceptable because its underlying assumption is that women can be feminists without fundamentally challenging and changing themselves or the culture.”
-bell hooks, Feminism is for Everybody.
bleatmop
Mystro
Dead Wild Roses 
8 comments
February 3, 2016 at 10:03 am
Emma
So much frightening power in that F word. It must be harnessed, or diluted, or dismantled altogether so as not to offend the tender sensibilities of the masters and their dutiful slaves.
Feminism ‘that pleases men,’ eh? “We like our feminists in high heels and lipstick, serving sex and sammiches with a smile. As long as they do that, and keep the house clean, they can go on and do that feminist thing, who cares. Nobody listens to their prattle anyway.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
February 3, 2016 at 10:12 am
The Arbourist
@Emma
There were substantive gains in liberating women from the oppressive structures of society during the Second Wave.
Women had a firm theoretical base, solidarity, and militancy; enough so to reweave the fabric of society.
The neo-liberal fun-feminism empowerment shtick is a precisely calibrated antithesis to the movement that changed society. :(
LikeLiked by 1 person
February 3, 2016 at 10:23 am
Emma
Forgive me for asking a silly question: is the neo-liberal fun feminism the same as third wave?
And is it the kind who labels women objecting to prostitution and porn as ‘sex negative’?
I’m obviously out of touch with the terminology and too lazy to do some basic research, but also interested in your take on things.
LikeLike
February 3, 2016 at 9:39 pm
jasonjshaw
I’d suggest that there are actually three key types – the non-offensive fluffy feminism lite, the hyper-offensive/persecution complex feminism, and reality-minded fact-based wider-view feminism.
Sure wish I saw more of the third kind.
LikeLike
February 4, 2016 at 10:55 pm
The Arbourist
@Emma
It is sort of the hellspawn of the 3rd wave. The third wave brought to the table the idea of intersectionality along many axis of oppression and brought into question the white feminist bias that was present from much of the 2nd wave.
Depending on the feminist. I don’t meant to be vague, but really it takes a little time to let people share their views before they can be adequately classified. A good tell-tale is their opinion on the “sexual-revolution” of the late 60’s and early 70’s.
Many rad-fems give this revolution the side-eye because really the SR focused on dudes getting more access to sex, rather than than women being emancipated from oppressive societal norms. More liberal feminists tend to think that the SR was all double-unicorn frosted lolly-pops – and discourse usually goes downhill from there.
LikeLiked by 2 people
February 4, 2016 at 10:59 pm
The Arbourist
@JJS
Given the fact that you seem to think that Thunderfoot is a great purveyor of fact and wisdom regarding feminism I would suggest that your definition – “reality-minded fact-based wider-view feminism” is axiomatically incorrect at worst and inconsistent at best.
So really, it does come down to dude pleasing feminism and then the feminism that actually helps women.
LikeLike
February 5, 2016 at 5:27 am
jasonjshaw
Just because he goes a bit overboard on some points doesn’t mean his fact-based examples should be written off.
And again, should I remind you that I am supportive of Emma Watson’s approach?
How’s that cherry pie coming?
LikeLike
February 5, 2016 at 6:45 am
carmen
Speaking of cherry pies, I see you didn’t reply to my comment a couple of entries ago, where I included the attack of Emma Watson’s approach by asshats from the manosphere. What say you about that, Jason?
Can you see that it doesn’t seem to matter how ‘diplomatic’ feminists are, they still get targeted for abuse? Perhaps a climb down from that myopic perspective of yours would be in order.
LikeLiked by 3 people