Julie Bindel on twitter

It's interesting, I think because I found mn before I even understood twitter (took me a looong time to work out what a hashtag actually was/ did) on my anon account I'm actually still respectful and patient (I think!) I just can't be open on my prof account.

I'd have left JJ to it. Only way to peak some.

We have to hang on to the one fact - incontrovertible IMO - that we are not each others' enemies. We all know who the real enemy is. this this this!

I think Julie is (sort of) back. Also wanted to say luffs back to you Louise. You're a star.

Luffs you back Moody, you speak as you find

I also cannot remember a time when feminists haven't argued and fallen out, vociferously and even viciously. I suppose the difference is that it never used to happen so publicly.

Well, if anything positive can be taken from these bloody awful spats, it's that for a significant amount of time, no one gave a shit about needing to discredit a resurgent feminist movement, because there was no point.

Nowadays anti-women people find themselves needing to pay attention because when we do organize, we bloody well get shit done.

Julie Bindel shoots from the hip and sometimes I think she's reckless. But I imagine those same qualities gave her the courage to come out as a lesbian 40-odd years ago and to speak out on transgender issues when most of us were still going, 'Eh?' or 'Where's the harm?'

If it wasn't for anonymous posters on here I would have never caught on to any of this. So I'm hugely grateful and I understand the need for anonymity - and I choose it myself. I can also understand why Bindel gets impatient with it, even while simultaneously rolling my eyes and thinking, 'Fucks sake Julie!'

I also cannot remember a time when feminists haven't argued and fallen out, vociferously and even viciously. I suppose the difference is that it never used to happen so publicly.

I do feel sure that Julie will be back.

It must be very intense to live so much of your life on Twitter, let alone the amount of abuse she receives on a daily basis. She often shares things about her home life as well as her activism, and it's probably not a bad idea to have a break from SM.

Best regards Julie, Kathleen, Louise and other 'out there' feminists if you're reading this thread.

I encountered McKinnon and genuinely believed them to be a thought-experiment

That always makes me laugh (in a good way) when you say that, @DrLouiseJMoody

But if you've ever been to a US academic conference in the humanities, you will know how seriously even the nicest American academics
even US professor who are my good friends take themselves & their work. I'm not a philosopher, but I don't imagine big philosophy conferences are much different. So to assume that a very self-important person is a thought experiment is just the most blissful deflation of that person I could imagine! Brava!

I think there's a certain amount of fair enough criticism to all & by all - having been doxxed & had my (unwanted) moment of notoriety, I just don't know how you Louise, or Kath Stock or Julie Bindel or the others cope. I almost didn't - what kept me going was not letting the bastards grind me down.

On the other hand, having such public platforms may allow such people to (probably fairly unconsciously) feel that what they say should be accepted without question. I know being a senior academic and corrupting teaching young minds for 30 years means I don't like being told I'm wrong!

Let many flowers bloom. We have to hang on to the one fact - incontrovertible IMO - that we are not each others' enemies. We all know who the real enemy is.

Well most people know my opinion of twitter is snake's-belly low, so I won't disagree that it's an horrendous platform for constructive conversation.

But your final paragraph is my point, too. I might reflect on my own tone and decide to shift away from rudeness. (It does happen!) I am on very wobbly ground when I start trying to impose that reflection on others.

Oh, I think complaining that people are setting up a divide is useless. People disagree and they need to work out ideas.

Where it gets problematic on places like Twitter is when you have people essentially offering nothing constructive but simply mocking or picking at people, or not listening to what people have actually said or responding to it because they are point scoring. Or someone decides they don't think a particular discussion is worthwhile so they deliberately impede it.

Knowledge of disinhibition is mostly personally useful really, it's useful to think, would I say this to a person in person? Is this constructive at all?

Yes, I understand about the notion of disinhibition. And I'm sure being anon can be a factor, but as I said, there are other things which can foster a certain disinhibition in what you are prepared to say, and I suspect that feeling like you're all out front and have nothing to lose by verbally ripping women to bits who have already made it clear that they aren't in a position to openly answer back properly may well have a similar effect.

Ego, a false sense of security, a quick temper etc. Lots of things.

My basic point here is not that people haven't been rude,or even that they should or shouldn't be rude. I am irked about the preaching against divisiveness while setting up an arbitrary divide.

All very well saying 'we should work together to persuade' but it just looks like posturing if you add 'but not you, you're too gauche'

I think there has been some research about behaviour with anonymity, and it does seem to have a disinhibiting effect. I'm afraid I don't remember the details but I imagine it would be easy enough to find.

Nooooooooo Julie Bindel is one of my favourite writers and speakers. I will miss her
on Twitter. I don't go on there loads but didn't notice her Tweeting anything controversial (or no more than normal). I hope she's decided to hide her account for a while rather than it being a ban.

I don't agree that anonymity per se means you are more likely to rude and forthright.

I think feeling very confident and being pissed off does. If you are anonymous, so not fearing that your opinion will run you foul of your employers social media rules, you may feel more confident, but equally, you may be a well known individual, with kudos from the wider community of feminists and letters after your name, and feel confident to speak harshly because of that.

Look, I don't give that much of a fuck if women are being arseholes. Because I understand that women are whole human beings, capable of being arseholes just like every other whole human being. I can be an arse, you can be an arse, Captain Tom can be an arse, JK Rowling can be an arse.

It's not always helpful, and sometimes it is. But it's the reality whatever. This idea that anon people are more rude, or more prone to ill disciplined outbursts or unwise statements than those who are known is utter crap.

I don't expect anything like perfection from any woman fighting for her rights and the rights of other women. I'm really not bloody sure why anyone does.

Hi All,

Like everyone else, I've been watching this play out and do not, in general, share criticisms of anon accounts. I talk to many anonymous women who include: civil servants, lawyers, academics, journalists, concerned parents, women avoiding abusive exes, and on it goes. All have a contribution to make, and I certainly do not think any type of contribution should be prioritized over others. Of course, being anon does sometimes lead to disinhibition, but we have quite a few anon accounts posting reasoned things, and likely engaging in off-line activities too.

I was personally criticized by someone I barely know the other night for only ever having put t-shirts on statues which is a "stunt." But I was part of the planning group for our local ReSisters action and there was a great deal of thought and we even rehearsed the route! "Stunts" like this are needed to get people's attention. They may not be "palatable" to some in this debate, but that is not who we need to convince: we need to convince people at large that there IS a significant threat to women's rights, and it takes attention grabbing stunts to do that and push more into action, then we've accomplished something.

I've also been told I'm "impolitic", "a liability and embarrassment", should not call myself a philosopher, and a whole host of other things. That's fine. Such people can just unfollow or block me (although it'd be nice if they didn't do insane things like invent police visits to discredit me, but we cannot have everything). I take the view that we are fighting a war and being nice, at best, might ingratiate yourself with the establishment, but it doesn't always get things done.

One of the reasons I joined in this debate was because this board made me aware of what was going on (that and the fact that, being in philosophy, I encountered McKinnon and genuinely believed them to be a thought-experiment). I'm grateful for everyone, anon or otherwise.

And I (now the word is becoming common!) luffs you all.

FloralBunting said a lot of what I am thinking here.

I actually think be kind is good advice, or I might say, be respectful. That doesn't to me mean never using a joke, or standing up for yourself, or being clear about what you think. But being respectful of others is what makes society possible and it's about recognising others as human. Many people don't do well at this sometimes and that's just life, but there are times it's reasonable for someone to point out that people are being snippy or unfair.

It's also true IMO that being anonymous can make it easier to say things you wouldn't, in the same way being online can make it easier to say things you wouldn't to someone's face.

However, there are all kinds of reasons people choose to be anonymous online. I don't use my name and it's not really because I'm worried about being doxxed etc, and it's not about my political opinions, it has to do with my feelings about corporate information gathering and such. And being anonymous online does not mean people are anonymous in their political activism elsewhere.

And as for whether people like Bindle are more effective feminists - yeah, whatever. I appreciate that it is difficult to be a focus in your personal life as an activist, especially when people are being so aggressive, On the other hand many of these people are making a living as activists. It's financially advantageous to them to be in the public eye, so please, spare the "poor me, I'm so brave unlike you plebs" bs. I've read dozens of posts here or in other places by anonymous women who are regular and not famous that are more interesting, educated, eloquent, original, and insightful than anything I've ever read by JB. In fact I often wonder why many prominent writers and commentators get picked up because the things they write are pretty flipping pedestrian.

This all sounds very "not nice" so maybe I'm not following my own advice, but it really really irks me when people come on "democratic" platforms and want to be top dog.

And I agree with YogaFaker.

Feminists have never agreed between themselves. And it's probably better that they don't.

I didn't see the spat play out, but I am sympathetic with this:

Please comrades, keep our internecine battles private. We need to show a united front against the real enemy.

I suspect that is what Stock thinks too, although she ended up engaged in one. She gets a lot of shit for being an academic who spoke out, but now she gets shit from some feminists for being an academic. The issue with anonymous accounts is because people hide behind them to get into these debates or to just go on the attack (often with very limited information). It does not arise from a lack of understanding that many people need anonymous accounts - I think it's disingenous to say that Becca, Bindel and Stock don't know and fully accept that they are needed by most GC feminists. Becca has lost her academic career over being public with her views, and Stock nearly has.

The difficulty with twitter - and a lot of the debates within feminism about class, race etc. - is that accusations are often made on the basis of such limited information. You don't know the race or class or history of people tweeting unless they tell you and so completely misguided assumptions are made. This isn't to say that there aren't difficulties about race and class within feminism, but someone's twitter profile is a bad place to find out what she is like.

There's as much chance of that on Twitter as there is of finding serenity in AIBU

Twitter is a cesspit, some of the time, and a delight, some of the time.

I think what I've seen over the last 50 years or so is the while those who oppose us talk about "the women's movement" and "feminism" in the singular, the movement and feminism are multiple, plural.

We're not the female equivalent of the Masons, with a tight set of rules & a secret handshake. There is no single movement, nor leader. But we're trying to operate in a political environment which thrives on oppressive and binaristic (either/or; Yes/No; black/white) hierarchies.

It would be good if we all got along, worked together in a coordinated manner in order to achieve a common goal. Infighting is a gift to those who oppose us and to undecideds. There's as much chance of that on Twitter as there is of finding serenity in AIBU. Twitter is a mosh pit, a melee, it's fun, you let off steam, and you can get hurt sometimes. You can't expect women to sit at the side, smiling, applauding, being nice and not getting stuck in.

YogaFaker, you raise a good point and I think my observation about kind=persuasive is related.

I've read a lot of the cross tweets from named accounts telling the women who aren't nice enough that they are damaging the cause etc, and I think it's definitely down to this idea that women should keep the anger on a low simmer, squash it down so we can persuade the fence sitters.

You see it said on FWR often enough. On the one hand, I understand the art of persuasion, and I don't think it's always sensible or effective to be snarky or rude. On the other, I see certain feminist women giving TRAs, both extreme and more soft in approach, so much more slack than they give women who they would agree with on so many specifics, simply because of the 'tone' the women use.

There's balance to be struck, but I decided quite some time ago that I choose when to be persuasive, I do not decide that for other women, who are perfectly capable of making their case in their own way. I am a fellow woman, not a tone policer. I won't do it, even if I disagree with the way a woman has expressed something. I mean,I don't give a crap about Jamil's tweet, and I can't be faffed with a lot of twitter arguments. But if some women still feel it's worthwhile to be on there, I'm not paternalistic to the point where I'm going to lemon suck 'disapprove'. So done with those that do.

Women with strong opinions disagreeing strongly on some things despite agreeing on some other things is hardly surprising, is it?

I think this is very true. I'm on Twitter in my RL, but have been doxxed etc because of it. And I'm not a famous feminist at all, just a run of the mill academic feminist.

I think there's a longer and broader narrative here, which is that women are generally socialised to "be kind" and we are expeted to get on with each other.

Whereas men are expected to compete.

But that's OK for them because the field [of public discourse in this case] is theirs.

Whereas the field is not ours. And there is a really persuasive theory about this - that because the field is not ours, then there's generally only room for one woman (or speaking symbolically, one female position in the field).

So the competition is forced - by patriarchal ideological structures - to be between women, for that one spot, rather than just between human beings, regardless of sex.

And I know I've gone all theoretical, but you could look at practical examples - the aim of getting women on committees or Boards of Directors. Men appoint one woman, and they feel their job is done.

It's tricky - I saw the end of the spat play out on Twitter but I missed the original Jamila (who she?) tweet.

Part of me wanted to say "Please comrades, keep all our internecine battles private. We need to show a united front against the real enemy"

But that's my feminine socialisation, innit?

Women deserve the liberation and safety feminism fights for even if they're sarcastic, mean, funny, unkind, rich, poor, educated, ignorant, brave or cowardly. We all have experiences that are relevant to the fight.

I've defended Julie Bindel on here before over her complaint about being a lone named woman in this given all the shit she gets. I understand her frustrations, I really do.

Being bravely identifiable is a difficult and admirable thing, and hard to maintain when there was definitely a point when those who were not anonymous were getting lots of secret support from people who refused to speak out publicly themselves. I get how that can really rankle.

What pisses me off so much about this particular little intramural disagreement is that it's become a huge dig at those of us who are relatively anonymous, painting us all as bitches parroting other people's thoughts and using anonymity simply as an excuse to be nasty.

Sorry, but that's a fucking joke. The people criticising those who responded to Jameela Jamil's tweet with skepticism are basically being accused of 'not being polite/kind'. It's got fuck all to do with them being anonymous. Those making that complaint also complain about Posie and Dr Julia Long not being polite and nice, and they are every bit as exposed as academics of note.

I mean sure, stick to the argument of 'be nicer to persuade those wavering' because you might have a point there, but this insulting shit about only identified people making a worthwhile contribution is pure snobbery.

I've made plenty of original and worthwhile comments here and elsewhere, and while I don't tie all my online presences together under one identifiable name, I am doing actual, physical stuff to make a difference elsewhere, some of which means anonymity is vital.

And honestly this 'be nicer and more persuasive' shit really does fucking grate when it's always directed at uppity women. Back at ya, identifiable blue ticks.

I'll carry on putting myself and my family at risk (during the Covid19 crap and via campaigning and activism) and remind myself that my feminism is genuinely about all women's liberation, even the women who are egotistical snobs.