I've read the article twice - it is very poorly written and confuses and conflates several different topics / issues.
Julie Bindel starts off taking aim at those women who say they are feminists but actually support a lot of things that are inherently anti-feminist like pornography, prostitution / sex work, transgenderism etc. Ok, fair enough.
But hang on, isn't that the same angle as her previous article?
The seventh article, on misogynists and their handmaidens, can be read here.
I haven't read that one yet, but I imagine there's a big overlap in the type of (usually young) women who use the 'feminist' label as a sort of 'identity' while supporting various activities that are supposedly 'empowering' but often just continue to enable men to exploit women and their bodies in various ways....
We are the only oppressed group on the planet who are expected to love, protect and rigorously defend our oppressors.
It doesn't occur to her that not everyone views life and humanity solely through the simplistic oppressor/oppressed dichotomy. This is a very specific mindset that is popular in left-wing circles on issues around sex, race, gender identity, economic class etc but isn't shared outside of it. Most people outside of these fashionable circles realise that other human beings are also complex individuals. As a brown woman, I don't hate or even dislike white people or men. I don't see why I should. I'm even capable of loving, protecting and defending some of them - horrifying I know. Sure, I can criticise or strongly condemn certain racial or sexist issues, whether in a historical or contemporary context, but that's not the same as viewing white people or men as an oppressor class. I think people who are heavily invested in the oppressor/oppressed mindset cannot comprehend that others simply don't buy into that concept. 'Liberation' is not something that's needed - it's a fuzzy word like 'world peace' that sounds impressive but doesn't actually mean anything tangible or realistic to many people.
You can support the idea of not wanting to be discriminated or abused or exploited on the basis of your skin colour or sex without framing it through it oppressor/oppressed dichotomy.
Ok nevermind, let's just roll with it for now....
But wait, she's suddenly talking about heterosexual women. I guess if you are immersed in this oppressor/oppressed mindset then heterosexuality becomes this awful, terrible thing for women. Like it's something that's imposed on them. (The more extreme believers in this ideology even think heterosexuality is a social construct.)
To people who live outside of that bubble, it's just a normal sexual orientation like homosexuality or bisexuality. And it's a dominant sexual orientation because of evolution (that scary concept). Humans, like many other lifeforms on this planet, are divided into two sexes and the only way our species continues is because most of us are wired to favour forming bonds and raising families with the opposite sex. You can oppose problematic behaviours within heterosexual relationships without viewing heterosexuality as a negative.
A lot of women in heterosexual relationships aren't catastrophising (is that a word?!) about porn or rape by their partners or sons. They simply genuinely care and love their husbands and families, and worry about their well-being because it's a very human thing to do.
And so we come to the next bit -
For those that have chosen to marry men and stay at home to look after the children, they may believe that feminists look down on them. This is usually a defence mechanism because I’ve never heard a genuine feminist speak about women in that way.
Lolz. Where to begin. For a start, who decides whether a woman is a 'genuine feminist'? Julie Bindel?
Assuming JB categorises her own good self as a 'genuine feminist' - within her own article she writes in a condescending manner that any woman who doesn't subscribe to the oppressor/oppressed ideological framework is actually just colluding in her own oppression.
(Very reminiscent of the critical race theory ideological framework - even questioning a claim of racism or questioning / rejecting the concept of systemic racism makes you a racist or a bootlicker.)
According to JB, the only real reason why a woman might critique aspects of feminism or question / reject certain tenets is to avoid offending and upsetting men. You see, only men have the superior brains to think big, intellectual thoughts and make reasoned arguments. Women are simple-minded creatures motivated by gazing into the eyes of men over breakfast and unable to do anything that might upset them.
But feminists must magnanimously welcome these self-harming simpletons into the fold. (Really selling it to us here, JB!)
The whole tone is very much “Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.” A condescending arrogance that is dressed up as meek forgiveness. Is it any wonder that many women give feminism a hard pass?
Anyway we started off with women who call themselves feminists but are actually anti-feminists, to heterosexual women, to women who stay at home to look after their husbands and children, to women who explicitly reject feminism citing various reasons .... I'm not sure of the exact point JB is trying to make by lumping all these different groups and angles into one article, but she hasn't managed to convince me to read any of the other ones in the series.
It's a familiar tactic in the identity politics arena - set up an ideological framework, declare that everyone actually operates within this framework and then accuse anyone who doesn't subscribe to your ideas or questions aspects of it as colluding with oppressors, traitors, working against their own interests, or some sort of -ist or -phobic. Hardly groundbreaking or innovative, and not particularly effective in convincing / persuading people to your side.