Julie Bindel on Triggernometry, 02.02.22. 7pm

Oh look at my formatting failure!

It just feels like you’re saying

‘Well, the status quo is the status quo because it’s always been the status quo’

Because until quite recently most doctors thought that heart attacks looked like male heart attacks. Many people thought that heart attacks were less common among women, just as they thought autism was less common.

But why did they think that?

51% of the people who have heart attacks or are autistic are women

Because until quite recently most doctors thought that heart attacks looked like male heart attacks. Many people thought that heart attacks were less common among women, just as they thought autism was less common.

The idea that socialization is the main reason for differences in presentation of autism in girls is a stretch imo. But even if it were the case, it doesn't mean it's sexist that doctors did not realize that girls were presenting differently. There is still real controversy about whether autism as we know it is even one thing, if it's always caused the same way, etc.

As time goes on researchers begin to see medical problems holistically and understand them better, and that includes now a better understanding of how the same problem can manifest differently in men and women. There are a lot of strides being made in differentiating presentation of illness between different groups of people, even between different genetic profiles.

But WHY do doctors tell women they aren’t having a heart attack because they don’t look like a man having a heart attack? Man as the default human innit? If that’s not sexist, what is?

And the issue with autism not being recognised in women is surely largely down to socialisation? It’s FAR less acceptable for women to display some of the stereotypical symptoms of autism (e.g. to struggle in social situations, to lack understanding of the feelings of others, to insist on routine). Autistic women and girls mask, putting their needs second to those of others, as all women and girls are taught to do

And TBH I don't think feminism has stood outside of that as much as we might like to think. What's been the feminist line on non-sexual differences between men and women, or the male and female brain? It's all Cordelia Fine and of course they are not different. Well, if you believe that maybe you aren't going to think that boys and girls would have very different presentations of autism.

It often takes a long time to shift medical practice in offices and hospitals even once a better protocol is found.

And not providing adequate safety equipment for a dangerous job because of someone’s sex?

Hell yes that’s sexism

Yep. Thinking of the example the Russian chap gave, that the structure of his jaw is in some way different due to his ethnicity, and makes English dentists unable to properly provide pain relief.

I agree that’s not racist, English dentists just don’t treat a lot of Russians, it’s nothing personal.

But let’s think about the inability to diagnose heart attacks in women, or Autism. 51% of the Medical profession’s patients are women. The fact they are systematically failed is sexism. It is discrimination because of their sex, and it sure feels personal

I think some of their analogies were off, basically

I can’t really get on board with the firefighter uniform is sexist argument. Men have traditionally been firefighters, now not do much and it takes a while for a woman to get senior enough to say hang on these uniforms aren’t great for us. It’s a numbers issue rather than sexism particularly imo. Strength is needed in firefighting too so it makes sense for men to be more attracted to it as a career.
My argument is more things like childcare, primary school teaching, nursing, caring roles etc traditional female roles are seen as lesser when they should be equal as just as difficult. That is the sexism imo.
You always get the why don’t women want to be bin men argument? But why don’t men want to be carers in elderly homes. I would argue a more difficult job physically and mentally than being a bin man. Worse hours too.

I think they don't like feminism because, as was alluded to in the interview, they see it as some sort of personal criticism. Like when they were discussing prostitution at the end and Konstantin was saying that the message would hit home more with him if it was directed at 'men who pay for sex' rather than men as a whole. It's a bit NAMALT (and please recognise me as a good guy), which ignores the fact that it is about whole society attitudes and if the 'good guys' were vocally opposed and held their peers to account, maybe fewer men would feel entitled to women's bodies and labour.

He did rather hone in on the firefighter issue and it was a bit distracting, but because Julie had already said she wasn't that interested in those sorts of issues, she wasn't going to explain the wider sexism issue, which is that yes, in the main, firefighters are men and traditionally it was only men, but now there are women, someone really should have recognised that women are not just small men, but a completely different shape, and designed something safe for them. See also: police stab vests. That stuff does matter and the fact that it is overlooked is sexist. No, it's not rampant misogyny, but taken as a whole with all of the other similar 'man as default human' examples, it is sexist and does matter.

They bought into Julie's argument that the major issues are the massive, life or death ones like rape, femicide, domestic violence...etc, but I believe that sexism in a wider and general sense does have a role in those issues too. All of it is about seeing women as lesser. It does seem, though, that they would see the smaller issues as 'whinging' and irritating - which I think is partly to do with the fact that, if we take the smaller things seriously, they (the good guys) would need to look at some of their behaviour too and they don't really see why they should have to (being the good guys).

Just thinking aloud...

I dunno how much of it is them missing the point and how much is them trying to draw out their guests to be fair. they don't seem stupid

People can be purblind because of their own experiences and unexamined assumptions. I was impressed at the way that they shifted post Posie. They have a way to go plus, although nobody is wholly accountable for their fans, I've seen several allusions to the open sewer of their live comments at times which reminds me of Heathers' recent piece.

jamesheathers.medium.com/week-1-your-fans-are-dicks-and-that-should-matter-to-you-f58260e5addf

I think a lot of it is drawing out the conversation Bernard.

But they are also males who've not experienced or read widely at depth about the things she's talking about.

Posie btw doesn't use the term feminism because she says the new feminism doesn't support women. JB makes the same argument but holds to the term of feminism as something that centres womens rights against violence. They make the same points, although from different platforms.

Yes I see your point Santa

I've watched the end of the interview; really excellent watch.

That should be required watching on every gender studies course everywhere

i really enjoyed it. I suspect JB may be quite a difficult person to know, but my goodness I'm glad she's in the world doing the work she does to make things better for women and girls.

when I decided Amnesty could no longer be trusted, the Centre for Women's Justice were a very good swap in for my money. I can trust them not to use my money to act against women. It's very easy to set up a regular payment through their home page.

I noticed when Julie was contrasting the treatment of a man who had murdered his partner with that of Sally Challon, one of the chaps said 'I don't regard that as a feminist issue, it's injustice'.

completely missing the fact that what happened to Sally Challon happened entirely because she is a woman. So yes, it's injustice, but entirely driven by sex

I dunno how much of it is them missing the point and how much is them trying to draw out their guests to be fair. they don't seem stupid

The JB interview is great. Triggernometry are doing some essential work in these podcasts.

'It was Posie who did that'

I watched both of her episodes, and she was great. She definitely opened their eyes to the impact of self ID on women, and the importance of biological sex, but I think they're both still very cynical about feminism. Haven't watched JB yet

It was Posie who did that.

I have just watched Julie on Trig.

I thought she was a wonderful presence on screen, and her voice is lovely to listen to. She manages to explain horrific and difficult situations with a wise and considered tone; it's a notable quality, considering pretty much no one else seems to be able to do it these days.

Yep, I'm fangirling. I am now a Bindel fangirl.

'I enjoy listening to her in person more than reading her'

Same here. She's such an engaging and interesting speaker, and is a real mix of passionate and relaxed

Have been hoping she would appear on Triggernometry for ages. Saving this for a treat for tomorrow! Agree that KK and FF can be daft to put it mildly but they do shut up and listen, and if anyone can open their minds to feminism, it's JB

JB seemd to be suggesting at one point that the lack of female firefighters was down to sexism, for example, but that's only partly true - it also relates to the fact that it requires a lot of upper body strength and that women are less likely to have that, even just fact that they are on average smaller is a factor. So looking at that, it's a disparity, many people would not call it sexism.

In terms of the wider way of talking about disparities, you do get people like Kendi who when discussing race issues maintains pretty absolutely that any disparity is in fact racism. Which is opposed by others.

So it seemed to me that what they were asking JB was to say something about that - whether all disparities are sexism.

It was a good interview though. I enjoy listening to her in person more than reading her.

It is sexist as women have a different body shape due to their sex and need the uniform to keep safe. Not fitting it properly is not taking that into account.

It's not deliberately done, but ignorance can be as harmful.

I suppose another word is exclusionary, based on sex.

Can be scaled to medicine and car design, where they just haven't bothered and it endangers lives.

Compare with access for wheel chair users - just not thought about and it excludes them. It's ableist as the default is able bodied.

Women make more than half the population so it's not like excluding a minority group. Yes they're right that not many women are fire fighters and so in that context women are the minority. But it's shoddy and potentially actively endangering them.

What's key about the book is that it's bliddy everywhere, for everything and added up together, as a whole, it's sexism. Especially given women are the slight majority.

As she said, she's not as concerned so probably was a little blind sided.

Have they had Caroline on yet?

He had connected it to other discussions they've had about things like race etc and I think what he was trying to ask is, are all disparities, in this case between men and women, best understood as sexism. Or even all disadvantages caused by sexism. Which is something that's a very live disagreement with people who talk about CRT for example, either supportive or not. So you can get someone like Reed who might say, you can have a disparity, but it isn't always caused by racism as such, or if you choose to call it that then you just have to be aware that what you are saying is that racism just means a disparity but that says nothing useful about the cause of the disparity.

Another thing, which I see everywhere these days, is that when they see someone with a set of views about all kinds of things, then if there's one view they find objectionable it all becomes about that, and then the shutters go down and it turns ad hominem (or is it ad feminam?).