Julie Bindel article on children in public spaces

[CallaLilli]

I've long had regard for Julie Bindel for the work she's done in combating VAWG and for standing up to trans activists, but I'm utterly disappointed in this article of hers that appeared in the Guardian yesterday. Because by not wanting children in public spaces, she's basically saying she doesn't want mothers in public spaces. Why are mothers of young children so looked down upon? On the other hand the article could just be clickbait or a parody as the Guardian seems to be heading that way lately!

Well, as a single parent of a child with high functioning autism and prone to meltdowns, it is the case that I cannot go anywhere DS cannot cope with. But it is a learning process - sometimes I work out his triggers after the event; sometimes I misjudge what he can manage.

And the thing I have noticed is that I can be kneeling on the floor holding a punching, crying, scratching child who is pulling my hair and trying to get him calm and people generally just walk on by. They never ask if I am okay, even though I might be in tears too; they never ask DS if he is okay, though that might distract him just long enough to stop his head feeling like it is exploding. They just walk on by.

I have not read the article, I do not wish to. But I stay away from many places DS cannot cope with, and from my perspective, when he does get distressed, people just carry on with their lives.

plus I was on a cross-country train yesterday and they have removed their quiet coaches. screaming kids and badly behaved dogs and wrinkles blocking the aisle with enormous cases nearly enough to persuade me to move to first class except the passengers there are worse

Oh dear. Could you shoe horn in any more sweeping generalisations and bigoted prejudices?

Obviously Julie's article is ill thought out, but then journalists do write things like this to get a reaction. Personally I do not think writing articles like this helps anyone. However, Julie has done a lot for women, certainly more than most do for other women, and I respect her for that, I really do not think anyone can seriously call her "anti-woman".

Radical feminism is about revealing to women where males use manipulations, to make our oppression seem "normal" and "natural", when it is anything but. It is not about forcing or pushing women into doing things. It is about providing an analysis that women can then use to evaluate their situation. And change things in their lives if they wish to, we call this consciousness raising. What Julie is doing here is not consciousness raising, it is not radical feminism.

Those that have a vested interest in keeping females down, will use any opportunity to try and turn women against each other. Hence they will jump on what Julie has said to try and dissuade women forming our own coalition to fight against male supremacy. By using Julie as an example of how awful radical feminists, lesbians and women who don't have children are. Unfortunately some women will fall for this tactic, and that is sad in my opinion.

We can see this with comments like: "desperately plain looking , bonkers-left , working-class, childless lesbian" and "She is a lesbian separatist who has a deep loathing for het women" etc. Clearly misogynists (which is what an anti-feminist is), and lesbian haters will use this to turn women against those who are actually fighting for women. I wonder who ultimately benefits from that?

That's just another argument where we're supposed to pick side.

I've acknowledged she has done good things for women.

But she says anti mother things all the time.

It isn't just in print to get a reaction. She does it in talks too. As she's consistent about it, what else are we to assume other than those are her firmly held beliefs.

The vast majority of discrimination I have experienced is because I have kids. Her remarks in a previous conversation about how mothers are selfish for not turning up to feminist meetings because of their kids absolutely crushed me.

She's supposed to be speaking for women and what they go through. If she is basically in agreement with trans activists that women giving birth and having kids is some kind of inconvenient and irrelevant thing that these women just keep doing, why is she so opposed to trans activists at all?

The fact that she was in conversation with Milo Yiannopolous and he, part of the alt right, had to defend mother's working rights from her frankly ludicrous arguments says it all really.

I have already pointed out but will repeat it, you only need to change 2 words in that article ("posh kids" to "Council Estate kids") and "bad tempered middle aged lesbians" to "bad tempered and middle aged person" and the whole article would fit seamlessly into a Katie Hopkins column in the Daily Mail.

She has been peddling this nonsense for a long time now. The apologists for her on here would nor give Katie Hopkins and her ilk the same free pass.

As far as I'm concerned much of her writing does display a deep contempt for heterosexual women, along with lashings of inverted snobbery.

Added to which, I don't even have to acquaint myself with what Katie Hopkins has to say, because none of it is any great importance.

But as Julie does stuff like report on the situation of women refugees, informing me on important stuff I would otherwise not know, which means I do have to also hear her crappy opinions on how inconvenient my existence is.

Witching your defence of her is illogical.

Even if it were a given that anyone who disagrees with her is only doing so to "keep women down" that does not excuse her comments.

Unfortunately some women will fall for this tactic, and that is sad in my opinion

How patronising - Bindel comes out with this anti-parent garbage but challenging it makes us dupes.

The comment in the 2004 article about paying her taxes to support other people's children is appalling. I have only ever heard this from right wing Daily Mail types - no mainstream Conservative would say it.

She's also talked about why she doesn't agree with maternity pay.

WHAT?!

I can understand that someone can be good on x and bad on y, but being anti-mothers in such an extreme way (and being anti-maternity pay is extreme), no, no, no.

The US has the worst maternity pay provision in the Western and world and not coincidently one of the highest rates of maternal mortality too.

The vast majority of discrimination I have experienced is because I have kids. I agree with that 100% and is one of the main reasons I am a feminist.

Yes almond she does say things that are anti mothers, which is wrong.

I think when women speak about their situation to other women, more understanding can be achieved. Women who have children will experience female oppression differently, to someone who does not. Working class women will experience it differently to middle class women. Lesbian women will experience it differently to heterosexual women etc. I think it is important to have compassion, good will and a willingness to understand each other, despite what differences we may have. And perhaps Julie needs to work on these things.

Any woman who has feminist ethics, and is committed to fighting male supremacy should be welcome in radical feminism, mothers are just as important as any other woman.

I would think she is opposed to transgenderism as an ideology, for the same reasons all radical feminists are, because it harms women. We see women as a stable group, that are oppressed by men as a group, because of our biology. That men want resources from us, primarily sex and babies (but also as an unpaid domestic labourer and ego stroker). Males form coalitions with each other to keep us oppressed. They have traditionally done this by agreeing among themselves not to employ us, to pay us less, to not promote us etc. This has traditionally forced us to either live in poverty, or to get married (often to someone we otherwise would not) in order to survive.

They also use manipulation to get us to submit to them, i.e. By socialising us into sex roles. The male right uses religion to say these roles are imposed by a higher power and not by men. And the male left now uses pomo and queer theory to make these roles seem legit. Both now use pseudo-science: "brain sex", to back up their claims.

Transgender ideology is harmful, because it denies all these things males do to keep us oppressed. And instead says sex roles are innate, it has no analysis of why women are forced into a submissive role. This also means that a female can only escape that role by declaring herself a male, and harming her body by taking drugs and undergoing surgeries. Which is exactly what many young women are doing. Not only this, but males can then claim awards, places reserved for women etc., by claiming to be us. As well as giving free reign for any man to come into our spaces and perv on us whenever he wants, if he claims to be a woman. This is why radical feminists are against transgender ideology, and why Julie is against it.

Lass I said I did not agree with her article, you are missing my point. Men and occasionally right wing women like to pit women against each other, as you are doing here, to try and discredit feminism. It is This that women need to be careful for falling for.

If women were to turn against other groups of women due to woman hating rhetoric like yours. Which is appalling and shows a deep seated hatred of lesbians, women without children, "plain looking" women, and working class women, then they would be dupes.

To be honest I have to wonder why a person, who i've seen elsewhere state they are not a feminist, would be on a feminist board in the first place. Unless it is to try and cause divisions between women. Whilst radical feminists agree with conservative women on issues such as porn and prostitution, and libfems on issues like abortion. Both conservative women and libfems put men first, and do not support women's liberation, they are two sides of the same coin.

almond, in the 1970s, one of the central demands of feminism was for playgroups and organised childcare for children so women could be active outside the home. This included political activism.

There is organised childcare, but it is so tied in with women's participation in the labour market and in many cases, simply means a double shift (that is, domestic work when you get home). People are so stretched financially, practically and emotionally that it is hard to do anything else. Then there are the high standards mothers are held to, which add to the pressure. Support for mothers as mothers, as (mostly) the primary carers of the next generation- not so much.

I get that many women cannot have or choose not to have children. I get that woman does not equal mother. I get that childless or child free people may not want children in their social space, but I absolutely hold to my right to express myself as a mother and not attend meetings where childcare is an issue, whether that be a professional meeting or a feminist gathering. I argue for the provision of childcare and/or the timing of meetings to enable women with children to attend, just as I would ensure a building is accessible for all groups.

Lass did not have woman hating rhetoric.

She was pointing out the opposite of the groups Julie has critiqued. Lass did not actually say anything negative about plain looking women, lesbians etc.

It's ridiculous that Lass is having her phrasing pulled apart when that is not the topic of the thread and Julie Bindel is explicitly saying things, which apparently we're not supposed to point out, despite it being in Guardian articles, because then we would be the ones pitting women against each other!

Witching, your description of feminism is probably what you believe. That doesn't mean it is what Julie Bindel believes. I've listened to many of her talks and read her articles because much of what she has to say is valuable and important. I'm wondering about some rationale for her particular stance, not feminism 101.

And Lass has many beliefs she shares with feminists, regardless of whether or not she claims to be one.

CocoaButton, great post.

If women were to turn against other groups of women due to woman hating rhetoric like yours. Which is appalling and shows a deep seated hatred of lesbians, women without children, "plain looking" women, and working class women, then they would be dupes.

Goodness me. What I said was Bindel , in many of her articles, has no empathy for any one who does not fit her approved categories. I said nothing about hating any of those groups. Bindel makes no attempt to conceal her attempt for mothers, heterosexual women, posh people. If you want to attack any one for divide and rule it is her.

I think she does far more harm than good. She has said some very sensible things on the "sex industry " and prostitution. However her ridiculous stance on mothers and her obvious contempt for women who do not fit with Bindel's world view discredit her views on other matters and by extension any one else , like me , who shares her views on that subject.

Any writer who can make that comment complaining about paying her taxes to support other people's children deserves no respect.

I am not trying to discredit feminism. I am astonished why Bindel was ever held in such high regard and why you think pointing out she is a nasty bigot who would could happily have got that article published in any right wing rag is not allowed.

How very Daily Mail of her.

I fly a fair bit, and beyond the odd scared/uncomfortable baby screaming their head off during takeoff, I've never had any issues with kids (and my own are angels due to the provision of sweets, water, and ipads with headphones) - Adults however, I've seen appalling behaviour from them, and regularly.

You know what this article made me realise?

I literally can't remember the last time I saw a child repeatedly misbehaving in public. I don't drive so regularly use public transport, I shop, I work in an environment where you often see children. I suppose before my youngest started high school I saw some hijinks on the school run but that doesn't count anyway. What I do often see and hear is people moaning about it.

Just something to ponder.

I don't think it's anti-feminist to point out how awful this article is.

Miffer do you know, me too. I don't drive either and am frequently around kids (including my own, obviously). I honestly can't remember the last time I noticed a child making a nuisance of themselves in public. I mean yes, toddlers and very young kids sometimes have tantrums and babies cry and it's noisy and can be irritating but they all do that sometimes - it's just life. We were all kids once, after all. I come across badly behaved adults far more often than badly behaved kids.

My mum always says that badly behaved children are like badly behaved dogs, a bloody nuisance to everyone. I agree. My kids are not perfect but they don't drive other people spare.

I go on long train journeys quite often. At least one journey in three is marred by badly behaved children. But it's always quite clearly the parents who are at fault, not the poor kids who are being brought up to be unpopular. I think it's unfair to them.

Last time it was a woman glued to her phone. You could hear her tapping away. She had two small kids and they had nothing with which to entertain themselves. Nothing. So they would start whining, she'd ignore, then eventually flip out. They'd be silent, she'd go back on her phone and it would start up again. Spectacularly useless parenting.

I am not that fussed about Julie Bindel writing a stupid article. She's a feminist but she's not what I'd consider a role model for civilized behaviour. Germaine Greer can be bloody abrasive too.

One thing I do find hard is the misogyny shown by some lesbians towards het women and mothers. Obviously you get lesbian mothers but the ones who are aggressive towards het mothers presumably aren't mothers themselves.

Motherhood was what radicalized me, and I reject any feminism that doesn't represent mothers.

I don't know, lots of parents (men or women) do let the behaviour of their kids impact on other people more than they should. But most people do try and limit it, even though that is a very difficult task and can't always be accomplished.

Not sure what the lesbian reference is . Plenty of people don't want small kids pissing them off regardless of gender/sexuality.

Fucked up comments about having kids when many are unwanted as well. Adoption is very far from straightforward. Someone people have a hard wired yearning to get pregnant, it's just physiology. It isn't against the law! People can do as they see fit, seeing as we live in a free country.

Of course lots of people don't want children pissing them off. The lesbian reference is because Julie Bindel is a lesbian who disapproves of parents and this is something I've come across. Some gay people, mostly men but some lesbians, call parents "breeders" and slag them off remorselessly. It's a thing. Not a big thing, but a thing. It's a them and us position.

Her comment about not having biological children because there are so many in care who can be fostered or adopted are awful. It reads like she's saying that middle class people can breezilly forget about the bother of having children and just use the poor as a means to get children instead. As long as they keep the adopted children out of cafes!

You do know Bindel's long term partner is posh? So not sure she really does hate posh people.

You do know Bindel's long term partner is posh? So not sure she really does hate posh people.

Then given the snide and unneccesary remarks about class she presumably tolerates and makes an exception for her partner ?

JULIE BINDEL ASKS: WHY SO MANY BENEFITS FOR PARENTS?
www.thingsunseen.co.uk/the-agitator/julie-bindel-asks-why-so-many-benefits-for-parents/

She has a valid point about the need for more help for carers - although how that justifies the rest of the diatribe is beyond me.