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!

I make no secret of the fact that I find Bindel disturbing, I have kids and over the years we have had the odd melt down. Bindel's hate for mothers comes across in her click bait articles. I have found her work lazy and often her research barely gets beyond this is what I think so it must be right. She doesn't like being challenged on twitter and questioning her beliefs will get you being called a troll or hand maiden depending on her mood before you get blocked.

As to claims of humour she is often using that as her excuse when she realises that maybe she has gone to far. Remember all men in camps and you check them out like a library book. As soon as the vitriol kicked in people immediately claimed it was just a bit of fun. Well her sense of humour has worn thing with me and if I see the name Bindel associated with somnething I immediately assume it is rubbish.

Oh, and thanks almondpudding

"Could you shoe horn in any more sweeping generalisations and bigoted prejudices?" well, if you really feel the need to protect those in first class. but otherwise, a fairly accurate description of my actual journey, and I never claimed it was anything but.
and don't get me started on removal of the buffet car and the seat-back elastic netting..................................

Why the need to have a go about First Class being "worse"- you weren't in it. Or would it be the case you don't travel in First Class but just make assumptions about the people who do? If you don't, you'd hate- usually lots of "wrinkles" taking advantage of over 60s fares.

So far as children - as others have said I can't recall when I last saw children behaving badly in public. It would seem for some however that " be seen and not heard" is the acceptable standard ; as for dogs on trains - they are the least problematic of the lot. They curl up quietly under the table.

Crowded public transport is always going to mean people having to budge up and make allowances for each other.

"Wrinkles" is ageist. The fact it might be a private joke between you and your father does not make it acceptable.

Men and occasionally right wing women like to pit women against each other, as you are doing here, to try and discredit feminism.

Judging from this board, they needn't waste the effort.
Or is itmpossible to believe that women can disagree with each other without men and right wing women being behind it.
I've just been reading an AIBU which involved massive, vitriolic disagreement between the posters - most of the time people disagree without the need for any sinister hidden hand.

She should have called for carriages designated to men with manspreading habits.
This would improve my daily commuting immensly!

Yes, MN is full of women disagreeing with each other and has been as long as I can remember - no anti feminist conspiracy necessary!

How about a designated train coach for stag and hen parties?

Surely it's not help for parents - but for the children - ie. our future citizens.

Yes, we could let kids grow up ignored/in poverty/hated, but I for one would prefer to do what we can for them, since once they're grown it'll be them sharing the world with me, and looking after me once I'm old.

Almond, I agree that Julie is causing divisions between women with articles like this, and I see why you would question her feminism because of it. I do think she should be criticised about her remarks about mothers. I wish she would try and bring women together instead of creating rifts, especially considering the backlash feminism is experiencing currently.

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

The difference is that working class people, lesbians and "plain looking" women are not socially privileged groups, their opposites are. I have asian people in my family, and they often say disparaging things about white people. However, I would not use their race against them to prove a point, if I did I would be a member of the dominant group attacking a member of the subjected group. Power is always held by the dominant group. It is easy to drill up hatred for already despised groups, and cause divisions. That's why I objected to Lass' comments. What she was doing was accusing underprivileged groups of reverse discrimination, what she calls "inverted snobbery".

I do not believe underprivileged groups are capable of reverse discrimination, as they do not have any real structural power to be oppressive. I think there should be more understanding between different groups, but privileged groups do have to make a conscious effort. Because they are often unaware of their privileged status, they take it for granted, which of course is the privilege.

"I'm wondering about some rationale for her particular stance"

Julie's remarks about mothers i.e. Maternity pay, "breeders" etc., are unacceptable, mothers (as a group) are not capable of oppressing anyone. I think Julie believes mothers are privileged, and that is why it is ok to say such things about them. I know quite a few single mothers, and I certainly do not think they could be described as privileged. I think she is wrong for thinking mothers as a group are privileged, over women without children.

I didn't really mean there is an anti feminist conspiracy as such, more like those who are privileged will try and use whatever they can to excuse their "I'm alright right jack" attitude, and escape criticism for it. For example by accusing oppressed groups of reverse discrimination. It's a kind of intellectual sight of hand, and in the final analysis only benefits those on top of the hierarchy.

"She should have called for carriages designated to men with manspreading habits."

There was a call for women only carriages, because of the high rate of women being sexually assaulted.

www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/11824962/Women-only-trains-and-transport-How-they-work-around-the-world.html

"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."
Heterosexual privilege. A lot of lesbian and gay people I know referred disparagingly to 'breeders'. But I think this needs to be considered in the light of heterosexual privilege, and in the light of the fact that gay and lesbian sex (as opposed to heteosexual 'breeding' sex) was often disparaged as being not for procreation, hence unnatural (and so were we for preferring it!).

So I think the target as regards breeders was heterosexuals not parents per se (and lets not forget the tribulations of lesbian mums in the past!).

Witching, do you honestly believe that Julie Bindel is oppressed and un-privileged? She is a white, Western, educated, influential, relatively wealthy woman with a powerful voice in the media. She is swinging her weight and privilege around in exactly the same way as the men who she despises. She is a rotten example of how to use her influence to benefit those who she is supposed to represent. Also, it's interesting how you perceive Asian people as being part of an oppressed group. Depending on your definition, they are part of the largest population group and Asia includes some of the richest and most powerful economies on the planet. You should not excuse their racism, any more than you would caucasians.

I have to say though, in an odd way Bindel's outpourings bring me some pleasure. It shows us how, when feminists get a position of power, they are capable of being just as shitty, nasty and judgemental as anybody else.

You are completely missing the point Witching

Bindel is only interested in speaking up for women just like herself. I was not "accusing underprivileged groups of reverse discrimination". Lord knows how you managed to put that spin on it.

I was accusing Julie Bindel of showing at best lack of interest and at worst contempt for women she doesn't approve of.

She has no time for women who don't fit her acceptable notion of women. Basically heterosexual women and even worse breeding heterosexual women are not the right sort of women.

I was and still am accusing Bindel of inverted snobbery.

Your misinterpretation of what I said is actually amusing. Given you are falling over yourself to twist it into an attack on underprivileged groups who do you think has the most privilege -an anonymous, ordinary mother or a high profile writer with easy access to the media like Bindel?

SomeDyke No, "breeders" is still just as offensive even if only meant to mean heterosexuals.

For example by accusing oppressed groups of reverse discrimination. It's a kind of intellectual sight of hand, and in the final analysis only benefits those on top of the hierarchy

Except nobody has accused any oppressed group of reverse discrimination.

To be clear Bindel is an unpleasant, misogynistic, inverted snob. Being a lesbian is not a get out of jail free card.

"SomeDyke No, "breeders" is still just as offensive even if only meant to mean heterosexuals."

Frankly, I don't give a tinkers that (some) heterosexuals may find the term 'breeder' offensive -- it was coined for a reason, and whilst the reason and the privilege behind it are still not totally acknowledged, it still has a purpose.
Or perhaps we need to discuss 'breeder privilege' as well and think about how straight couples who chose not to have children are treated?

"Being a lesbian is not a get out of jail free card."

Damn! Someone is guilty of false advertising then, and I didn't even get the toaster-oven............................

I think you are the one who is twisting things lass. Look at Grimarse's comments for an example of the types of people who use this sort of thing to justify their privileges. Men like him cannot wait to use any excuse to try and excuse/justify their privileges, what your doing is no different in my opinion.

I don't justify any real or perceived privilege. I am not the one who wrote that article in the Guardian. I did not denigrate or demean mothers. I did not use a national paper to do so. Bindel is free to write what she wants, within the law. But to pretend that she is a victim, a hapless pawn of the patriarchy who writes this stuff from an oppressed position, and that she wields no power or influence, is wrong-headed.

Ridiculous article. Once you reach the point of thinking 'anyone who is not like me should stay at home' it is you that is the problem, not the rest of the world.

I think you are the one who is twisting things lass. Look at Grimarse's comments for an example

Why are you now bringing Grimarse into this? It was me whom you started on at for "accusing oppressed groups of reverse discrimination" - which I have not done.

Grimarse can look after himself but it wasn't him you were responding to- it was my comments.

"What I am doing" is commenting on Julie Bindel. Actually what Grimarse is doing is commenting on Julie Bindel.

Men like him cannot wait to use any excuse to try and excuse/justify their privileges, what your doing is no different in my opinion

And what exactly are Grim and I doing? Beyond disagreeing with a very unpleasant, misogynistic woman who for decades has written disparagingly about mothers?

"Justify their privileges" - what nonsense in the context of this thread.

Of course Julie Bindel is oppressed. All women are oppressed because they are women. That is the basis of feminism.

So why does she campaign against the oppression of women when she herself is comfortable with oppressing women? Is it only okay for feminists to oppress women?

A newspaper article, no matter how much you dislike it, is not oppressing you.

Cool. So we shouldn't judge someone by what they write or say. And the written or spoken word have no effect in society, and have no role in informing opinions or beliefs. And opinions and beliefs have no direct or indirect consequences on people's lives. Glad we go that cleared up.