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!

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

Oh goodness, I thought you were being sarcastic but you actually mean this? Poor Julie Bindel is oppressed.

SomeDyke, it strikes me that your justification for the term "breeder" isn't too dissimilar to reasons given for why we should accept "cis" as a label...

Do you think all black people are oppressed by racism? I do. Even the Obamas are affected by racism. Yes a very poor black woman will have a much harder time, but all black people experience oppression because of racism.
All women are affected by male domination. Of course some women more than others. But Julie Bindel is still negatively impacted.

This thread has now taken an even more bizarre turn.

I'm pretty sure newspaper articles do contribute to racism and sexism.

"SomeDyke, it strikes me that your justification for the term "breeder" isn't too dissimilar to reasons given for why we should accept "cis" as a label..."
Historical context. And the concept of breeders (versus naughty non-breeders) wasn't raised by gay folks AFAIK, but straight folks as a justification for judging gay sex 'unnatural'. They labelled themselves, in effect, 'breeders'. I'm not saying you should 'accept' it, just that there are various reasons behind the usage, and who first started using it! Which BTW, is not the same as with 'cis', which AFAIK wasn't used by non-trans folk as an insult aimed at trans folk.

1/10 must try harder.................

"Beyond disagreeing with a very unpleasant, misogynistic woman who for decades has written disparagingly about mothers?"
Well, in the context of the actual article which supposedly started this, I don't recall much in it about parents (or even mothers), 'just' an objection to annoying kids in some spaces.

I'm going to have to ask for proper references and quotes if you're going to condemn her for writing disparagingly about mothers specifically for decades! For example, according to Wikipedia[1], she first wrote for the Indie in 1998, and the Guardian since 2001, which according to my arithmetic makes 18 (or 15) years in journalism, which isn't exactly more than one decade (although almost two!). She had a book published in 2014. But most of the references on the Wiki page are post 2000, but a goodly number, so surely you can find evidence for your assertions in that lot somewhere......................

[1] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julie_Bindel#Overview

I said "not dissimilar", not "identical". I've been told (by a trans man) that "cis" is needed to remind non trans people of their privilege. Your explanation reminded me of that conversation. As a woman, a mother and a feminist I find "breeder" very offensive and frankly I don't give a shit about its origins - that makes no difference to how I feel about being labelled a breeder.

I'm really opposed to the genderist argument, and am concerned about trans activism, but it does feel to me that over time more posters are on MN mostly because of their opinions on trans.

This section use to have motherhood at its core when discussing women's rights. It now feels shoved out.

As has been pointed out above, those annoying kids are usually accompanied by mothers. A space which excludes young children is excluding their mothers too, in practice if not by intent - it's as simple as that surely?

pigs and almonds agree with you both.

You really are falling over yourself to defend Bindel aren't you Some

She wrote a very similar article in 2004, You can find it on the article. I've posted the radio piece. I can recall reading other nonsense articles in a similar vein from time to time in The Guardian your objection is to the word "decades"

Did you listen to the spoken diatribe about how selfish parents were ? The one with her whinging about paying taxes to support other people's children ?

pigsknickers I don't find the term "breeder" offensive. Any one who actually uses it to describe another woman is not someone whose opinion is worth giving credibility to by even considering it.

Sorry posted too soon. I did say earlier it was offensive , but a better response might be the famous MN head tilt.

Thanks, flippinada (how do you make things go bold??).
I just wanted to add that I think it's about more than just the exclusion of mothers - when people slag off "annoying kids" in whatever context, it's hard for many mothers not to interpret that as a wider criticism of motherhood in general. I know my toddler can be bloody annoying. Whenever I read another moan about kids it reminds me that when I'm out there, with my children, there are people judging my parenting or just wishing we'd stayed the fuck at home. It reminds me that since having children, I've become a bit less credible as anything other than a mum (or a breeder, if you prefer). It chips away a little bit at my confidence and makes me think a bit harder about putting myself in social or work situations. I know lots of mothers of small children feel the same - this shit is very damaging to women. Obviously motherhood isn't the start and end of womanhood, but a lot of women are mothers, and as a few people have said above, being mothers is what had made us feminists or galvanised our feminism.

Good point Lass

Ugh. This is Julie Bindel showing her true colours - self absorbed, navel gazing and better than thou.

This is the whole reason I dislike 'career feminists' -- they lose sight of the women they are purportedly supporting and instead become wildly absorbed in their own ideas and self. Julie is interested in power and the sound of her own voice.

IRL she also isn't a very nice person

"Breeder privilege" sounds a whole lot like "cis" to me.

I lurk here and have learned loads. I have posted before. I'm mostly scared to as despite bring a graduate my literacy skills aren't up to scrutiny . I've had gin.

Bindel's views on mothers are abhorrent .

For some feminism is a religion . Let's defend the prophets even if they're talking shite. It's just like blindly following a football club/ football players despite the stars biting / abusing others. It's bollocks.

I mean obviously women should have equal rights to men. They should have the right to body autonomy . No means no in any circumstance . But really, criticism women for choosing a different path from you?
You're replacing patriarchal tyranny for a feminist one.

But Bindel...Maybe she's wrong.

Blindly following her without criticism is as bad as following a religion without question .

Pigs you put an asterisk in front of and behind the wood you want to bold. Like this but without the spaces - hope that helps.

*word

"I can recall reading other nonsense articles in a similar vein from time to time in The Guardian your objection is to the word "decades"" my objection was actually just questioning the accuracy of her having written about this for decades. which isn't true.

I also note that breeders as used by gay men etc means all heterosexuals not just the actual breeders/parents. and the article wasn't focusing specifically on mothers but children unless you want to insist that since every child had a mother, anything suggesting non-child spaces is just a secret way of excluding mothers............... and some of the original comments were extremely lesbophobic, which is one reason I'm hanging about discussing a topic (children free train carriages) that I'm not really that bothered about.

There are no lesbophobic comments. I was rude about her appearance and went on to say she has no interest in women who are not exactly like herself.

There were definitely ageist comments though.

The vast majority of people who have primary caring responsibilities for children are women.

Why is this even having to be explained to you, on a feminist board?

Some Children are looked after by women more than men. SAHPs tend to be female, as do childcare workers like nannies. Family help is usually grandmother. If you're excluding children from something you are clearly going to be excluding / affecting women far more than men.

Far enough to be a feminist without children who isn't bothered about that area of feminism. But to actively call for discrimination against other women for daring to be accompanied by children in the way this article does is wrong.

"There are no lesbophobic comments."
She was described as a lesbian separatist (and hence?) not a feminist, and also desperately plain looking childless lesbian. Why was her sexuality or indeed her appearance relevant? unless you're being lesbophobic that is................

**An argument ensued about my child-negative views, and the barista, who today will no doubt be sporting a topknot, piously asked me to leave, explaining that Starbucks has a “child-friendly policy”. What a horrible judgemental woman, how can she consider herself a feminist? The children in care comment is bizarre as well if anyone asked me that I'd rightly tell them they are cheeky fuck.