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!

6 pages on a bit of filler fluff that is so obviously tongue in cheek?

Well that's the weakest defence yet. That tops poor little Julie is oppressed so don't dare criticise her.

It's not a defence of any kind, merely an observation. If you can't spot a pisstake when it gently pokes you with a rolled up Guardian then that's your look out.

But it wasn't funny.

I found it mildly amusing as it was so obviously OTT. Playing to stereotypes, certainly, but not a deep and scathing indictment of children in society

I'm not convinced that het women have it so much better than lesbians. DV surely happens most to women living with men? And although I have heard of corrective rape and know it's common in some societies, South Africa for one, I can't remember seeing reports of it happening here. Not saying it doesn't happen, but it's very rare. Many rapes are connected to situations in which men and women are socialising, parties, nightclubs geared up to hets, places you wouldn't expect to find lesbians, who are not hot on het hook ups. Ched Evan's victim, for example, wouldn't have been there if she'd been a lesbian.

Putting it simply, it's women who associate with men who are most often their victims. Lesbians, by spending time largely, in some cases almost exclusively, with women are to some extent spared male violence in all its forms. I have heard lesbians say men disapprove of them, and this disadvantages them, but I'm not sure how much more this affects them than it affects plain, fat or old women.

Lesbians in Britain until fairly recently had no civil rights. Anyone who is 50 plus and has been a lesbian all her life will have experienced this. I know many women who were sacked for being lesbians, one who was in psychiatric hospital for being a lesbian, many who were physically attacked and the police cared not a jot, etc etc.
Now young lesbians are being persuaded they are really men and fed hormones and surgery.
If you avoided all that, then yes lesbians experience less male violence and day to day oppression from men.

What relevance does any of that have to Bindel's nasty little articles?

I am answering the comment above. That is what happens in a conversation.

Feminists from the 70's on, were well aware that a hierarchy exists between women, as well as men. They used the word privilege, to indicate that someone was further up the hierarchy than someone else. They did this to try and make the women's movement more egalitarian, I do not see how anyone could have a problem with that. Unless someone is happy to gain from someone else having a lower status than them.

It is alarming that some women who call themselves feminists today, want to pretend these privileges do not exist, and label them "nonsense", or try and rename them as slurs, so they can more easily dismiss them. Either they do not understand how hierarchies function, and are maintained, or they are just not interested in creating a egalitarian feminist movement.

The feminists of the 70's believed in the liberation of ALL women, I also believe in this ethos, I would call it possessing feminist ethics. The original understanding of feminism, seems to have been lost to some women. And replaced by a ethos of trying to get a slightly larger slice of the pie, either for oneself as an individual, or ones own social group.

Prawn, all women are at risk of male violence, most girls grow up in close proximity to males, including lesbians. Most lesbians also date boys/men for a while, some even get married, as all women are raised to think there is something wrong with us if we don't. Lesbians cannot avoid men, most have to work with them, and associate with them, men often see lesbians as a challenge and still do not take no for an answer.

There are very strong societal pressures on women to partner with men, if a woman chooses to reject all men as partners, particually if she actually prefers women, her social status is lowered. A heterosexual woman's is not lowered by partnering with men, because that is what men want women to do, even though she has to perform a balancing act of not being too "available" or too "prudish".

Girls who show no interest in boys, and are openly lesbian, or even just suspected of being lesbian, are often bullied relentlessly and ostracised by both their male and female peers. They also experience violence, I live in a small town, and recently a young lesbian woman was beaten unconscious by 2 boys, solely because she was known as a lesbian. Even lesbian women in big cities have told me they regularly face discrimination at work, often by their female colleagues.

Many also face discrimination from their families, ranging from verbal abuse, to physical abuse, to having their family completely cease all contact with them. Unfortunately, I have personally heard of 3 women being correctively raped, in all cases it was arranged by their religious families. None of them reported it.

Not to mention the message that is drilled into lesbians that they are unnatural and shameful. This has an impact on all lesbians to various degrees, depending on how strongly they were exposed to these messages. It is very, very different to what women experience for being plain, fat or old.

And as brasty has said, women have traditionally been sent to psychiatric institutions, by their families, just for being lesbians, and subjected to horrendous "treatments". Nowadays, young lesbians are being told they are really men stuck in the wrong body, and are being subjected to horrendous medical interventions. Those that manage to escape this, are forced to include men who call themselves "lesbians" in their groups, lesbians are being labelled bigots, for refusing to date these males. There are no women only spaces anymore, let alone lesbian only spaces, lesbians cannot spend anytime just with women, unless they already know women and meet them privately.

How women at the bottom of the hierarchy are treated, reflects how women are regarded in society generally. It was always only a matter of time before it would impact on women further up the hierarchy also. Because denying that lesbians have a right to refuse males sexual access, is effectively saying that no woman has the right to refuse males sexual access.

The feminists of the 70's believed in the liberation of ALL women, I also believe in this ethos, I would call it possessing feminist ethics. The original understanding of feminism, seems to have been lost to some women

Why don't you tell Bindel that and ask her to stop sniping at heterosexual women and mothers?

I have been involved with feminism for a very long time and the widespread use of privilege, a fuzzy concept that takes focus away from genuine human rights concerns, is a recent phenomenon.

I don't need to believe in the ridiculous ideology of privilege to be able to understand the serious issues which lesbians face now and have faced in the past, both in the UK and globally.

Somebody not agreeing with your ideological stance doesn't mean they care less than you do.

And Breeder is still a slur. If your ideology leads to you defending it, what needs questioning is your ideology.

Lass I cannot speak to Bindel, she is not on this thread (at least to my knowledge) I think her approach is wrong, I have already said this.

I'm sorry almond, but you are wrong, class and feminism by charlotte Bunch et al written in 1974, details the privileges that women get from being middle class etc. Many other books and pamphlets from this era also talk about privileges. I do not defend the term "breeder", where have I ever done that? What I do believe is that women who refuse males sexual access to them are more oppressed than women who allow it. Obviously if you do what males want you will be rewarded, this is just obvious.

What I do believe is that women who refuse males sexual access to them are more oppressed than women who allow it. Obviously if you do what males want you will be rewarded, this is just obvious

Really is it obvious? That statement seems only a hair's breadth away from the idea that successful women must have slept the their way to the top.

"Really is it obvious? That statement seems only a hair's breadth away from the idea that successful women must have slept the their way to the top."

I think it is obvious. The scale, if you like, is between refusing sexual access to all males (which puts you at a disadvantage from all males (okay, not so much the gay ones, but males as a class, okay?)), then allowing access by certain males (which can generate advantage from those particular men, and also deflects disadvantage from other men inasmuch as you can then be seen as owned, some other blokes possession/property hence hands off). And of course at the bottom we have those seen as sexually accessible by all men, whores and slags etc.
It's the difference between gaining advantages from a single man by allowing him sexual access, if you will, compared to the advantages you gain from the class men as a whole by allowing some man sexual access, by being potentially accessible to any man, compared to lesbians who are not accessible by any man.

I could draw a Venn diagram if it would help, I'm better at maths than words .

Oh, and I forgot the fact that lesbians not only accrue the disadvantages of not allowing any male sexual access, but can also get seen as potential competitors for sexual access to females.......

It's the difference between gaining advantages from a single man by allowing him sexual access, if you will, compared to the advantages you gain from the class men as a whole by allowing some man sexual access, by being potentially accessible to any man, compared to lesbians who are not accessible by any man

That does not clarify anything beyond you do appear to think heterosexual women do indeed sleep their way to success or possibly you view them as collaborators.

"you do appear to think heterosexual women do indeed sleep their way to success or possibly you view them as collaborators."
Please don't put words in my mouth that I never said!

Sexual access isn't the key (or at least not totally). Heterosexual men in relationships with women gain many things from the women involved, not just sex. Being potentially of that class, i.e. being visibly heterosexual (or at least not obviously lesbian) gains women advantages.

And I'm not blaming straight women for what the patriarchal system does to lesbians as opposed to non-lesbians. And every time you get the same responses from a few, so your comments are hardly original or even surprising....................

"Lesbians, by spending time largely, in some cases almost exclusively, with women are to some extent spared male violence in all its forms. "
I spend most of my working day predominantly with men. When I go to non-gay pubs, clubs, cinemas, I'm surrounded by men. Separatism takes an effort and is quite hard (unless you never go out at all, and don't have to earn money!). Lesbians who don't feel able to be out at work are then subject to the same issues as the straight women around them.

Because lesbians are spared male violence from their partners, doesn't mean they magically escape male violence! And unfortunately domestic violence occurs between lesbian and gay couples as well.

Witching hour, being less oppressed than someone else is not a privilege.

I'm not sure I can be arsed to go up against such a toxic ideology again. It's basically just dragged out to defend people saying vile things.

Almond, it is not about defending name calling, and I have no intention of upsetting, guilt tripping, or blaming women for their circumstances. However, it is not helpful to ignore that some women are racist, classist or lesbian hating. And dominant groups do often band together to marginalise women from these groups. We need to have a way to call them out on this behaviour. When a woman of colour talks about other women being racist, she is not herself being racist. It is the same for working class or lesbian women.

There has to be a willingness to make an effort to change, perhaps unconscious, prejudices. It is also very hard going for someone to explain why a particular group is further down the hierarchy. Because it feels to that person very similar to a man asking "are women really more disadvantaged than men?" It is obvious if you are part of that group.

And when women from these groups raise issues that affect them, more advantaged women often say that there is too much focus on them. This is because they are used to the focus being on the dominant group. The truth is when the status of women on the bottom of the hierarchy is raised, all women's status is raised. This is one of the many reasons why it is important to fight against prostitution.

"Really is it obvious? That statement seems only a hair's breadth away from the idea that successful women must have slept the their way to the top."

A woman is seen by men as either a sex object (public property) or as a wife/girlfriend (private property), if she does not fulfil these purposes she is considered useless. And so lesbians are considered worthless by men. Men consider women rejecting them as partners, as the worst thing a woman can do. This is why men have come up with a whole host of slurs for women who refuse to partner with them, e.g. Old maid, frigid, spinster, dyke, etc. This understanding of men viewing women as public and private property goes back to the victorian era.

Feminists in the 70's named certain benefits that women gain for partnering with men, "heterosexual privileges". They can be economic i.e. access to more money and resources; as men are often paid more than women. Physical i.e. Men offer a woman protection from other men; because he now sees her as his property, and men are more likely to respect other mens property rights. And if a woman partners with men she gains approval from society at large. Because society is founded on the male view of women existing to serve men, as either private or public property.

Although they are small benefits, a lesbian woman does not receive them. Therefore, lesbian women have a lower social status than het women, as they are refusing the roles males have allocated to women. I would think this is obvious, I mean there is a reason why many women think lesbian is the worst thing they can be called.