Julie Bindel physically attacked after meeting

[MsMcWibble]

Seems to have been carried out by well known TRA who has threatened violence before: twitter.com/bindelj/status/1136402563379716096

"The thing is, men aren't violent because they can't stop themselves - as evidenced by the fact that they're not violent to those who are stronger than them who might hit back.
They're violent because they're allowed."

I'm amazed and slightly ashamed that this has never occurred to me before. off to reflect.

I don't think it's appropriate for posters to be speculating in detail about a violent perpetrators possible mental illnesses. If true it's sensitive personal data. Citing a violent offenders possible mental state shouldn't be used to shut up women out of fear of what else the offender may go on to do and you're stigmatising those with genuine mental illness by associating them with said violent offender. And on a feminist board if all places it's inappropriate to suggest that by talking about a violent perpetrator we're somehow responsible if their violence escalates

I absolutely think referring to their appearance is relevant barrackers superb article 'pronouns are rophypol' (sp?) tells us what happens to our thought processes when we are silent about the disconnect between what we can see and how they are described.

I am still careful how what I post as I've no wish to be suspended but I'm so fucking fed up with being polite in my head.

I've also realised one reason my husband doesn't notice TW in real life because his, like most men's, eyes skate straight over women they perceive as ugly with no second glance and barely a first glance, so he's largely oblivious to the presence of TW in real life.

That a male person would be perceived as an ugly woman when they wear womanface is very relevant to why we notice them and men don't.

Just to clarify there's only two posters I've noticed speculating inappropriately about mental illness on this thread.

I'm fully with the angry posters, I've seen too many disturbing towntattle tweets and felt frustration that all they've had to do is delete the very worst but be allowed to stay

I've also realised one reason my husband doesn't notice TW in real life

Another reason is that women are better than men at distinguishing sex by face recognition. Presumably, we evolved this as a risk management ability. There's a study somewhere - I'll try and find it and post it.

www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/girls-night-out-tickets-60052718297

If anyone is in Manchester on the 22nd of June, DJ lippy is hosting a feminist female only disco.

Expect to hear

ROCK AND ROLL, NORTHERN SOUL, FUNK, DISCO, SYNTH POP, ELECTRO, 1980's HITS

This is a fundraiser to raise money for an event in July featuring feminist speakers from across the political spectrum. All proceeds from the event will be go towards the costs.

I've been aware of TownTattle's violent, threatening tweets for some time now - "fuck them up" etc. It was only a matter of time before they were acted out. "Ada" is another one. And Tara Wolf tweeted about "I wanna fuck some terfs up" before attacking Maria McLachlan.

It's high time Twitter/FB took incitement of violence against women seriously.

TownTattle, TRAs - they're all either justifying this or minimising it, or downright denying it.

LangCleg I absolutely know why we do, I was curious why my dh didn't even notice the really obvious ones then it struck me how straight men barely even notice the existence of women they perceive as 'ugly'

Did you all see that towntattle’s been suspended ?

I guess the glare of negative attention sometimes brings down even the most cocksure.

'Don't say nasty things about the violent man or he'll do it again and it'll all be your fault'.

That's what I'm hearing, ginger.

I'm hearing victim blaming, silencing, guilt tripping, scare mongering.

I'm hearing no friend of women.

Glad they've finally been suspended but no doubt they'll rejoin openly using a new account and twitter will turn a blind eye just as they do with other TRAs that have been suspended

Can someone please clarify the law on assault? The situation seems to be as follows: after a stream of abuse, a male attacker twice attempted to punch a female, the first time one security guard managed to prevent this, the second time it took three security guards to stop the attacker.

Does this constitute common assault? Or does there have to be actual physical contact between victim and perpetrator?

It is pretty physical if several security guards have to step in to protect someone from being hit, is it not?

And does the fact that no physical harm came to the female victim mean the attacker would be unlikely to receive more than a caution?

And would the repeated incitement to violence against women's rights campaigners show intent? Or would the fact that the attacker was waiting for Julie do that anyway?

I am trying to figure out a) the legal situation and b) the likely outcome vs the stress a victim may face to pursue this.

And I just want to say that we do not know whether the Scottish police would not pursue this as vigorously as any other claim of assault. After all, the only police force in the UK so far to have arrested a TRA for inciting violence against women's rights campaigners is the Scottish one. And to date I am unaware of any similar cases of wrongthink by a Scottish person being pursued here similar to Harry the Owl or Caroline Farrow or any of the others.

The only thing I feel quite sure of is that there is little chance of police action if this isn't reported, regardless of which police force is in charge. But is there any point in doing so?

Well, if the security guards have been hot or shoved, it sounds like assault on them and attempted assault on Julie. Possible public order offence too. I suspect for the poor guards it’s all in a days work and they may not complain.

I suspect for the poor guards it’s all in a days work and they may not complain.

They work for a university, so it's not really all in a day's work. A few years ago a security guard at my university was assaulted by a protestor and it went all the way to a successful prosecution.

Martini.
I am amazed that so many of you here don’t see the difference between

Uneccessary personal insults (bastard/vile creature/thug/disgusting creature/ Knob/Prick head)

and being able to robustly call out this behaviour and talk about these issues, educate others, build a wider movement that you can bring others into.

Maybe if your observation that there are more GC coming on here and finding it difficult to accept the tone and content of these conversations is an indication of

• more people becoming aware of this debate and wanting to be involved.

• finding the discourse here at times too insulting and hateful.

It IS possible and has to be possible to have these conversations without personally insulting individuals.

Joanna cherry manages it. The mumsnet guidelines call for it.

I just don’t agree with the «this person is abusive so that justifies abusing him» theme. What about «they go low, we go high»?

And I also don’t agree with saying that thinking that it’s possible to debate without hatred and insults is victim blaming/ silencing women/blaming women for male violence. That is a false equivalence . Not unlike the misgendering is literal violence. Calling for intelligent discourse without personal insults is not endorsing male violence and silencing women. Not unless you are situated at one end of a polarised debate and can’t see the wood for the trees.

Ginger - 'thug' is surely an accurate description from his behaviour?

A thug is someone who acts in a thuggish manner. The perpetrator screamed obscenities at JB in a public place and then violently lurched at her and it took 3 security guards (note - security guards not regular folk) to pull him off of her.

How would you describe such behaviour?

I'd actually say that 'thug' as a description is mild given the violent threats sent repeatedly via twitter. Seriously disturbed is probably more accurate.

We are (mainly) women on a feminist forum. If you're looking for a discussion to centre the feelings of the 'poor Menz' you're wasting your time - you've got the rest of the world for those chats

I am not looking for anyone to centre on the feelings on this person , or indeed men in general, poor or otherwise.

Again that’s another false equivalent. Wanting the discourse on this issue to not descend into personal insults against an individual is not the same as wanting to centre the debate in the feelings of men. I have made the same point and will continue to do so about the counter false equivalences. For example wanting to discuss whether it is possible to change sex and whether this should be enshrined in law is not the same as wanting all transgender people dead.

ginger what would you call a man who issues threats and incitement to violence, then waits for someone to come out of a meeting, screams obscenities at then and attempts to attack them such that it takes several security guards to keep him off them?

ginger, while trying not to be a snark queen, you said you didn't want to fight. You've now said repeatedly that you disagree with the mild terms used here about the disgraceful little man who attacked Julie Bindel. Your point has been roundly disagreed with. And now you've decided to use 'they go low, we go high', a phrase that has been used a number of times as women have been banned here for calling men, men. Or even bastards when they attack women.

What happened to 'they go low, we go high'? It was an order imposed on disobedient women to get them to shut up and play nice with the abusers that come here and try to force compliant language. Most of us decided it was a twee version of coercion and rejected it some time ago. Personally I vastly prefer 'They go low, we point out they're abusive males' which is pretty much what you're complaining about here.

I’d call them exactly that

I’d stick to that facts and call them

«a person who issues threats and incitement to violence, then waits for someone to come out of a meeting, screams obscenities at then and attempts to attack them such that it takes several security guards to keep him off them?»

Because I have no desire to use personal insults and weaken my position , and therefore my whole argument.

I maintain it is entirely possible to call this out without using insults.

The facts are damning enough.

finding the discourse here at times too insulting and hateful.

I think you'll find that the discourse is angry and sometimes very angry, rather than "insulting and hateful".

I, for one, respect that anger. Women are angry and some are very angry about what is going on.

For example wanting to discuss whether it is possible to change sex and whether this should be enshrined in law is not the same as wanting all transgender people dead.

Shit, that's where I've been going wrong then.

So insightful.

ginger If we could all have freely used the descriptors 'he' and 'him' from the start of this thread I suspect less emotive alternatives would have been used..

Then ginger, you're going to be continually disappointed with MN and FWR. I really can't see a new rule being introduced "Dont call men bastards, just describe the bad things they do" but you can ask MNHQ about it if you want. They've been quite accommodating about new rules to enforce compliance before now.