Julie Bindel's withering review of Alison Phipps' latest book

[MrsSnippyPants]

"Reading the back cover of the soon to be released Me Not You: The trouble with mainstream feminism, I assumed Titania McGrath had churned out a new book. But on further inspection I realised it is in fact the latest from Alison Phipps, Professor of Gender Studies at Sussex University – a disciple of the ‘sex work is work’ and ‘trans women are women’ faux-feminism cult. This book has clearly been written for the hard-of-thinking."

www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-latest-gender-studies-literature-is-indistinguishable-from-satire

TheProdigalKittens you’re pretty much spot on. They’re just not very nice people and unless you’re in their gang, they will happily tear you down. Same with a lot of the woke types. You can see from their behaviour online and in real life that they’re quite unpleasant people, often bullies. It’s just that believing men are women gives them some sort of cloak of kindness which, when you think about it, is ludicrous.

Isn't it just. Hell, at least when we get told to be nicer, we explain why that is not a good plan and will not be happening, which I actually think is jolly sporting of us.

That bunch will smile sweetly while burning your house down and pissing on your cat.

LadyQuarantina 😂 so true!

I wondered where I'd heard of Phipps before. I just remembered she's one of the 'Aunt Lydias of Academia'. www.peaktrans.org/the-aunt-lydias-of-academia/

Thank you staffori that's a great article.

Same with a lot of the woke types. You can see from their behaviour online and in real life that they’re quite unpleasant people, often bullies

Absolutely! That is my experience too. Considering that many of these people see themselves as naturally & morally superior - as they parrot every kind of woke thought and political line - calling you a bigot, and being free and easy with the personal insults and name calling.....they actually reveal quite the opposite. And that is being utterly intolerant & judgmental in fundamental ways, and bullying and pack-like in behaviour.

I tend to see Socialism as a secular form of Christianity..and yet there is so little respect and sincerity in the conduct of many. They preach treating all as equals, and yet on a personal level do not extend that same sentiment to everyone at all.

I imagine it is thought that GC people are not being 'kind' themselves, in a Christian kind of way. That really 'good people' would automatically accept that TWAW and permit them the dignity of the spaces they desire. A kind of inversion of what being good and respectful actually entails; and anyone who stands in the way of the goal is castigated - no matter how sincere, genuine and respectful their debate is.

So much of the queer theory/inter-sectionalist stuff is purely cerebral - detached from the body and earthly reality. Which is why it is so impenetrably and wilfully dense and mangled - and slippery as an eel.
Being a woman is a physical thing. It is a bodily thing. It is a biological thing. And in that sense the body is destiny. Certainly on Planet Earth anyway.

I agree with a lot of that, Justhad. There is a strain of people who call themselves socialist who really just like to preach self righteous shit all the time and would be the last people I'd ever look to for help. An evangelical, othering tendency.that relies more on attack than support.

An evangelical, othering tendency.that relies more on attack than support

I can well imagine that 'they' think similar....that it is GC women doing the 'othering'......Total polarisation.

I see TRA ideology as the absolute apotheosis of a certain kind of individualistic identity politics - very much coming out of an American ( & Disneyfied) consumer culture. You can be whatever you want; tailor made identities; fantasies can come true and so on. Ideal and imaginal worlds - nurtured by on-line spaces and communities and by 'second life' gaming.....A perfect storm!

I suspect we've some way to go yet before it reaches its zenith, but at least this global crisis we are all facing should confront us all with the most essential earthly realities and priorities - even if just for a while.

I've just also realised my socialist friends who bang on about 'educating' people- they mean conversion. It's a colonialist mindset.

And yes, I think TRA rhetoric does cast gc arguments that way. I'm careful to examine my own arguments for those tendencies.

I can ask for women's rights to be protected without making moral assertions about those seeking to remove those rights. I don't need anyone to agree with my beliefs; just respect my privacy, dignity and safety.

I imagine it is thought that GC people are not being 'kind' themselves, in a Christian kind of way. That really 'good people' would automatically accept that TWAW and permit them the dignity of the spaces they desire. A kind of inversion of what being good and respectful actually entails; and anyone who stands in the way of the goal is castigated - no matter how sincere, genuine and respectful their debate is.

Yes, I know that's what my woke friend feels about me. I have challenged this with her. We have agreed to disagree!

I find the (armchair) psychology of this politics hard not to be a bit shocked by because it seems so not self aware and seems so lacking in solidarity because it lacks the interest in biological reality and now that’s used against women.

This kind of politics seems to be very keen to see men (however they identify their gender) as individuals who are allowed to be flawed and should be shielded by others (while being allowed to wield power without responsibility). Men should always be given the benefit of the doubt, given lots of time and support by women. Other men aren't asked to do this for each other though.

Whereas, this politics seems quick to lump all women in with each other as an indistinguishable mass. It’s quick to condemn women if they don’t perform their allotted role appropriately. So for example, women must always be the ones offering support to others.

This politics does not seem to genuinely individualise women even when considering them as a singular people, but especially when women are in a group. It does not want to give time to women’s concerns at all or seek to understand them because they should be in a support role. otherwise they are useless and possibly dangerous because women are not allowed to have needs.

The black and white thinking into good and bad camps of course works well for some women in this system. It enables them to escape and ‘be individuals’ if they perform the right politics or happen to inhabit the right characteristics. But the price of that escape seems to be a Sisyphean task of constantly demonstrating the right politics which must be exhausting.

And there isn’t much real structural change to be had in this model for anyone because it’s all about changing language and performance of the right things but doesn’t seem to be actually doing much about the hard, boring, unsexy, complex to resolve stuff. (Particularly when it affects women) Like issues of childcare and elderly care and maternity and pension and employment rights and whatever else.

Also, escape into individuality seems to be precarious for women, they can always be accused of thoughtcrime (from which there is no way of proving innocence) or be accused of not having the right characteristics/saying the right thing/having too much relative privilege or whatever. It looks like a grim, reductive environment in which thriving is hard unless you’re also pointing the finger at someone else.

I find it worrying that this politics has got so many institutions captured, which the institutions need to urgently get everyone out of, because always it seems just like its predecessors, this ‘progressive’ political hierarchy always reverts to shoving the majority of women down to the bottom of every pile it creates.

that first para should have said:

I find ‘the’ (..my armchair..) psychology of this politics hard not to be a bit shocked by because it seems so not self aware. It seems so lacking in solidarity because it lacks the interest in biological reality and in how that’s used against women.

There have always been women who get upset to the point of aggression when women defy men. Philips is one of these.
I believe its always women who have done ok out of kowtowing to men and their interests and so seeing another woman be independent in deed or thought confounds their sense of self by showing them up to be the cowards they are.

I used to worry that as I got older I was drifting to the right. It's now just a relief to have done so where reality, common sense and tolerance still exists.

I am astounded at the premise set out by Phipps at the beginning of this "book". (free read chapter). Her evidence in support of white feminism sneering seems to be the excuses men used to murder other men in America nearly 200 years ago. Men have been murdering each other since human life began, they don't need much of an excuse. Phipps repulsive claims that because men used the rape of women as an excuse for murder among all of the other excuses then white woman are bad women 200 years later. How bloody awful that this guilt trip garbage is given to gullible students who think they are learning something useful, and not being sold reductive mansplaining.

And no doubt " being sold" in a literal and metaphorical sense as this garbage will become course material?

this guilt trip garbage is given to gullible students

Argh. Yes. But presumably they are also given counter arguments and encouraged to question the theories of their tutors?

But presumably they are also given counter arguments and encouraged to question the theories of their tutors?

Ha ha ha.
I think you’ve missed the point of Gender Studies.

Counter-arguments are hateful bigotry so sadly not

I know a student Taking a creative subject at uni, nothing at all to do with gender studies. She has a class mate who identifies as trans and who makes all their class work about being trans.

Everyone else has their work discussed and analysed by their fellow students and the tutor - that’s an essential part of the course. Except this student - everyone just has to smile and nod. Even though their work is shite.

All discussion and debate is taboo.

Men have been murdering each other since human life began, they don't need much of an excuse. Phipps repulsive claims that because men used the rape of women as an excuse for murder among all of the other excuses then white woman are bad women 200 years later.

That is the first and foremost rule of misogyny: Women are responsible for what men do to them.

When I took classes led by feminist lecturers at uni we were encouraged to argue about everything - that's how you develop your ideas, by talking through them with other people and figuring out how to answer challenges to your viewpoint. The switch from feminism to "gender studies" was also a switch to authoritarianism - no questions allowed, only compliance. I've seen multiple professors in that space revel in what bad marks they give any student who disagrees with them (not "who writes a poorly argued essay", which is a very different thing to disagreeing with your professor's perspective) . If students showed any signs of independent thinking their professors would consider that a professional failure on their part and a moral failure on the student's part.

In a way universities are functioning more like seminaries, but with a wider range of absolute truths that must not be challenged.

My DD is studying a science subject at uni. In their seminars there’s a great deal of discussion and challenges - why would you use test A rather than Test B in this situation ? What are the strengths and weaknesses of each test? what assumptions are you making ? what are the possible biases? What’s your null hypotheses and how can it be tested?

They have to be able to think it through, defend their position, show how reliable and valid the information is. They also do work on the public understanding of Science, how important ideas and information can be communicated in lay terms, made as simple as possible.

It’s odd that sciences, which most people think of as very factual, can be open to question and debate. Yet in other subjects there is The One Great True Religion that must never be questioned. Even if you raise an eyebrow at the wrong time you are a hateful bigot who is making all staff and students on campus unsafe by your very existence .

Is it an effort, in pointing blame at white feminists, to avoid blaming men?

Is feminism really about blaming men though? That's not how I've understood it, it's not really a structural argument to my mind.

In any case, I am not convinced that's the reason for this type of thinking, mainly because it mirrors what is going on in other areas. The example upthread with Trevor Phillips is a good example now, and 20 years ago when I was a student it was as likely to be people speaking for women's rights or gay rights using similar tactics. It's ramped up in intensity, but essentially the same tactics.