Julie Bindel on twitter

[Anonymouswasawoman]

Did her account get deleted?
twitter.com/bindelj/
Twitter is telling me it doesn't exist

Sorry Floisme

It is Jessica Eaton, not Taylor.

Ahhhh, I had both names in a box labelled "same but different" with a vague thought about trying to resolve my confusion.

"munchausens by queerness" is indeed splendid.

I didn't see any "trolling" of Julie by GC accounst. I even searched her name to see if I'd missed something, and I don't think I have.

And it IS Jessica Taylor now

And this is the sort of thing that got people's backs up.

Practically all of the known women who have either made money from feminism/victim stuff/academia are guilty of trying to be head girl. There’s a shuffling around where I think money and/or status overrides other motives, wholly or partly. It’s understandable really, as no one can survive on air alone, but irritating and destructive nonetheless.

Now I understand the spat better I think JB needs some time off Twitter to think about what she's said. That's very insulting to anon users. I still admire her, bit she can fuck right off with that opinion.

Victim stuff?

Sex trafficking? Child abuse?

Or maybe you mean "literal" violence?

Indeed, those comments were extremely insulting.

'Becca', with a mask covering half of 'her' face is hardly going public..

(That was in response to Sunset's post)

To be fair, Boodleoops / Becca normally shows her full face so I assume the current photo is just a Covid 19 reference.

I do think they have a point about anonymous tweeters using the Magdalen Berns avatar. I get adopting it in her honour when she died but I imagine she would have had something to say about still using it as a front when she was all about being brave and public.

Becca's real world identity is well known and a 1 second search of "boodleoops" will immediately provide it. It's unfair to claim she's preaching what she's not practising.

However, this ego stuff is depressing. I suppose it's a characteristic of all protest movements.

I guess having been on Mumsnet for 12 years and having started on social media here helped form my opinion on anonymity online. Also seeing people on here get doxxed. It's all very well being an academic or a journalist where your job is having an opinion. Not so much with ordinary folk trying to support their families and keep their head down at work. Opinions can cost livelihoods.

Becca is practising what's she's preaching in terms of anonymity, and is well known and a blue tick. And I should point out has had a lot of good to say in the past, as of course has Doc Stock and JB

However, the patronising comments and the self-congratulatory tone of the discussion with pals that followed about anonymous accounts left many who saw it in no doubt at all about how ordinary women and anyone with an anonymous account are viewed in reality. The little people, uneducated masses and trolls. The plebs essentially. Left a very nasty taste in the mouth.

And I'd say it's class-based. The 'establishment' or power always seems to reassert itself in these movements. Something which I recall Lisa Muggeridge talked quite a bit about in the past, and totally agreed with her about it at the time.

I struggled to find a quick way to describe “victim stuff”, I didn’t mean to belittle experiences of women, myself included.

What a strange comment from Becca. Surely more feminist women getting their voices out there is a good thing?! Who cares if it isn't under your real name and photo. Not everyone is in such a secure position that they could afford to clash with the woke police under their real name either. My MN name is pretty relevant right now!

I've defended Julie Bindel on here before over her complaint about being a lone named woman in this given all the shit she gets. I understand her frustrations, I really do.

Being bravely identifiable is a difficult and admirable thing, and hard to maintain when there was definitely a point when those who were not anonymous were getting lots of secret support from people who refused to speak out publicly themselves. I get how that can really rankle.

What pisses me off so much about this particular little intramural disagreement is that it's become a huge dig at those of us who are relatively anonymous, painting us all as bitches parroting other people's thoughts and using anonymity simply as an excuse to be nasty.

Sorry, but that's a fucking joke. The people criticising those who responded to Jameela Jamil's tweet with skepticism are basically being accused of 'not being polite/kind'. It's got fuck all to do with them being anonymous. Those making that complaint also complain about Posie and Dr Julia Long not being polite and nice, and they are every bit as exposed as academics of note.

I mean sure, stick to the argument of 'be nicer to persuade those wavering' because you might have a point there, but this insulting shit about only identified people making a worthwhile contribution is pure snobbery.

I've made plenty of original and worthwhile comments here and elsewhere, and while I don't tie all my online presences together under one identifiable name, I am doing actual, physical stuff to make a difference elsewhere, some of which means anonymity is vital.

And honestly this 'be nicer and more persuasive' shit really does fucking grate when it's always directed at uppity women. Back at ya, identifiable blue ticks.

I'll carry on putting myself and my family at risk (during the Covid19 crap and via campaigning and activism) and remind myself that my feminism is genuinely about all women's liberation, even the women who are egotistical snobs.

Women deserve the liberation and safety feminism fights for even if they're sarcastic, mean, funny, unkind, rich, poor, educated, ignorant, brave or cowardly. We all have experiences that are relevant to the fight.

Women with strong opinions disagreeing strongly on some things despite agreeing on some other things is hardly surprising, is it?

I think this is very true. I'm on Twitter in my RL, but have been doxxed etc because of it. And I'm not a famous feminist at all, just a run of the mill academic feminist.

I think there's a longer and broader narrative here, which is that women are generally socialised to "be kind" and we are expeted to get on with each other.

Whereas men are expected to compete.

But that's OK for them because the field [of public discourse in this case] is theirs.

Whereas the field is not ours. And there is a really persuasive theory about this - that because the field is not ours, then there's generally only room for one woman (or speaking symbolically, one female position in the field).

So the competition is forced - by patriarchal ideological structures - to be between women, for that one spot, rather than just between human beings, regardless of sex.

And I know I've gone all theoretical, but you could look at practical examples - the aim of getting women on committees or Boards of Directors. Men appoint one woman, and they feel their job is done.

It's tricky - I saw the end of the spat play out on Twitter but I missed the original Jamila (who she?) tweet.

Part of me wanted to say "Please comrades, keep all our internecine battles private. We need to show a united front against the real enemy"

But that's my feminine socialisation, innit?

YogaFaker, you raise a good point and I think my observation about kind=persuasive is related.

I've read a lot of the cross tweets from named accounts telling the women who aren't nice enough that they are damaging the cause etc, and I think it's definitely down to this idea that women should keep the anger on a low simmer, squash it down so we can persuade the fence sitters.

You see it said on FWR often enough. On the one hand, I understand the art of persuasion, and I don't think it's always sensible or effective to be snarky or rude. On the other, I see certain feminist women giving TRAs, both extreme and more soft in approach, so much more slack than they give women who they would agree with on so many specifics, simply because of the 'tone' the women use.

There's balance to be struck, but I decided quite some time ago that I choose when to be persuasive, I do not decide that for other women, who are perfectly capable of making their case in their own way. I am a fellow woman, not a tone policer. I won't do it, even if I disagree with the way a woman has expressed something. I mean,I don't give a crap about Jamil's tweet, and I can't be faffed with a lot of twitter arguments. But if some women still feel it's worthwhile to be on there, I'm not paternalistic to the point where I'm going to lemon suck 'disapprove'. So done with those that do.

It would be good if we all got along, worked together in a coordinated manner in order to achieve a common goal. Infighting is a gift to those who oppose us and to undecideds. There's as much chance of that on Twitter as there is of finding serenity in AIBU. Twitter is a mosh pit, a melee, it's fun, you let off steam, and you can get hurt sometimes. You can't expect women to sit at the side, smiling, applauding, being nice and not getting stuck in.

There's as much chance of that on Twitter as there is of finding serenity in AIBU

Twitter is a cesspit, some of the time, and a delight, some of the time.

I think what I've seen over the last 50 years or so is the while those who oppose us talk about "the women's movement" and "feminism" in the singular, the movement and feminism are multiple, plural.

We're not the female equivalent of the Masons, with a tight set of rules & a secret handshake. There is no single movement, nor leader. But we're trying to operate in a political environment which thrives on oppressive and binaristic (either/or; Yes/No; black/white) hierarchies.

I didn't see the spat play out, but I am sympathetic with this:

Please comrades, keep our internecine battles private. We need to show a united front against the real enemy.

I suspect that is what Stock thinks too, although she ended up engaged in one. She gets a lot of shit for being an academic who spoke out, but now she gets shit from some feminists for being an academic. The issue with anonymous accounts is because people hide behind them to get into these debates or to just go on the attack (often with very limited information). It does not arise from a lack of understanding that many people need anonymous accounts - I think it's disingenous to say that Becca, Bindel and Stock don't know and fully accept that they are needed by most GC feminists. Becca has lost her academic career over being public with her views, and Stock nearly has.

The difficulty with twitter - and a lot of the debates within feminism about class, race etc. - is that accusations are often made on the basis of such limited information. You don't know the race or class or history of people tweeting unless they tell you and so completely misguided assumptions are made. This isn't to say that there aren't difficulties about race and class within feminism, but someone's twitter profile is a bad place to find out what she is like.

And I agree with YogaFaker.

Feminists have never agreed between themselves. And it's probably better that they don't.

FloralBunting said a lot of what I am thinking here.

I actually think be kind is good advice, or I might say, be respectful. That doesn't to me mean never using a joke, or standing up for yourself, or being clear about what you think. But being respectful of others is what makes society possible and it's about recognising others as human. Many people don't do well at this sometimes and that's just life, but there are times it's reasonable for someone to point out that people are being snippy or unfair.

It's also true IMO that being anonymous can make it easier to say things you wouldn't, in the same way being online can make it easier to say things you wouldn't to someone's face.

However, there are all kinds of reasons people choose to be anonymous online. I don't use my name and it's not really because I'm worried about being doxxed etc, and it's not about my political opinions, it has to do with my feelings about corporate information gathering and such. And being anonymous online does not mean people are anonymous in their political activism elsewhere.

And as for whether people like Bindle are more effective feminists - yeah, whatever. I appreciate that it is difficult to be a focus in your personal life as an activist, especially when people are being so aggressive, On the other hand many of these people are making a living as activists. It's financially advantageous to them to be in the public eye, so please, spare the "poor me, I'm so brave unlike you plebs" bs. I've read dozens of posts here or in other places by anonymous women who are regular and not famous that are more interesting, educated, eloquent, original, and insightful than anything I've ever read by JB. In fact I often wonder why many prominent writers and commentators get picked up because the things they write are pretty flipping pedestrian.

This all sounds very "not nice" so maybe I'm not following my own advice, but it really really irks me when people come on "democratic" platforms and want to be top dog.

Hi All,

Like everyone else, I've been watching this play out and do not, in general, share criticisms of anon accounts. I talk to many anonymous women who include: civil servants, lawyers, academics, journalists, concerned parents, women avoiding abusive exes, and on it goes. All have a contribution to make, and I certainly do not think any type of contribution should be prioritized over others. Of course, being anon does sometimes lead to disinhibition, but we have quite a few anon accounts posting reasoned things, and likely engaging in off-line activities too.

I was personally criticized by someone I barely know the other night for only ever having put t-shirts on statues which is a "stunt." But I was part of the planning group for our local ReSisters action and there was a great deal of thought and we even rehearsed the route! "Stunts" like this are needed to get people's attention. They may not be "palatable" to some in this debate, but that is not who we need to convince: we need to convince people at large that there IS a significant threat to women's rights, and it takes attention grabbing stunts to do that and push more into action, then we've accomplished something.

I've also been told I'm "impolitic", "a liability and embarrassment", should not call myself a philosopher, and a whole host of other things. That's fine. Such people can just unfollow or block me (although it'd be nice if they didn't do insane things like invent police visits to discredit me, but we cannot have everything). I take the view that we are fighting a war and being nice, at best, might ingratiate yourself with the establishment, but it doesn't always get things done.

One of the reasons I joined in this debate was because this board made me aware of what was going on (that and the fact that, being in philosophy, I encountered McKinnon and genuinely believed them to be a thought-experiment). I'm grateful for everyone, anon or otherwise.

And I (now the word is becoming common!) luffs you all.