Julie Bindel - article on allies

[Goosefoot]

Thought people might be interested in discussing this:

[https://unherd.com/2020/10/feminisms-dangerous-new-allies/]]

We've talked about this a lot here - I'm not sure Bindel has really said anything as worthwhile or interesting as lot of the regular posters here have, it seems a little one dimensional to me.

Maybe because she's really stuck on the left-good right-bad thinking and doesn't really consider whether there has been a change within those categories at all, or why the left has struggled with certain problems. It seems to me she sees it as almost random, and if we just take out the TRA stuff things can go back to normal.

Well that's quite a qualification and I think I'd need to hear those who espouse the abolition of capitalism (such as BLM) to say themselves what they mean by it (before I avoid them like the plague)

Yes, I agree. I'm certain there are some absolute nutters in BLM, Extinction rebellion, Momentum etc who do want that. I just can't see how anyone can think it's a mainstream view and I don't think the bulk of people who support those groups can really think that.

Some just won't have interrogated the ideas espoused beyond 'racism/global warming/poverty is bad. Some will see those movements as a broad coalition to achieve a particular goal.

I just still can't see that most of the people who say 'overthrowing capitalism is a mainstream political view' really mean that in the way it sounds. I think they mean establishing something more akin to German or Swedish Social Democracy, though I admit that is speculation.

Yes, I agree. I'm certain there are some absolute nutters in BLM, Extinction rebellion, Momentum etc who do want that. I just can't see how anyone can think it's a mainstream view and I don't think the bulk of people who support those groups can really think that.

The abolishment of capitalism, as an end goal pursued by democratic means, was Labour Party policy until the removal of Clause IV in 1995. Millions of people voted for it, enough to form a government on several occassions. Is is a sign of how far to the right politics has shifted that this is now considered extremist.

Just catching up now

which is surely why our thinking, analysis and political conclusions should be based on credible evidence and not a hunch, or a feeling

Couldn't help quoting that bit.

To be honest if there are people in gender critical circles who consider those such as Simone De Beauvoir, Andrea Dworking, Shulasmith Firestone and Selma James to be extremists who are comparable with Nazis and Fascists then I'm not surprised Julie Bindel is worried.

The Labour Party had problems with Clause 4 almost from its inception.

Gaitskill wanted it removed in 1955 following poor election results. There was obviously nationalisation of some industries but nothing remotely resembling the "abolition of capitalism". There was never any implementation by Labour of a policy of abolishing capitalism.

@jj1968

To be honest if there are people in gender critical circles who consider those such as Simone De Beauvoir, Andrea Dworking, Shulasmith Firestone and Selma James to be extremists who are comparable with Nazis and Fascists then I'm not surprised Julie Bindel is worried.

Has anyone said that? I don't think so.

I don't have a great deal of time for de Beauvoir- she declared herself a Marxist didn't she? It's a bit like Ash Sarkar or Sally Rooney doing the same - all safe in the knowledge they will never actually have to live in a Marxist state and showing no particular willingness to give up the comforts capitalism gives them.

No-one ever said it would happen overnight. It was about incremental change backed by the electorate, that was kind of the point about Fabian Socialism.

It's completely naive in my view. As a truly great radical left activist and thinker Lucy Parsons said, "Never be deceived that the rich will permit you to vote away their wealth".

Has anyone said that? I don't think so.

Yeah, I'm confused too. JJ did you misunderstand my point about communism (the political system responsible the deaths of tens of millions of which suppression of minorities is an intrinsic part) as relating to Marxist philosophy (the highly influential ideas which have spawned countless left wing movements)?

Has anyone said that? I don't think so.

It's the logical endpoint of the claim the far left are as bad as the far right surely. If that is the case then those women of the far left are as bad as the Fascists and Nazis of the far right surely?

I'm not sure Bindel has really said anything as worthwhile or interesting as lot of the regular posters here have, it seems a little one dimensional to me.

AKA Bindel is a decent sort with integrity, ethics, morals and compassion. Shocking.

@raddledoldmisanthropist

Has anyone said that? I don't think so.

Yeah, I'm confused too. JJ did you misunderstand my point about communism (the political system responsible the deaths of tens of millions of which suppression of minorities is an intrinsic part) as relating to Marxist philosophy (the highly influential ideas which have spawned countless left wing movements)?

I'm sure to the more well heeled denizens of mumsnet then capitalism is simply wonderful and the idea of it's abolishment unthinkable. Unfortunately for the vast majority of people on the planet capitalism has brought emmiseration, poverty, exploitation and death and may even manage to destroy human civilisation completely over the next few decades. So we want something better okay, and if that's extremism, then fine, I'm proud to be an extremist.

So we want something better okay, and if that's extremism, then fine, I'm proud to be an extremist.

So are you saying you want Communism? Seizing all private capital, totalitarian control of speech, planned economy, cultural revolution etc?

Or are you saying you want progressive taxation, state ownership of collective goods, intervention in free markets to prevent abuses, socialised welfare, high quality state education and limits on inheritance of wealth?

One of those two is perfectly reasonable, the other is extreme. I hope what we have is merely an issue of semantics but of you really want Stalinism 2.0 ('Democratic' or not) then I don't think you should be proud of it.

@jj1968

Has anyone said that? I don't think so.

It's the logical endpoint of the claim the far left are as bad as the far right surely. If that is the case then those women of the far left are as bad as the Fascists and Nazis of the far right surely?

This is a frankly silly strawman (or should that be strawwoman)?

No-one is claiming the far left and far right are identical nor that the feminists you named count as far left in the way you imply - except you.

I can't see the point of getting into some sort of 'Who was worse, Hitler or Stalin? pissing contest. I'm sure we can all agree they were both very evil indeed.

For me as a Jewish person, I don't see a vast difference between Corbyn laying a wreath for a terrorist responsible for the murder of Jews, or supporting Holocaust deniers, and say Steve Bannon on Breitbart promoting the same and egging on far right terrorism. Both sides go in for Holocaust denial, Islamic terrorism isn't any more morally ethical than far right terrorism. Blowing up or shooting civilians or supporting others who do this is morally wrong whoever does it.

The talk of TRAs 'capturing' major institutions behind the scenes

Hmm. Regulatory capture is a very real thing.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture

And is indeed what Stonewall have been doing IMO. Infact, a few TRAs (stephen whittle, was one I remember, there are others) actively admit that they wanted everything done behind closed doors, which..seems to have happened with how many places have adopted 'gender' instead of sex.

@testing987654321

It's irrelevant as to whether some people think there's a "conspiracy" to embed transgender people within all areas designed for women.

It's a fact that many organisations have used the word "gender" when they mean "sex" regarding equalities legislation.

It's a fact that women are being mostly ignored by sports bodies who want to make women's sports mixed-sex.

It's a fact that the Labour Party still support self-id.

That women's refuges are expected to include men.

I could go on, but you know all this already.

This thread was actually about Bindel thinking we shouldn't align with people on the right to fight this.

Why are you wittering on?

Or just this..puts it much better than mine. Sorry should really get into habit of reading thread updates before replying (still havent done it when writing this post!)

Sorry for derail, if convo managed to get back on track in meantime. Going through it all now

The dangers inherent in failing to call out Nazis and deal with them are greater than the risks potentially faced by innocent people being mislabelled.

Depends on the numbers.

How many are there of each and how great are the risks faced in each scenario?

This statement would absolutely be true in 1929. In 2020, what is the relative harm caused by the juxtaposed actions (or non actions?) I suppose we can't know as we don't know the future.

Does anyone really think a Nazi takeover of the West is on the cards?

Is that what is being posited?

If you really believe that, then obviously the matter of a small number of people losing their jobs or being unemployable and other people keeping silent from fear, is a very unimportant matter. If you don't, then I think there's a discussion to be had about the damage that is done by invoking the most terrible chapter of recent history just because you don't like some of what someone says or the way s/he says it.

I come across so many posts on twitter where someone has used the n word (Nazi) in what I consider a shockingly frivolous way.

Regulatory Capture is a phrase used by neo-liberal economists which claimed that regulatory bodies became captured by the industy they were intended to regulate and as such were a waste of time. Stonewall and the like are not regulatory bodies, they are charities who do some lobbying on the side, as most charities do.

No-one adopted gender instead of sex because of shadowy lobbyists, the two words have been synonomous for several decades. If you look back at documents from the 80/90/00 you will see that gender is frequently used.

What has happened is a global generational shift in social attitudes towards gender and trans people and the impact of that has been to create social change everywhere from Pakistan to Brazil to Vancouver to London. This has led many instiutions to adopt more trans inclusive policies, which may or may not have involved consultation with lobbying or charitable groups just as the introduction of the Disability Discrimination Act led to institutions seeking out disabled people's views for advice and the corporate sector began fawning over Stonewall and Pride once LGB rights became socially accepted. There was no secretive disability lobby or gay mafia secretly pushing an agenda behind the scenes and there has been no international trans conspiracy engineering this massive social change. To claim otherwise is conspiratorial thinking in my view. Society changes, institutions clumsily catch up and lobbyists claim the credit when what's actually happened is the changing of millions of hearts and minds due to new and emerging material and social conditions.

@xxyzz

No-one is claiming the far left and far right are identical nor that the feminists you named count as far left in the way you imply - except you.

If they don't count as far left then who on earth does? De Beauvoir and James were/are committed communists whose entire analysis was based on Marxist ideas whilst Firestone took the Marxist class analysis and applied it to sex and was openly anticapitalist and revolutionary, as was Dworkin. Or is it just far left people are as bad as Nazis but only the one I don't like.

Not buying it. The only reason the word gender was adopted in place of sex IMO was because sex had come to be publicly used as a shorthand for sexual intercourse and people were squeamish about using it. And also fed up with jokers putting "Yes please" on the form instead of male.

Oh JJ. If nthing else you do make me smile sometimes

No-one adopted gender instead of sex because of shadowy lobbyists, the two words have been synonomous for several decades

Odd then, how these companies used sex, until fairly recently. I wonder what prompted them to switch en masse? What a coincidence, I have to say. Meanwhile, Stonewall continue misrepresenting the law to all and sundry. But again, nothing to see here. Its all great!

For me as a Jewish person, I don't see a vast difference between Corbyn laying a wreath for a terrorist responsible for the murder of Jews, or supporting Holocaust deniers, and say Steve Bannon on Breitbart promoting the same and egging on far right terrorism. Both sides go in for Holocaust denial, Islamic terrorism isn't any more morally ethical than far right terrorism. Blowing up or shooting civilians or supporting others who do this is morally wrong whoever does it.

Indeed and I'd say that includes the State of Israel and Corbyn claimed the wreath was laid to commemorate the victims of the bombing of the PLO headquarters. That's not a defence of him btw, just that I don't think you can really say either way what the truth was about that incident. But yes, there was antisemitism around Corbyn and within that segment of the left, I've fully acknowledged that, and I'm glad it came to light and was exposed because it has been a running sore on the left.

But in terms of terrorism, then the far right has killed a lot more people than the far left, there's been some fairly solid analysis on precisely this quite recently. We've seen a British polician murdered on the streets in this country in recent years, the slaughter of teenagers by a far right terrorist in Norway and the massacre of 51 people in Christchurch just to name some of the worst examples. There is nothing remotely comparable that has come from the far left in recent decades.

Sorry meant to include a link in that post: www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/27/us-far-right-violence-terrorist-threat-analysis

@NRatched

Oh JJ. If nthing else you do make me smile sometimes

No-one adopted gender instead of sex because of shadowy lobbyists, the two words have been synonomous for several decades

Odd then, how these companies used sex, until fairly recently. I wonder what prompted them to switch en masse? What a coincidence, I have to say. Meanwhile, Stonewall continue misrepresenting the law to all and sundry. But again, nothing to see here. Its all great!

Here's a report from 2005 which uses gender throughout: www.econ.jku.at/papers/2003/wp0311.pdf

It was quite common, I worked in admin for a while in the 90s writing up funding bids and equal opps policies and stuff and gender was routinely used synonymously with sex. It wasn't an ideological thing and there haven't been secretive trans conspiracists sneaking around changing the words in policy documents.

Those examples were carried out by lone fanatics not the government or an organised group.

So far as murders by left wing terrorists- I assume you have heard of the IRA?

Yes, I've heard of the PLO and the ANC too, and whilst those groups were left they were also part of colonial struggles with histories far more complex than just right/left.