Feminists that do it properly understand only too well that we may as well go the whole hog

[FindTheTruth]

Julie Bindel @bindelj
Feminists that do it properly understand only too well that we are massively punished for even dipping our toe in the water of blaming men for their violence and control of women, so we may as well go the whole hog. Please let that sink in

I'm sorry, I don't understand what that means. What does 'we may as well go the whole hog' mean in the context of the tweet?

It's taken me 3-4 years to realise that when it comes to extremists there is no middle ground. I still believe that most people are good and reasonable and can disagree respectfully. But there's no point worrying about what extremists think of us, or their performative anti-x statements or their victimhood. Most of us need to stay safe and keep our jobs, but we know our rights, know that we have support and the steps we take, however small, are making a difference.

Nonny, I think the tweet was in the context of Margaret Attwood (could be wrong). JB tweeted this 1 hour later...

Julie Bindel @bindelj
I really hope that very soon @MargaretAtwood you could not care less what is said about you by the extreme trans-activists, it took me about five years and that was five years too long.

Ah ok, thanks FindTheTruth. I guess JB means even mild criticism of male violence can give you a lot of grief, so better to stop being soft about it and take a strong, unapologetic stance.

Appeasement is pointless (and indeed is likely to be weaponised against you) I think. It’s why so many who are a few years in have stopped using their words as doing that weakens what we want to argue.

There’s some advantage, when trying to appeal to outsiders or those on the fence, to remain polite and factual, but there isn’t really much space for ‘both siders’ and no advantage is really gained from that position.

stopped using their words as doing that weakens what we want to argue.

The both sidesism is framed in such a way that it is attempting to provoke the existence of extremists as the only mechanism for dragging the Overton window and preference falsification back from their current heavily skewed positions.

Posie Parker has a recent video on the topic. Language is everything:

It’s the equivalent of the old saying ‘might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb’.

I think that’s probably what JKR realised.

Thanks for that video Embarassing

@AnyOldPrion I am about 1 year in and this is so true already for me:

It’s why so many who are a few years in have stopped using their words as doing that weakens what we want to argue.

I agree OP, I think far too many people are treading softly on this, and still trying to reason with what are essentially very unreasonable demands.

It irks me when politicians etc. talk about toxic debate on both sides...eh, no! The toxicity (rape & death threats and intimidation) is only coming from one side. The other side is made up of women saying 'no, I don't agree' or stating biological fact. Why is that being held up as just as bad? So ridiculous.

I guess for some people, women saying no is perceived as an aggressive act.

I have come to realise that we need to push back hard against this, as they think they can silence us with intimidation, and use #bekind against us as a stick to beat us with.

And yes with the language, it is basically a power play. If I can get you to say something is what it is not, then I have a psychological advantage over you, and it does distort reality.

We need to be able to speak honestly about our biology and our bodies, for women that is so important. We need to be able to state that men cannot be women.

I agree OP, I think far too many people are treading softly on this, and still trying to reason with what are essentially very unreasonable demands.

It’s easy to forget that where we are now is already a very compromised position. Had we started this debate at the point when it began, when doctors made the decision to back up men who were already using women’s spaces, then seeking a compromise position might be a reasonable approach.

When we bear history in mind, without discussion women have already conceded their spaces, initially only to a tiny number of men, who were at least trying medically to resemble women.

Had it stopped there, it might have never stirred up enough problems to have created significant push-back, but having established that compromise position as ‘the new normal’ women’s position was compromised further with the rise in self-ID.

Self-ID, for all we’re told it’s normal, is already an extremist position, and represents an almost complete undermining of women’s rights.

I think those coming in now, who haven’t looked at the history and previous legal changes (and manouevres to manipulate how they are implemented) miss the fact that we are already at a point where the status quo is an extreme position and assume women who are wanting to return to the start are demanding something unfair, rather than calling for unnegotiated changes to be reversed so we are in the neutral position where we began.

Good for JB. I agree with her. I have no truck with any form of appeasement or compromise because this is not about two sides with equal legitimacy and equally valid claims; this is straightforward abuse of women/female people by men/male people, and it needs to be seen and resisted as such.

The ploy of the gender extremists turning it around to position us as the baddies, while they are perpetrating a classic boiling frog operation on us as a class, is the biggest DARVO ever, the most audacious reversal you can think of.

We are being abused, and we are being vilified for protesting against our abuse, just as women in a domestic abuse setting are always terrorised by their abusive partners and told that everything is their fault, they are the problem, the ones who need to change. We are supposed to not only accept our abuse but plaster a big smile on our faces and pretend we’re happy about it because anything else - particularly naming it as abuse - makes them feel bad.

The issue of the very real vulnerability of some (I would say the minority these days) biologically male trans people has been completely lost under this tsunami of misogynistic abuse. And the answer to that issue is, as in the case of other vulnerable biologically male people, not the responsibility of women to solve. We are not service humans. It’s a matter of our human rights.

Any compromise at all is feeding into the assumption that underpins the whole of genderist ideology, the idea that women/female people only exist to facilitate the lives of men/male people. Anyone who isn’t prepared to go along with that profoundly misogynistic belief should be refusing point blank to compromise too.

Good post, TalkingTo.

women saying no is perceived as an aggressive act

The both sidesism

politicians etc. talk about toxic debate on both sides...eh, no! The toxicity (rape & death threats and intimidation) is only coming from one side. The other side is made up of women saying 'no, I don't agree' or stating biological fact

this is not about two sides with equal legitimacy and equally valid claims; this is straightforward abuse of women/female people by men/male people, and it needs to be seen and resisted as such

Some really good points about the 'both sidesism'. It's lazy and uninformed to put 'stating facts' and 'threats' on a the same set of scales. It's not on the same set of scale in law (though with Scotlands hate crime I'm not so sure anymore)

next time a politician uses 'both sidesism' it needs calling out too. We need MNers on Question Time, call in shows or any MSM interacting with the public.

Excellent post TalkingtoLangCleg

the case of other vulnerable biologically male people, not the responsibility of women to solve. We are not service humans. It’s a matter of our human rights.

'service humans'. Push back every 'service humans' demand. What's in it for women?

we are already at a point where the status quo is an extreme position

Yes.

One of the best pieces of advice I was ever given, which holds true for practically any situation, is that you cannot placate the implacable.

I am continually surprised by even radical feminists seeming not to know this.

Talk of building bridges with men whose idea of compromise is women doing exactly as we're told, but we may be allowed not to smile while we're doing it, is discouraging.

@GenderApostatemk2

It’s the equivalent of the old saying ‘might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb’. I think that’s probably what JKR realised.

I love this phrase...

And it does give me something to think about ...

Talk of building bridges with men whose idea of compromise is women doing exactly as we're told, but we may be allowed not to smile while we're doing it, is discouraging.

I always think of Aesop's Lion in Love:

[The father] expressed his willingness to accept the Lion as the suitor of his daughter on one condition: that he should allow him to extract his teeth, and cut off his claws, as his daughter was fearfully afraid of both. The Lion cheerfully assented to the proposal. But when the toothless, clawless Lion returned to repeat his request, the Woodman, no longer afraid, set upon him with his club, and drove him away into the forest.

fablesofaesop.com/the-lion-in-love.html

We've had our language removed, we've lost legal protections, we're disdained by political parties, NGOs, and the mainstream media - and this is the point at which we're still being instructed to give up whatever screeds of rights or alleged privileges that we retain.