Julie Bindel in the Critic - why women don't support feminism

[ArabellaScott]

thecritic.co.uk/self-harm-in-sheeps-clothing/

'Women that hate feminism are practicing a form of self-harm, disguised as short-term protection. The job of feminists is to welcome those women into the fold.'

It's a very condescending article. She views "antifeminists" in much the same way as she thinks men view women.

The examples she uses to support her argument and cherry picked and strike me as bizarre. Just to pick one:

She says The feminist fix for anti-feminist women is to ask, repeatedly and unequivocally, why they are working against their own interests. There is only ever one answer, and that is to avoid offending or upsetting men.

There is no understanding of how women have tended to use soft power to influence men.

I found the whole thing insulting rather than persuasive.

(Putting gender woo-wooists aside), unlike the word "woman," the word "feminist" is much more open to various interpretations. I've always thought of it as being a bit like the word "christian," where different people who call themselves that sometimes consider themselves to be the authority on who is or isn't a "real" one. Some women are convinced you can't be a real feminist unless you think "sex work is work."

If I tell someone I don't know well I'm a feminist, I usually have little idea what that actually means to them, which in communication must be at least as important as what it means to me. So, sometimes I say I have "feminist tendencies."

I think Kelly Jay is so cool to just blow off the label rather than getting distracted from her goals. If someone told me I'm not a feminist I'd just respond, "whatever..."

Not that discussion about everything can't be useful, but to me it seems so much more productive to work together where we do have consensus rather than trying to achieve an overly rarified consensus.

Sarah Ditum & Ruth Serwotka domesticated zombies exchange

i.imgur.com/fThmv2P.jpg

@KimikosNightmare

Not irrelevant at all. It's an important question what it means to talk about women's liberation when in a lot of cases it really turns out to be a way for professional class women to harness the labour of working class women for the financial benefit of the former

What complete nonsense.

Offices, factories, hospitals are cleaned for the benefit of the people working in them. It's a job - same as any other job. It has damn all to do "with harnessing the labour of working class women"

Perhaps you think female surgeons, judges, solicitors, teachers etc should clean their own offices? Are their male counterparts allowed to have their workplaces cleaned by people who are paid to clean them?

No doubt the usual obligatory and tedious lecture will be trotted out about evil professional women employing domestic cleaners.

Cleaners provide a service. Same as many others.

It's nothing to do with women being cleaners per se. You've not understood the context of the comment and jumped to conclusions.

It's a criticism of some elements of feminism, particularly which put a lot of weight and emphasis on women going out into professional positions, and being free to do things like put their kids in daycare in order to do so. And all of this being a win for feminism and the liberation of women.

Of course the question comes up, who is now doing the childcare and cleaning work that allows these women to spend their time in professional pursuits, adding a second middle or upper middle level income to their families?

Of course it's typically other women, who are receiving relatively low wages, and whose families often aren't better off than before. In fact there is an increased income gap gap that's seen between social classes and also the prices on the market, especially for things like housing, go up in response to the larger incomes of some families. Working class families where the mothers worked before find it doesn't go as far, while those who didn't need to get a job to keep up, leaving their kids with neighbours or parents.

So what's often presented as a win for feminism, for women, is really more of a win for families who are now able to have two middle class incomes by contracting out domestic areas to other women for a low wage. So, not such a feminist win after all.

Much as I dislike Bindel, I acknowledge that she has done important work in support of women in the past. Feminism, like any other movement, has its divisions (though you don't, overall, get as much gleeful insistence that disagreement means a whole movement is 'broken' when it's a movement mainly led by men).
There is certainly a strand/sector/movement within feminism which consists of academically-inclined, mostly white, mostly comfortably-off women who are not just condescending and authoritarian but spectacularly ignorant about the lives of women who are not like them. Unfortunately that strand tends to get the most attention.

It's nothing to do with women being cleaners per se. You've not understood the context of the comment and jumped to conclusions

The ridiculous comment I was responding to was Also, who cleans the offices of all those professional women and how much are they getting paid!

As someone else pointed out- the same people who are cleaning the offices of those professional men- who incidentally in a commercial situation may well be men. The rates of pay being offered is another issue but that is wholly irrelevant to the sex of the office workers.

And as predicted the tedious point about paying for domestic help rears its head. Taking your illogical argument to its natural conclusion would mean no woman should ever do paid work outside the home in case , how dare they, consider employing someone else to do cleaning or childcare. Funny how only women are castigated for using cleaners or childcare. It reeks of misogyny.

Really really didn't like that piece at all. In fact, started this post and reread it. I think it's dreadful.

The job of feminism is to welcome these women into the fold. She finishes with.

And writing an article segmenting women into types, and all women not on board with feminism fit into one of Julie's categories..

Is exactly what women get all the time, with 'types' conceived by MEN.

Isn't a fairly major part of feminism, like all through and fundamental, about dismantling the categorisation? Being seen as whole people, not a limited set of categories? Freedom from confining sex roles?

????!!!!?????

But that's what JB offers.

A list of the 'types', a very limited set of boxes, for women who are 'self harming'...

A terrible, deliberate? choice of word given self harming is much more prevalent in women, and particularly in girls and young women.

Self harm here simply being simply Not Thinking The Same Way As Julie.

CheeseMmmm

Did you read the articles in the links I posted? They are even worse.

Bindel is excellent on the evils of prostitution and pornography but she's got a bit of a problem with women who aren't exactly like Julie Bindel.

@LangificusClegasaurous

(Putting gender woo-wooists aside), unlike the word "woman," the word "feminist" is much more open to various interpretations. I've always thought of it as being a bit like the word "christian," where different people who call themselves that sometimes consider themselves to be the authority on who is or isn't a "real" one. Some women are convinced you can't be a real feminist unless you think "sex work is work."

If I tell someone I don't know well I'm a feminist, I usually have little idea what that actually means to them, which in communication must be at least as important as what it means to me. So, sometimes I say I have "feminist tendencies."

I think Kelly Jay is so cool to just blow off the label rather than getting distracted from her goals. If someone told me I'm not a feminist I'd just respond, "whatever..."

Not that discussion about everything can't be useful, but to me it seems so much more productive to work together where we do have consensus rather than trying to achieve an overly rarified consensus.

Lang your post strikes a chord with me, I’m mid 40’s grew up with the “feminists” that we heard about in our small northern village, well it was basically Germaine Greer. “Hairy arsed Lesbos that need a good sorting” it was completely taboo to even discuss the actual thought women might need anything, let alone rights. In the late 90’s mum was out earning dad trying to do the bloody lot and being judged by every woman/man/her own mother on the street for not picking her kids up at school. For paying someone to collect us, feed us bla balboa (she paid another mum) Many years later someone like Kellie J gives the glimmer of hope that you can actually not destroy yourself to be a perfect mum “WHERE IS DAD”. That’s what Kellie says to me. She says just do your thing, support yourself and your children then give what you can to other women that might need you.

So far, not sure this approach will result in many extra women to welcome into the fold...

The dworkin quote gets up my nose. I don't know context but just that quote, does not support what JB is saying at all.

I mean I've heard a lot about dworkin and read a bit. And I can't see her expressing the view that xyz women are just shit, and here's why they're just the worst.

Question-

Isn't feminism of the old school/ 2nd wave/ radical etc types.

Something to do with women girls deserve better deal. Historical global religious etc attitudes structures norms laws etc created by men for men, have and continue to fuck women and girls over.
Patriarchy... Yeah that.

I thought it was to do with that whole P word.

I didn't know that grouping women into types and then slagging each type off in turn was the thing.

Has someone updated what feminism is about and I missed it?

Oh bugger! JB is great on many things but she’s very much her own opinion and devil take the hindmost. As you can see for yourselves I didn’t even read the bloody article. Just a head line on Lang’s post and weighed in. Forgive a NYE drunk.

@KimikosNightmare

It's nothing to do with women being cleaners per se. You've not understood the context of the comment and jumped to conclusions

The ridiculous comment I was responding to was Also, who cleans the offices of all those professional women and how much are they getting paid!

As someone else pointed out- the same people who are cleaning the offices of those professional men- who incidentally in a commercial situation may well be men. The rates of pay being offered is another issue but that is wholly irrelevant to the sex of the office workers.

And as predicted the tedious point about paying for domestic help rears its head. Taking your illogical argument to its natural conclusion would mean no woman should ever do paid work outside the home in case , how dare they, consider employing someone else to do cleaning or childcare. Funny how only women are castigated for using cleaners or childcare. It reeks of misogyny.

Yes, I know what comment you were responding to. The point being that women into the workforce isn't just women executives and doctors, it's the women they hire to take on domestic tasks for them. So is this feminist win really for women or for upper mc women and their husbands and children?

It's a comment pointing out that the underlying structure of what is purported to be a feminism might be something else entirely.

'For heterosexual women, looking across the breakfast table at the man they love, their personal nightmare might be suspecting that he enjoys pornography in which women are hurt'.

I assume she made the breakfast?
And is gazing at him adoringly while he stuffs down a full English.
Maybe he's telling her man things and she's enraptured by his vast intellect....

Why is she catastrophising over him turning out to be a bad un anyway? If she dotes on him?
Why biggest fear to do with husband? Why porn?
Why not him injured falling from work ladder, making good on his plan to buy a motorbike, taking mid life crisis too far and making a tit of himself in public?
Why biggest fear not eg getting attacked sexually by a man/men who break in/ grab her out walking? Her mum not recovering from illness?
Why not the environment, global increase in religious fundamentalism, the economy...

Is it because breakfast making women who love their husbands are capable only of thinking about him, including catastrophising over their relationship?

I mean Jesus Christ.

'There is only ever one answer, and that is to avoid offending or upsetting men'

And WHY do so many women do that, eh?
Could there be a clue in... I dunno. The reams of feminist analysis on that very question?

Clue. It's not cos women are useless arseholes.

It's the women they hire to take on domestic tasks for them. So is this feminist win really for women or for upper mc women and their husbands and children?

Oh dearie me- it's only women who hire nannies, cleaners, gardeners etc. I suppose my husband played no part in this? Phyllis Schafley would be delighted to read your posts.

Why did I bother getting a degree when I really should be at home doing "domestic tasks"?

This is just nonsense. Being a cleaner or a nanny or a gardener or an ironing service is work. People get paid for working. Some jobs are better paid than others.

Do you get so worked up about people working in supermarkets, refuse collection, restaurants, train ticket collectors, traffic wardens, farm labourers, None of them are particularly well paid either.

'We must be robust in our challenging of anti-feminist women, remembering that we all started there.'

Speak for yourself!

Fucks sake.

And it's MEN (as a group namalt etc) we should be focusing on! Not writing snidey, insulting pieces about women!!!

Yes she's done loads of really important things. That's s given.

As a person? I saw something years ago that made me think. Wow, that's just horrible.

And things like this don't exactly change that view.

SantaClawsServiette

Is it only "domestic tasks" you object to being contracted out?

I can't type very well and in order to do the job which diverts me from my "domestic tasks" I have to employ a secretary/PA? Is that OK? Or is that also exploiting another woman? There are a couple of male PAs? Are they being exploited too?

And what about the window cleaner and the gardener? They're both men? Can I hire them?

This digression into well paid office women oppressing other women thing has what to do with JB piece?

I know it's not JB, but comments with essential content-

-let's ignore oppression by men, patriarchy etc. Let's get into why women are awful instead
-let's ignore that plenty men have jobs that are low paid, and seen by certain types of people as unpleasant jobs to have

Julie? A clone maybe.

@KimikosNightmare

SantaClawsServiette

Is it only "domestic tasks" you object to being contracted out?

I can't type very well and in order to do the job which diverts me from my "domestic tasks" I have to employ a secretary/PA? Is that OK? Or is that also exploiting another woman? There are a couple of male PAs? Are they being exploited too?

And what about the window cleaner and the gardener? They're both men? Can I hire them?

Oh my gosh, you are so missing the point.

I've worked as a childminder for a good portion of my adult life so please fuck off with the accusations about that. And it has zero to do with men because we are talking about what feminism did for women. If you want to ask whether working class men are disadvantaged in the workforce compared to those with more capital, that's valid but not relevent here.

It is a question about whether women, as a class, gained an advantage, as women, from a certain type of feminism, the kind that is often promoted as the most significant.

But it's not that straightforward. It really advantaged certain women, sure. It also advantaged their husbands and kids.

But there is a whole other group of women who did not find themselves advantaged, and actually sometimes were worse off.

The question then is - is it correct to say this is a win for women? Not a win for Vernoica or Kimono, but a win for women as a whole? If it's not been a win for Betty and Jane and lots of people like them?

You now have women who can choose a variety of careers, but also many women who would like to choose family life but are less able to. Who decides if that is a win for women, or a loss? You? Why should it be you?

Are you referring to to those who thought that more women getting into male dominated / roles with better opportunities/ higher paid sectors / corridors of power etc was important?

Who believed that having more financial independence would be a good thing generally for women?

Or is it about the increase in households where women with children were employed , more hours than previously?

Or something else?

'You now have women who can choose a variety of careers, but also many women who would like to choose family life but are less able to. Who decides if that is a win for women, or a loss? You? Why should it be you?'

I thought cost of living increasing faster than wages played a part...

And of course the huge hike in house prices v wages had something of an impact.

Just feminism that led to so many more families dual income?

I've read the article twice - it is very poorly written and confuses and conflates several different topics / issues.

Julie Bindel starts off taking aim at those women who say they are feminists but actually support a lot of things that are inherently anti-feminist like pornography, prostitution / sex work, transgenderism etc. Ok, fair enough.

But hang on, isn't that the same angle as her previous article?
The seventh article, on misogynists and their handmaidens, can be read here.
I haven't read that one yet, but I imagine there's a big overlap in the type of (usually young) women who use the 'feminist' label as a sort of 'identity' while supporting various activities that are supposedly 'empowering' but often just continue to enable men to exploit women and their bodies in various ways....

We are the only oppressed group on the planet who are expected to love, protect and rigorously defend our oppressors.
It doesn't occur to her that not everyone views life and humanity solely through the simplistic oppressor/oppressed dichotomy. This is a very specific mindset that is popular in left-wing circles on issues around sex, race, gender identity, economic class etc but isn't shared outside of it. Most people outside of these fashionable circles realise that other human beings are also complex individuals. As a brown woman, I don't hate or even dislike white people or men. I don't see why I should. I'm even capable of loving, protecting and defending some of them - horrifying I know. Sure, I can criticise or strongly condemn certain racial or sexist issues, whether in a historical or contemporary context, but that's not the same as viewing white people or men as an oppressor class. I think people who are heavily invested in the oppressor/oppressed mindset cannot comprehend that others simply don't buy into that concept. 'Liberation' is not something that's needed - it's a fuzzy word like 'world peace' that sounds impressive but doesn't actually mean anything tangible or realistic to many people.
You can support the idea of not wanting to be discriminated or abused or exploited on the basis of your skin colour or sex without framing it through it oppressor/oppressed dichotomy.

Ok nevermind, let's just roll with it for now....
But wait, she's suddenly talking about heterosexual women. I guess if you are immersed in this oppressor/oppressed mindset then heterosexuality becomes this awful, terrible thing for women. Like it's something that's imposed on them. (The more extreme believers in this ideology even think heterosexuality is a social construct.)
To people who live outside of that bubble, it's just a normal sexual orientation like homosexuality or bisexuality. And it's a dominant sexual orientation because of evolution (that scary concept). Humans, like many other lifeforms on this planet, are divided into two sexes and the only way our species continues is because most of us are wired to favour forming bonds and raising families with the opposite sex. You can oppose problematic behaviours within heterosexual relationships without viewing heterosexuality as a negative.

A lot of women in heterosexual relationships aren't catastrophising (is that a word?!) about porn or rape by their partners or sons. They simply genuinely care and love their husbands and families, and worry about their well-being because it's a very human thing to do.

And so we come to the next bit -
For those that have chosen to marry men and stay at home to look after the children, they may believe that feminists look down on them. This is usually a defence mechanism because I’ve never heard a genuine feminist speak about women in that way.
Lolz. Where to begin. For a start, who decides whether a woman is a 'genuine feminist'? Julie Bindel?
Assuming JB categorises her own good self as a 'genuine feminist' - within her own article she writes in a condescending manner that any woman who doesn't subscribe to the oppressor/oppressed ideological framework is actually just colluding in her own oppression.
(Very reminiscent of the critical race theory ideological framework - even questioning a claim of racism or questioning / rejecting the concept of systemic racism makes you a racist or a bootlicker.)

According to JB, the only real reason why a woman might critique aspects of feminism or question / reject certain tenets is to avoid offending and upsetting men. You see, only men have the superior brains to think big, intellectual thoughts and make reasoned arguments. Women are simple-minded creatures motivated by gazing into the eyes of men over breakfast and unable to do anything that might upset them.
But feminists must magnanimously welcome these self-harming simpletons into the fold. (Really selling it to us here, JB!)
The whole tone is very much “Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.” A condescending arrogance that is dressed up as meek forgiveness. Is it any wonder that many women give feminism a hard pass?

Anyway we started off with women who call themselves feminists but are actually anti-feminists, to heterosexual women, to women who stay at home to look after their husbands and children, to women who explicitly reject feminism citing various reasons .... I'm not sure of the exact point JB is trying to make by lumping all these different groups and angles into one article, but she hasn't managed to convince me to read any of the other ones in the series.

It's a familiar tactic in the identity politics arena - set up an ideological framework, declare that everyone actually operates within this framework and then accuse anyone who doesn't subscribe to your ideas or questions aspects of it as colluding with oppressors, traitors, working against their own interests, or some sort of -ist or -phobic. Hardly groundbreaking or innovative, and not particularly effective in convincing / persuading people to your side.

The Bindel article raised the issue of why some women might not relate to "feminism" - there may be many reasons. And by the way, I agree with the posters who said feminism may mean different things to different women. But for people to align with a cause they need to see something in it for them. If you are poor and have missed out on education you may be working as a cleaner (or at Amazon or a call centre or similar) and some of the declared advantages of feminism may not be obvious to you. And yes, I know men get exploited too but its a double whammy for women. Some professional women are quite snotty (Ruth Serwotka was one) towards some women in this situation. Hence the quote below.

It's a criticism of some elements of feminism, particularly which put a lot of weight and emphasis on women going out into professional positions, and being free to do things like put their kids in daycare in order to do so. And all of this being a win for feminism and the liberation of women

So no, it really isnt irrelevant.

The rates of pay being offered is another issue but that is wholly irrelevant to the sex of the office workers

The sex of a workforce is directly related to the pay for the job. This has been repeatedly proven in the many cases of employers being sued for paying the "male" jobs more than the equivalent "female" jobs.

If one subset of women progress and elevate and the gap widens between the successful group and the underclass of women supporting that change then that is not a success or improvement for most women.