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.'

Harm reduction is not an unreasonable approach, and there are a few areas where it's been really effective.

But the tendency to see it as the answer, alone, for every social problem, without also looking at things like law enforcement, has become a real blind-spot among progressives. We can see this doesn't work in all kinds of places that have tried it. Decriminalizing and social supports, alone, don't seem to make for a stable social fabric.

[quote KimikosNightmare]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

I think JB might have a selective memory.

www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2004/feb/07/weekend7.weekend

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/may/05/niall-ferguson-wrong-child-free-care-less?INTCMP=SRCH[/quote]
Oh wow... how disappointing. The first one in particular really hasn't aged well. Unusual for a feminist to dehumanise children like that too. Pretty appalling. I really thought she was better than that.

Julie Bindel's new book on feminism for girls is great

@SantaClawsServiette

Harm reduction is not an unreasonable approach, and there are a few areas where it's been really effective.

But the tendency to see it as the answer, alone, for every social problem, without also looking at things like law enforcement, has become a real blind-spot among progressives. We can see this doesn't work in all kinds of places that have tried it. Decriminalizing and social supports, alone, don't seem to make for a stable social fabric.

Law enforcement is rarely the answer to complex social problems, though. Increased law enforcement is much more likely to make them worse, because it is so deeply rooted in punishment, control, and protecting the powerful against the powerless. Increasing law enforcement as a way to address the problems associated with sex work invariably makes those problems worse - you don't 'rescue' people from sex work by stealing their money and deporting them, which is what tends to happen every time more restrictive laws are introduced.

@CheeseMmmm

So your 'gotcha' is that she might know, or have experience of being, the wrong sort of prostitute?

Anyone who makes money being paid for sex. Who doesn't follow the mantra sex work is work (same as any other job eg cleaning).

Then they don't 'count' as far as you're concerned, as having any relevance in these conversations?

That's genuinely really really appalling.

wreath

You haven't explained your previous comment, which genuinly is one of the worst things I've seen on here.

You can't just casually dismiss (what I suspect is the majority of) those who make money from sexual contact with men, because they don't agree with your opinion that sex work is no different to cleaning work.

Having the affront to describe others as hard of thinking after that post says a lot tbh.

'Increasing law enforcement as a way to address the problems associated with sex work invariably makes those problems worse - you don't 'rescue' people from sex work by stealing their money and deporting them, which is what tends to happen every time more restrictive laws are introduced.'

Which poster and in which post said they wanted more law enforcement? Can you quote what they said please.

And then explain how that poster's views will certainly lead to those working in prostitution in the England/Wales to be deported and any money they have (any assets?) removed.

You need to respond in a direct manner to this question, and the one I've asked about 3 times now including the if don't agree swiw then irrelevant to you.

Wouldn't your time be better spent lobbying against the govt immigration laws in general?

With Patel in charge good luck to you.

More chance of that than getting universal income introduced.

You can work on challenging the immediate problems while also working towards the long term goals.

Re stigma. Who is the group in society who have vile ideas about women (and girls) that men pay for sexual access?

That's right. Men. Obviously.

What are you doing, out of interest, apart from insulting women in this feminism board?

Lobbying MP?
Real life activism?
Gathering decent data to put your case?
Marching?
Working with others to a strategy?

Using multiple channels that have a large/ majority male audience and raising the issue of stigma?

Are you involved in anything international including countries with massive problems around 'stigma'? Where the men women girls boys are at huge risk from multiple sources?

Where prostitution is illegal and punishable sometimes very severely?

This is your area so why don't you inform us. You never know even the hard of thinking might be interested.

Law enforcement is rarely the answer to complex social problems, though. Increased law enforcement is much more likely to make them worse, because it is so deeply rooted in punishment, control, and protecting the powerful against the powerless. Increasing law enforcement as a way to address the problems associated with sex work invariably makes those problems worse - you don't 'rescue' people from sex work by stealing their money and deporting them, which is what tends to happen every time more restrictive laws are introduced.

No one is suggesting it is the only answer.

But look at drug issues. We know that certain social problems contribute a lot to drug problems, homelessness being one, and also that drug addicts often need help rather than going to prison.

So you get these cities where there is a progressive tendency in governance and they try and solve all these things by decriminalizing, stop prosecuting people they see as vulnerable, reducing what the police can do or just reducing the police altogether.

But it doesn't work. What you get are cities where the areas poor people live are dangerous shit-holes controlled by gangs and drug dealers. And that has a significant effect on the people that live there, and their children - it does not result in an atmosphere that doesn't encourage addiction.

Simple decriminalization of prostitution, even if you offer help, still does not mean that the forces that lead to it will be erased. There will still people coming out of bad environments, there will still be addiction, there will still be people willing to pay for sex, and there will still be people looking to profit out of providing for that market. All you do with decriminalization or even legalization is legitimize the market and make it easier for the bad actors.

It's entirely possible to refrain from criminalizing prostituted women, and put things in place to help them, but to criminalize paying for sex on the side of the punters, and pimps madams and traffickers.

Oh wow... how disappointing. The first one in particular really hasn't aged well. Unusual for a feminist to dehumanise children like that too. Pretty appalling. I really thought she was better than that.

What's is interesting is that she doesn't connect that with her claim that she's never seen feminism look down on mothers. Talk about someone slenderly knowing herself.

That attitude to mothers and motherhood seems to unite feminists who agree on little else. Zoe Williams was another, until she had a baby herself and immediately started a column about it.

To be fair to Julie, we all change. That first article is 18 years old and the second almost 9. I've a feeling she wouldn't write something like that now. But she shouldn't try and sweep it under the carpet. She could have written, 'Feminism hasn't always been supportive towards mothers and I've been guilty of that myself'. Dishonesty is corrosive.

Saying that the reasons some people opt for sex work are the same as the reasons some people opt for cleaning work is not insulting to either cleaners or sex workers. It's also worth noting that cleaners, like sex workers, often make more money when they are not being contracted out via agencies. In fact the PP who outlined the reasons why some people take on cleaning work was almost certainly talking about self-employed/casual/cash-in-hand cleaning, because if you work as a cleaner of business premises, for an agency, you're more likely to have little control over your working hours whatever your care responsibilities, and to be underpaid (the agency takes most of what is charged to the client).

And I am not at all convinced by the idea that decriminalisation of either drugs or sex work is the cause of greater social harms than the prohibition of these things. As with all moral panics, this is a matter of howling in the wrong direction: reduce economic inequality and you reduce crime and cruelty. Blame it all on some group of 'other' people and the whole mess gets worse.

@Floisme

That attitude to mothers and motherhood seems to unite feminists who agree on little else. Zoe Williams was another, until she had a baby herself and immediately started a column about it.

To be fair to Julie, we all change. That first article is 18 years old and the second almost 9. I've a feeling she wouldn't write something like that now. But she shouldn't try and sweep it under the carpet. She could have written, 'Feminism hasn't always been supportive towards mothers and I've been guilty of that myself'. Dishonesty is corrosive.

The internet is forever isn't it? I don't particularly read feminist writing with any enthusiasm or regularity but I remembered those articles being discussed previously.

I don't think Julie would say the same now. Possibly she has forgotten she wrote them but unfortunately the internet hasn't.

Given that we can actually see that kind of governance in action right now in places like San Francisco, I don't know that I'd make statements like that with quite so much confidence.

The's a response to Wreath, btw.

@CheeseMmmm

So your 'gotcha' is that she might know, or have experience of being, the wrong sort of prostitute?

Anyone who makes money being paid for sex. Who doesn't follow the mantra sex work is work (same as any other job eg cleaning).

Then they don't 'count' as far as you're concerned, as having any relevance in these conversations?

That's genuinely really really appalling.

Hello wreath

Happy to discuss the first part of your last post (the bit that is responding to me).

But i want you to address the comment your made earlier. I've asked loads of times.

It's vv important that you address what you said. We can bicker about quotes and context etc afterwards for as long as you wish.