All this “white women” stuff simply implies that if women are white they experience no oppression. The idea that indigenous/black/poor/disabled women only experience their oppression because they are indigenous/black/poor/disabled again pretends that women don’t experience oppression because they have female bodies that are used and abused for sex and reproduction, their love of their children used to blackmail them into compliance of unpaid/slave labour, all underpinned by the use of violence and the threat of violence by individuals or the state.
Misogyny is the acceptable prejudice. And the “white women” thing exposes this. As Germaine Greer said, if women only knew how much men hate us. Maybe we dare not know.
like the rubbish about "younger people" -all are profiled as upstandingly 'greenie'- and immune from greed and self-interest - They are taught to despise their own inevitable natural ageing ; they think they are experts and that lived experience and boomers are worthless ( anyone over 50) They profile age as filthy rich bigot rolling in property and capital
"Filthy rich bigot rolling in property and capital" -- I think they're often unconsciously referring to their own parents and grandparents... (of course depending on how much money and property their family has) My impression is that many of the young people who follow that crowd have never missed a meal in their lives, with the exception of the ones with anorexia. What a world with such people in it 😢
Its just such generalised lazy myopic labels - and sure true might be their naive hatred and malaise with their own but it ignores top down greed and neo lib theft of corporates pillaging of the democratic countries assets in education , healthcare, libraries, hospitals, infrastructure ; you name it all our foodbowls water resources and mining and all being privatised to corporate offshore holding companies all not paying taxes equating to poorer individual citizens ; women and kids last by statistics then working men - black and white - but many rich corporates are not just white not just boomer not just not just
there are white sex slaves and beaten white women and there are black rich women who are right wing and very very educated and serve white collar industry ; to only assume Asian and black equates with poor , victimhood and needy and benevolent in intentions is simply guff - that does not excuse nor does it deny the wrong done to peoples who happen to be of colour and who may of been taken for service and property
No, it correctly identifies how feminism only caters to middle-class white women. This is a fact. Black women, Latina women, and Asian women and other minority women are on their own. Especially poor women. You, feminists, are complaining about the temperature in the office, poor women don't have that luxury.
I think you are confusing “liberal feminism” with feminism Alexforever. It’s the kind the patriarchy supports because it gives them everything they want including women having to have a second job in an office because it doesn’t pay for the vast majority of caring work, and when it does pay, the pay is rubbish. The kind of women who work in the patriarchy and support it through “liberal feminism” are the ones complaining about the office temperature, thinking that the office will cater for their needs, which is a joke. They might serve the patriarchy but they will always be it’s second class citizens however much they work for it.
I do wonder though, if they had their way, how much the men would start complaining about the office temperature….?
This is a common response I hear from feminists--"that is a different form of feminism". The feminism I have described is the feminist majority, And so now your claim is that "patriarchy" has subverted feminism to serve its own ends? And who are these patriarchs organizing society to serve them? You say this is a patriarchy, yet in modern society men have been dethroned and replaced by the state. Fathers have less power than they ever have in the history of the world. Power used to be vested in local and regional leaders, now that world is gone.
Now, on complaining if women had their way--let's not underestimate the differences between men and women and the implications of those differences. Men handle challenges and struggle entirely differently than women. A man could have the worst day of his life and never tell anyone about it, for example. Feminism is proof positive that women seek protection and provisions from some form of caretaker, whether it be the community, men, or even the state. This is a stark difference from men who desire self determination and liberty.
If “liberal feminism” is the only kind most people have heard of then it’s because it serves the patriarchy. Therefore it is pushed as the only kind of feminism, which, quelle surprise, gives men everything they want from women and calls it women’s empowerment.
As for ordinary men losing power to the state, yes they do, but it is still a state that is run by (other) men, or women who have sold out to the patriarchy (otherwise they are not acceptable), which runs it for the benefit of men. Women are still not paid as much as men even when they do the same job, let alone when they do caring work. And if you choose to take care of your own children, which many women would love to do, they don’t get paid anything at all. To get paid (badly) you have to look after other people’s children.
Finally, on needing support. Yes, women have caring responsibilities for which they need support. Few women get through life without them. Many men manage to do so, mainly because their role in reproduction is small and fleeting - you can impregnate a woman and not even be aware you have fathered a child. Women don’t have that luxury. Because of our biology (not our feminine souls or gender identity) we are tied to our children for a minimum of nine months and because of our biology we are physically and emotionally tied to our children for a lot longer after they are born. The bodies of mothers and their babies are designed to be together, they respond to each other, and so do our minds. Because of this massive responsibility women need support from those around them to be able to do the job well. Because we are designed to care, we end up also being responsible for others in the community who need care (the elderly, the sick). So yes, we need support. We don’t get nearly enough support, let alone reward, for our caring responsibilities. And don’t think for one second that there aren’t millions of women out there struggling without saying a word, under the burden of those barely acknowledged responsibilities.
I do acknowledge the burden of men who have been forbidden to acknowledge their own needs, and those who suffer because of that. But it has traditionally been the job of women to recognise those needs and quietly see to them (food, comfort, sex, home making) without pay or other recognition. Meanwhile our own needs for those things are expected to be ignored. No wonder, with all these burdens, and in an environment of increasing hatred and oppression, women are either buckling under the pressure or just refusing to get involved, leaving men bereft and untrained to see, understand or cater to their own needs.
And all in all, we can all see with our eyes and discern with our minds that feminism is for white well to do women. A woman of a particular heritage and a woman of a particular class. The damsel in distress is a white liberal woman. The discourse in the West is not around the needs or concerns of poor blue collar working men, for example.
Feminism is for all women. We campaign lesbians in Africa who are being correctively raped, for all women, of all colours and economic classes all over the world who are being beaten, raped and killed by men in their own homes, for prostitutes, for poor women whose babies are being sold at birth to the rich who can’t or can’t be bothered to birth their own, for women who are being violently abused in porn, for refugee women who, by losing their community are losing protection against male violence and sexual violence, for trafficked women, for women in societies where they are seen simply as sexual and reproductive resources…. the list goes on. The idea that feminism is about office temperatures is false.
If you want to campaign for blue collar working men, go ahead, we won’t stop you. We have enough to do.
Feminists are the ones calling it empowerment, men aren't saying that. Interesting how liberal feminism thrives in the West whereas it is nowhere to be found in actual patriarchal societies such as Afghanistan. "Women's rights" is not even a thought for the Taliban. If we lived in a patriarchal society as you say, liberalism would have no platform. And so now you have identified that ordinary men have no power, so how is this a patriarchy if that is the case? You contradict yourself left and right. If there is no patrimony, there is no patriarchy.
Women today, especially well-to-do liberal white women, enjoy the greatest privilege in the history of the world. When they cry, the universities, media, corporate, and political apparatus come to their aide. No other group enjoys this privilege. The level of entitlement, self centeredness, and pride in well to do white liberal feminists rightly gives rise to resentment. Truly, these people really think the world ought to revolve around their needs and what they want.
And I would love to see women have the support they need and have the option to be caretakers full-time if they so choose. But who besides women are the stumbling blocks to getting the support they need? Feminists condemn and demonize men while at the same time demanding protection and provisions only men can provide. The sense of entitlement and the pride of feminists is something to behold, truly.
For reasons on display for all to see, feminism as a philosophy and social movement is full of contradictions. It relies on liberalism, which originates from Christian humanism, yet denies the very presuppositions underpinning liberalism. Feminism is an incohorent, frankenstein ideology and even you must admit that you cannot articulate 'pure' or 'orthodox' feminism. Someone who complains about not gaining reward for taking care of others is someone who does not know how to love. Because when we do things out of love, we do them for the good others. Even the thought of getting something in return is disordered. From what you have written, you prove that feminism is a cult of self centeredness and selfishness.
My mother has persevered through life--facing great challenges--with grace and her sacrificial love has been the greatest gift. Meanwhile, feminists have the privilege of saying the entire system is against them and a room set to 69degF proves the patriarchy is out to get them. They think they ought to get paid for taking care of their own children. The lack of gratitude, or praise for others, thankfulness, or any true virtue in feminists is astounding. The bitterness, entitlement, and anger of feminists prooves feminism is an evil ideology.
You write well and are clearly intelligent, yet you cannot see the absurdity of feminism?
Good heavens Alexforever! This is becoming a war of essays :)
You are confusing the philosophy and organisation of societies that is patriarchy with the actions of individual men. Almost all men benefit from patriarchy at least in part, but it is based on society using the sexual and reproductive capabilities of women for the benefit of men, forcing women to have sex and reproduce, as well as take care of all of men’s and children’s domestic needs (and often those of the sick and elderly too) for nothing except food and shelter, which is no better than slavery. The system is enforced by violence, laws with attendant punishments, even using our children to blackmail us, and social exclusion. You will call that sacrificing for love, but it is noticeable that similar sacrifices aren’t expected of men. The “be kind” phenomenon is pretty exclusively reserved for women. If we want money to feed our children and put a roof over our heads, and are not being supported by a man (for which he usually expects sex on demand, domestic labour and a right to her children) then we have to go out and do some sort of paid work outside the home *as well*. In fact women who earn more than their male partner do more work inside the home than those who earn less! That system, and the violence, laws and conventions with which it is enforced, is essentially what we object to.
Of course many men in these systems feel unhappy about the patriarchy, but they still benefit from it, and frankly, I can’t see much resistance to it. Whenever there is a revolution, women are involved, risking their lives along with the men, but then our needs are put to one side and the patriarchy itself survives in a different form which is less onerous on the men. The only things we have won for ourselves have been fought for bit by bit, with reverses and counter-revolutions that lose and diminish what we have gained. As an example, having created shelters for women who have experienced the very sex specific crime of rape, so that they can recover in a place where they feel no threat, the trans lobby are demanding (and succeeding in gaining) access for men to these places, which considerably reduces their benefit to women. All the time there is a societal expectation, from all its participants, that women will make sacrifices, will work for nothing but love (and often not for that), and will keep the home fires burning along with a raft of other things outside the home.
Meanwhile women are being beaten, raped and murdered in large numbers by the men in those homes. The murders are the tip of the iceberg, and in my country we have between two and three women murdered by their partners every week. This is so normalised they aren’t even reported. That silent figure hides an epidemic of domestic rapes and violence that is hidden by the shame and isolation of the victims as well as the complicity of a media that just doesn’t think they are worth reporting.
You may point to domestic violence where men are the victims. Firstly, a reasonable number of these involve gay couples, so no women involved. Also, women accused of domestic violence are more likely to be arrested, more likely to be charged and more likely to be imprisoned and for longer than males perpetrators. Finally, of course, male violence against women has far more serious physical effects as they are well over twice as strong in the upper body. Women have to live with the knowledge that half the population can (and sometimes do) kill them with their bare hands should they choose to - and that generally includes the people they live intimately with - and yet we cannot do the same to them.
Yes, men suffer from the laws, expectations and organisation of the patriarchy too - especially gay men in repressive societies, but nonetheless they benefit. They are also more able to escape it. As you pointed out, they can strike out and be free much more easily than women, who have caring responsibilities and the constant threat of fatal male violence, or at least serious injury or possible pregnancy from it, if they dare to be alone.
The latest attack on women has been the absolutely gob-smacking assertion that men can, and some do , “feel like women”, and that this makes them women. The obvious question is, even if it were true that they can “feel like women”, how would they know? The staggering levels of male entitlement that takes our experience and owns it, pushing aside all female objections as “unkind” (!) or “bigoted” (by the side that screams No Debate) or fascist (by the side who uses violence and the threat of violence to stop their opponents even speaking) is incredibly revealing about a society that liberal feminism (or patriarchal feminism) tells us is really pretty equal, and all we have to worry about is office temperatures. Following this assertion we are to give up many of the things we have gained for ourselves over the last 100 years that give us any level of ability to live without having to be financially supported by men to whom we are expected to give up sexual and reproductive agency. And our sports. And our children, who are to told that women don’t actually exist except in the imaginations of men, and the only difference between their parents is that one day, one of them spontaneously decides to give birth, but otherwise they are the same.
Are we angry? Yes, we are. I get that you are too, but really, we are not your problem unless you think you are entitled to our bodies and the amazing things they do.
Most feminists don’t hate men, we struggle under the system that is created to make use of our bodies and our love of our children to benefit them. We know that most men have their own struggles - they are our brothers, lovers and sons - but feminism is a movement for and about women, and it has no concern with men’s oppressions. You wouldn’t expect a gay movement to start worrying about straight people’s access to housing or a movement for black people to campaign for the right of white people to decent jobs, so why expect a movement for the liberation of women to worry about men’s issues? That doesn’t deny those issues exist, but as Germaine Greer said, the problems of half the population of the world is really enough to be getting on with.
I’m afraid I haven’t really addressed your comments above. If you still want me to let me know and I will, but I thought it was time to get back to basics.
Spot on, Julie- the idea that feminism belongs to any body or class other than sex, is offensive, false and just another weak ass tactic to divide feminists. Great post, thank you xx
It's tragic and shameful that women are guilty of encouraging this bollocks, too. Sorry men, but whatever the grievance, I'll NEVER understand why women attack women who fight for women.
IMO, this is also a response to white womens’ movements succeeding. The more we suceed the more dangerous we become and the louder the mob must bray. You’re never bullied because you’re bad, you’re bullied because you’re good. Whiite women are a threat. 💪🏻
Thank you for this important message. The "privileged" white woman myth has real life consequences, from individual women who are denigrated and ostracized to the phenomenon of white girls "transing" out entirely for fear of becoming such a loathsome creature as a plain old "white woman." It's just a new form of witch hunting, the oldest hate fueled into a frenzy by social media. Nobody wants to be the next Central Park Karen or Amber Heard. So much to say about this, but for now heartfelt thanks to Julie Bindel for speaking up for all women.
As Zelda D’Aprano, a key Women’s liberationist in Melbourne, Australia wrote in the Women’s Liberation Newsletter in 1973, “There are women who are not industrial workers who proceeded to tell all of us so called “middle-class” women what working class women want. In my anger, I have asked myself why am I ignored even though all the women know I am an industrial worker? . . . Why are all the women in the movement who work in offices, shops etc being told they are middle class?” Further, in a 1995 edition of her autobiography she pointed out that as “more working women enter the movement and become aware and articulate they cease to be seen as working class and the cry continues., ‘Where are the working class women?’”.
When it was first coined, the term "intersectionality" was used as a way to organize the complications around feminism: complications of class, color, etc. that are too nuanced to play well on social media.
All this “white women” stuff simply implies that if women are white they experience no oppression. The idea that indigenous/black/poor/disabled women only experience their oppression because they are indigenous/black/poor/disabled again pretends that women don’t experience oppression because they have female bodies that are used and abused for sex and reproduction, their love of their children used to blackmail them into compliance of unpaid/slave labour, all underpinned by the use of violence and the threat of violence by individuals or the state.
Misogyny is the acceptable prejudice. And the “white women” thing exposes this. As Germaine Greer said, if women only knew how much men hate us. Maybe we dare not know.
like the rubbish about "younger people" -all are profiled as upstandingly 'greenie'- and immune from greed and self-interest - They are taught to despise their own inevitable natural ageing ; they think they are experts and that lived experience and boomers are worthless ( anyone over 50) They profile age as filthy rich bigot rolling in property and capital
"Filthy rich bigot rolling in property and capital" -- I think they're often unconsciously referring to their own parents and grandparents... (of course depending on how much money and property their family has) My impression is that many of the young people who follow that crowd have never missed a meal in their lives, with the exception of the ones with anorexia. What a world with such people in it 😢
Its just such generalised lazy myopic labels - and sure true might be their naive hatred and malaise with their own but it ignores top down greed and neo lib theft of corporates pillaging of the democratic countries assets in education , healthcare, libraries, hospitals, infrastructure ; you name it all our foodbowls water resources and mining and all being privatised to corporate offshore holding companies all not paying taxes equating to poorer individual citizens ; women and kids last by statistics then working men - black and white - but many rich corporates are not just white not just boomer not just not just
Well it used to be over 30
there are white sex slaves and beaten white women and there are black rich women who are right wing and very very educated and serve white collar industry ; to only assume Asian and black equates with poor , victimhood and needy and benevolent in intentions is simply guff - that does not excuse nor does it deny the wrong done to peoples who happen to be of colour and who may of been taken for service and property
No, it correctly identifies how feminism only caters to middle-class white women. This is a fact. Black women, Latina women, and Asian women and other minority women are on their own. Especially poor women. You, feminists, are complaining about the temperature in the office, poor women don't have that luxury.
I think you are confusing “liberal feminism” with feminism Alexforever. It’s the kind the patriarchy supports because it gives them everything they want including women having to have a second job in an office because it doesn’t pay for the vast majority of caring work, and when it does pay, the pay is rubbish. The kind of women who work in the patriarchy and support it through “liberal feminism” are the ones complaining about the office temperature, thinking that the office will cater for their needs, which is a joke. They might serve the patriarchy but they will always be it’s second class citizens however much they work for it.
I do wonder though, if they had their way, how much the men would start complaining about the office temperature….?
This is a common response I hear from feminists--"that is a different form of feminism". The feminism I have described is the feminist majority, And so now your claim is that "patriarchy" has subverted feminism to serve its own ends? And who are these patriarchs organizing society to serve them? You say this is a patriarchy, yet in modern society men have been dethroned and replaced by the state. Fathers have less power than they ever have in the history of the world. Power used to be vested in local and regional leaders, now that world is gone.
Now, on complaining if women had their way--let's not underestimate the differences between men and women and the implications of those differences. Men handle challenges and struggle entirely differently than women. A man could have the worst day of his life and never tell anyone about it, for example. Feminism is proof positive that women seek protection and provisions from some form of caretaker, whether it be the community, men, or even the state. This is a stark difference from men who desire self determination and liberty.
If “liberal feminism” is the only kind most people have heard of then it’s because it serves the patriarchy. Therefore it is pushed as the only kind of feminism, which, quelle surprise, gives men everything they want from women and calls it women’s empowerment.
As for ordinary men losing power to the state, yes they do, but it is still a state that is run by (other) men, or women who have sold out to the patriarchy (otherwise they are not acceptable), which runs it for the benefit of men. Women are still not paid as much as men even when they do the same job, let alone when they do caring work. And if you choose to take care of your own children, which many women would love to do, they don’t get paid anything at all. To get paid (badly) you have to look after other people’s children.
Finally, on needing support. Yes, women have caring responsibilities for which they need support. Few women get through life without them. Many men manage to do so, mainly because their role in reproduction is small and fleeting - you can impregnate a woman and not even be aware you have fathered a child. Women don’t have that luxury. Because of our biology (not our feminine souls or gender identity) we are tied to our children for a minimum of nine months and because of our biology we are physically and emotionally tied to our children for a lot longer after they are born. The bodies of mothers and their babies are designed to be together, they respond to each other, and so do our minds. Because of this massive responsibility women need support from those around them to be able to do the job well. Because we are designed to care, we end up also being responsible for others in the community who need care (the elderly, the sick). So yes, we need support. We don’t get nearly enough support, let alone reward, for our caring responsibilities. And don’t think for one second that there aren’t millions of women out there struggling without saying a word, under the burden of those barely acknowledged responsibilities.
I do acknowledge the burden of men who have been forbidden to acknowledge their own needs, and those who suffer because of that. But it has traditionally been the job of women to recognise those needs and quietly see to them (food, comfort, sex, home making) without pay or other recognition. Meanwhile our own needs for those things are expected to be ignored. No wonder, with all these burdens, and in an environment of increasing hatred and oppression, women are either buckling under the pressure or just refusing to get involved, leaving men bereft and untrained to see, understand or cater to their own needs.
And all in all, we can all see with our eyes and discern with our minds that feminism is for white well to do women. A woman of a particular heritage and a woman of a particular class. The damsel in distress is a white liberal woman. The discourse in the West is not around the needs or concerns of poor blue collar working men, for example.
Feminism is for all women. We campaign lesbians in Africa who are being correctively raped, for all women, of all colours and economic classes all over the world who are being beaten, raped and killed by men in their own homes, for prostitutes, for poor women whose babies are being sold at birth to the rich who can’t or can’t be bothered to birth their own, for women who are being violently abused in porn, for refugee women who, by losing their community are losing protection against male violence and sexual violence, for trafficked women, for women in societies where they are seen simply as sexual and reproductive resources…. the list goes on. The idea that feminism is about office temperatures is false.
If you want to campaign for blue collar working men, go ahead, we won’t stop you. We have enough to do.
Feminists are the ones calling it empowerment, men aren't saying that. Interesting how liberal feminism thrives in the West whereas it is nowhere to be found in actual patriarchal societies such as Afghanistan. "Women's rights" is not even a thought for the Taliban. If we lived in a patriarchal society as you say, liberalism would have no platform. And so now you have identified that ordinary men have no power, so how is this a patriarchy if that is the case? You contradict yourself left and right. If there is no patrimony, there is no patriarchy.
Women today, especially well-to-do liberal white women, enjoy the greatest privilege in the history of the world. When they cry, the universities, media, corporate, and political apparatus come to their aide. No other group enjoys this privilege. The level of entitlement, self centeredness, and pride in well to do white liberal feminists rightly gives rise to resentment. Truly, these people really think the world ought to revolve around their needs and what they want.
And I would love to see women have the support they need and have the option to be caretakers full-time if they so choose. But who besides women are the stumbling blocks to getting the support they need? Feminists condemn and demonize men while at the same time demanding protection and provisions only men can provide. The sense of entitlement and the pride of feminists is something to behold, truly.
For reasons on display for all to see, feminism as a philosophy and social movement is full of contradictions. It relies on liberalism, which originates from Christian humanism, yet denies the very presuppositions underpinning liberalism. Feminism is an incohorent, frankenstein ideology and even you must admit that you cannot articulate 'pure' or 'orthodox' feminism. Someone who complains about not gaining reward for taking care of others is someone who does not know how to love. Because when we do things out of love, we do them for the good others. Even the thought of getting something in return is disordered. From what you have written, you prove that feminism is a cult of self centeredness and selfishness.
My mother has persevered through life--facing great challenges--with grace and her sacrificial love has been the greatest gift. Meanwhile, feminists have the privilege of saying the entire system is against them and a room set to 69degF proves the patriarchy is out to get them. They think they ought to get paid for taking care of their own children. The lack of gratitude, or praise for others, thankfulness, or any true virtue in feminists is astounding. The bitterness, entitlement, and anger of feminists prooves feminism is an evil ideology.
You write well and are clearly intelligent, yet you cannot see the absurdity of feminism?
Good heavens Alexforever! This is becoming a war of essays :)
You are confusing the philosophy and organisation of societies that is patriarchy with the actions of individual men. Almost all men benefit from patriarchy at least in part, but it is based on society using the sexual and reproductive capabilities of women for the benefit of men, forcing women to have sex and reproduce, as well as take care of all of men’s and children’s domestic needs (and often those of the sick and elderly too) for nothing except food and shelter, which is no better than slavery. The system is enforced by violence, laws with attendant punishments, even using our children to blackmail us, and social exclusion. You will call that sacrificing for love, but it is noticeable that similar sacrifices aren’t expected of men. The “be kind” phenomenon is pretty exclusively reserved for women. If we want money to feed our children and put a roof over our heads, and are not being supported by a man (for which he usually expects sex on demand, domestic labour and a right to her children) then we have to go out and do some sort of paid work outside the home *as well*. In fact women who earn more than their male partner do more work inside the home than those who earn less! That system, and the violence, laws and conventions with which it is enforced, is essentially what we object to.
Of course many men in these systems feel unhappy about the patriarchy, but they still benefit from it, and frankly, I can’t see much resistance to it. Whenever there is a revolution, women are involved, risking their lives along with the men, but then our needs are put to one side and the patriarchy itself survives in a different form which is less onerous on the men. The only things we have won for ourselves have been fought for bit by bit, with reverses and counter-revolutions that lose and diminish what we have gained. As an example, having created shelters for women who have experienced the very sex specific crime of rape, so that they can recover in a place where they feel no threat, the trans lobby are demanding (and succeeding in gaining) access for men to these places, which considerably reduces their benefit to women. All the time there is a societal expectation, from all its participants, that women will make sacrifices, will work for nothing but love (and often not for that), and will keep the home fires burning along with a raft of other things outside the home.
Meanwhile women are being beaten, raped and murdered in large numbers by the men in those homes. The murders are the tip of the iceberg, and in my country we have between two and three women murdered by their partners every week. This is so normalised they aren’t even reported. That silent figure hides an epidemic of domestic rapes and violence that is hidden by the shame and isolation of the victims as well as the complicity of a media that just doesn’t think they are worth reporting.
You may point to domestic violence where men are the victims. Firstly, a reasonable number of these involve gay couples, so no women involved. Also, women accused of domestic violence are more likely to be arrested, more likely to be charged and more likely to be imprisoned and for longer than males perpetrators. Finally, of course, male violence against women has far more serious physical effects as they are well over twice as strong in the upper body. Women have to live with the knowledge that half the population can (and sometimes do) kill them with their bare hands should they choose to - and that generally includes the people they live intimately with - and yet we cannot do the same to them.
Yes, men suffer from the laws, expectations and organisation of the patriarchy too - especially gay men in repressive societies, but nonetheless they benefit. They are also more able to escape it. As you pointed out, they can strike out and be free much more easily than women, who have caring responsibilities and the constant threat of fatal male violence, or at least serious injury or possible pregnancy from it, if they dare to be alone.
The latest attack on women has been the absolutely gob-smacking assertion that men can, and some do , “feel like women”, and that this makes them women. The obvious question is, even if it were true that they can “feel like women”, how would they know? The staggering levels of male entitlement that takes our experience and owns it, pushing aside all female objections as “unkind” (!) or “bigoted” (by the side that screams No Debate) or fascist (by the side who uses violence and the threat of violence to stop their opponents even speaking) is incredibly revealing about a society that liberal feminism (or patriarchal feminism) tells us is really pretty equal, and all we have to worry about is office temperatures. Following this assertion we are to give up many of the things we have gained for ourselves over the last 100 years that give us any level of ability to live without having to be financially supported by men to whom we are expected to give up sexual and reproductive agency. And our sports. And our children, who are to told that women don’t actually exist except in the imaginations of men, and the only difference between their parents is that one day, one of them spontaneously decides to give birth, but otherwise they are the same.
Are we angry? Yes, we are. I get that you are too, but really, we are not your problem unless you think you are entitled to our bodies and the amazing things they do.
Most feminists don’t hate men, we struggle under the system that is created to make use of our bodies and our love of our children to benefit them. We know that most men have their own struggles - they are our brothers, lovers and sons - but feminism is a movement for and about women, and it has no concern with men’s oppressions. You wouldn’t expect a gay movement to start worrying about straight people’s access to housing or a movement for black people to campaign for the right of white people to decent jobs, so why expect a movement for the liberation of women to worry about men’s issues? That doesn’t deny those issues exist, but as Germaine Greer said, the problems of half the population of the world is really enough to be getting on with.
I’m afraid I haven’t really addressed your comments above. If you still want me to let me know and I will, but I thought it was time to get back to basics.
Spot on, Julie- the idea that feminism belongs to any body or class other than sex, is offensive, false and just another weak ass tactic to divide feminists. Great post, thank you xx
It's tragic and shameful that women are guilty of encouraging this bollocks, too. Sorry men, but whatever the grievance, I'll NEVER understand why women attack women who fight for women.
It's also known as the "divide and conquer" strategy.
Keep nailing it Julie!
And this is well connected to the Karen’ trope..
Translation: white bitch.
The hierarchies of oppression created by identity politics is part of the problem, as theorised by Kimberley Crenshawe.
IMO, this is also a response to white womens’ movements succeeding. The more we suceed the more dangerous we become and the louder the mob must bray. You’re never bullied because you’re bad, you’re bullied because you’re good. Whiite women are a threat. 💪🏻
Spot on Lucy 👍🏼
Thank you for this important message. The "privileged" white woman myth has real life consequences, from individual women who are denigrated and ostracized to the phenomenon of white girls "transing" out entirely for fear of becoming such a loathsome creature as a plain old "white woman." It's just a new form of witch hunting, the oldest hate fueled into a frenzy by social media. Nobody wants to be the next Central Park Karen or Amber Heard. So much to say about this, but for now heartfelt thanks to Julie Bindel for speaking up for all women.
These are good questions with sound answers. Read them if you want to understand how the system divides then conquers. Thanks Julie!
As Zelda D’Aprano, a key Women’s liberationist in Melbourne, Australia wrote in the Women’s Liberation Newsletter in 1973, “There are women who are not industrial workers who proceeded to tell all of us so called “middle-class” women what working class women want. In my anger, I have asked myself why am I ignored even though all the women know I am an industrial worker? . . . Why are all the women in the movement who work in offices, shops etc being told they are middle class?” Further, in a 1995 edition of her autobiography she pointed out that as “more working women enter the movement and become aware and articulate they cease to be seen as working class and the cry continues., ‘Where are the working class women?’”.
Julie can probably relate to this.
When it was first coined, the term "intersectionality" was used as a way to organize the complications around feminism: complications of class, color, etc. that are too nuanced to play well on social media.
2 nd wave feminist