What're your thoughts on the recent controversial tweet by Bindel?

[–] RisingUp 20 points

To be honest I’m tired of women being expected to watch their words and be careful. We are policed much more than men. I don’t care that she said it.

Bindel shoots from the hip sometimes, that’s something that goes along with being brave and tenacious and a fighter for justice and a teller of inconvenient truths and all the other qualities that make her admirable.

[–] SecondSkin 4 points

This ^

She can say whatever the fuck she likes. We don’t expect men to be perfect to have a say, we need to fight against the female socialisation and double standards that only act to silence women.

She doesn’t need to be polite or perfect or consider every other group when prioritising women and girls. I don’t have to agree with everything every women in GC fight says to stand by that principle 100%.

[–] madderthanhell 1 points

Hard to believe someone down-voted this! I 'canceled' them with my upvote heh heh.

[–] IronicWolf 15 points

She has used the term Tran Taliban before. It’s not entirely unjust. The Taliban is busy erasing women and preventing them from participating in public life. TRAs are on the road to doing the same thing. They threaten and enact violence against those they disagree with. They demand that their views are accepted without question. They denounce those who think differently. Their entire belief system is an extremist version of a religion which does not rely on objective fact.

And both ISIS and TRA extremists like to dress in black and cover their faces.

Her comparison is entirely defensible. Is it inflammatory? Yes, but if it helps people to see the parallels then maybe it needs to be done.

[–] somegenerichandle [OP] 3 points

That's a good point about both erasing women in public life. Thanks for your thoughts.

[–] Philogynist 🦋🌍🍃 3 points

I don't think it's a fair comparison. Perhaps if Bindel has experienced torture and oppression herself by the hands of ISIS I'd feel neutrally. But I don't support her on this one. Feels like a really privileged thing to say when you're someone living in a first world nation and just disproportionate. Like the Taliban straight up beheads people.

I don't think her comment will help people see the parallels, I think it's going to have the opposite effect of people seeing her as conservative and/or privileged.

[–] SecondSkin 0 points

She’s a lesbian of a certain age. The likelihood she hasn’t experienced violence, probably sexual violence, harassment, torture from men is virtually none existent. If she hasn’t then she certainly will have supported a never ending number of female friends through it. Male violence against women and girls is terrorism. We are supposed to change our behaviour because of feeling terror and most of us do, even in free democratic developed countries.

Oppression olympics only serves to silence women.

[–] Philogynist 🦋🌍🍃 1 points

There's a difference between oppression Olympics and recognizing that someone is drawing extreme comparisons. The Taliban systematically and completely cut women and girls off from education. Women are prohibited from working the vast majority of government jobs and beat and assassinated journalists to the point where media outlets from any country are terrified to report. They execute not only people they don't approve of but their families as punishment. They use IEDs, mortars, and airstrikes on schools and mosques. They've sought out and mass murdered female judges and target mass murdering people attempting to leave the country. This is in addition to sexual assault and food insecurity.

You can imply that I'm using oppression Olympics, but drawing parallels between the Taliban and TRAs is disrespectful and minimizes the terror that victims and survivors of the Taliban have undergone or are undergoing. TRAs are not systematically conducting beheadings, mass murdering journalists and female judges, using IEDs and mortars to destroy educational infrastructure and the lives that may be present within these buildings at the time. They're oppressive in a different way and yes they are violent. And they are also not comparable to the Taliban.

Load more (1 comment)

[–] madderthanhell 4 points

Edited

Yes, there are clear similarities. Look at the case of Syria, where ISIS acted as a magnet for violent extremist young people from all over the world. There are people of at least 30 nationalities among the more than 50,000 defeated ISIS affiliates still detained in desert camps in occupied northeast Syria (under the control of US/Syrian opposition group SDF). The blind faith, the obsessive fervour, the absolutism, the one true belief system... I think she's spot on.

[–] SecondSkin 1 points

Edited

https://youtu.be/cX8szNPgrEs

If I can shoot rabbits then I can shoot terfs comes to mind when you say blind faith, the obsessive fervour, the absolutism, the one true belief system.

Which rams home Wire’s lyrics gravity keeps my head down, or is it the shame because those caught up in the idealism of the Spanish War came back ruined once faced with the reality. Rape all terfs legitimise the actions of violent men, but the idealistic idiotic youth will be cowed by shame of what they called for as they grow up also- and those older who should know better. And that shame buys further allegiance to the cause through their silence through an emotional version of sunken cost fallacy. Which parallels terrorist organisations tactics and Lifton’s principles of thought control. And leads to collective forgetting that leads to the same pattern replicated repeatedly.

The intentional amphiboly of if you tolerate this, then your children will be next is also apt to current context.

[–] happy-harpy 14 points

Stuff like this (‘queer isis’ or calling trump Cheeto Mussolini) might be funny in some contexts, like with your friends at the pub or something. But if you’re trying to have a meaningful conversation you’ve already started on the wrong foot by lowering the level of discourse to pithy insults and it just makes it harder to take you seriously, imo.

[–] RisingUp 3 points

You mean third parties won’t take you seriously? Because TRAs can’t be reasoned with anyway. I think in this case you can point to their decapitation fantasies as justification if anyone questions it, then the questioner learns something about TRAs.

[–] happy-harpy 0 points

Edited

Yea, I assumed this tweet was directed at a general audience rather than TRAs. This kind of hyperbolic rhetoric would be a red flag for me if I was trying to find a source of information for something I was neutral or uninformed about.

[–] SecondSkin 0 points

Edited

But she doesn’t have to tailor her words to gaining you as a listener. She’s not a politician or a neutral source like Dr Cass or DfE guidance or EHRC should all be. She’s a radfem writer and activist and being inflammatory or provocative isn’t exactly unheard of when it comes to writers or activists. Certainly plenty others don’t take this approach and that’s fine also- KS, MF & JKR have been nothing but considered, gracious and balanced. But provocative, snarky voices have an important role in activism also- JB, KJK etc (both from very different slants in this also, but similar no holds barred style of communication) get shit done also.

All styles of voice and all sides of this matter. She should only be moderating that if it’s a contractual obligation- like EHRC employee representing EHRC should. If she’s acting for herself she doesn’t need to walk on egg shells and self censor incase her word choice bothers some people.

Load more (1 comment)

[–] Hollyhock 23 points

This is the problem with Twitter, reasonable people have bad days and react w/out thinking. I think Bindel reacted w/out thinking this one through. So far, TRAs haven't committed wide-spread murder or destroyed countries. You can show that TRAs are bad w/out using false equivalences.

[–] somegenerichandle [OP] 6 points

yeah, that's why i think she should leave it. She said what she said, it could have been SO much worse, and she shouldn't succumb to their pressure. Plus, I'm not exactly into purity-policing radfems.

[–] Lilith-Fair 3 points

Yep. She should just leave it. Taking it down would just be framed as her admitting guilt or some such bullshit.

[–] Lee-Side_ 11 points

Actually, now that I think of the sway that ISIS had, it's international recruiting online, and fanaticism, I think she may have a found an interesting parallel.

[–] Lipsy i/just/can't 4 points

Also they both love their flags

[–] SecondSkin 1 points

Edited

Flags should be banned for anyone/anything except countries or pirate ships.

[–] GCRadFem ⚢ 15 points

It’s fighting fire with fire and truthful but I have mixed feelings about all of the name-calling, even if TRAS did start it. As for comparison, TIMS haven’t done to us what ISIS has done but they surely loudly state that they want to decapitate and hang us.

[–] madderthanhell 7 points

Edited

Yes, they make no bones about wanting to go to the violent extremes ISIS has gone to, glorifying the idea of it

[–] Smellerbee 6 points

TRAs and ISIS both hate women, so I'm fine with it.

[–] Lilith-Fair 3 points

Edited

Looking at the comments to her tweet, all I saw were TRAs diverting the main subject of her article by making it all about something snarky she said in her tweet. Contrary to the replies to this post trying to sincerely discuss the pros and cons of it, those TRAs comments are just another way to confuse the issue. And considering how often they equate GC women to Nazis, I can hardly take their complaints seriously or give shit.

ETA: just read the onslaught of TRAs replies to her tweet. Sorry not sorry. They are just massive gaslighting and enraging. And given those comments, these asshats never have a sliver of intent to ever give anything she has to say respect, credence, or consideration anyway, nor would they ever engage her in any good faith discussions. They're just taking advantage of her hyperbolic comment to to burn her at the stake. If she had been polite and sounded reasonable, they still would call her bigot and smear her. And sounding polite and reasonable haven't exactly gotten us anywhere with these people. They don't give a shit about us or our concerns. Further, they're literally telling her that mentioning ISIS is racist. Seriously? Acknowledging a terrorist group for the evil they are is racist?

[–] somegenerichandle [OP] 1 points

Edited

If she had been polite and sounded reasonable, they still would call her bigot and smear her.

i agree, and the comments are all over the place. Part of the reason i thought it might be good to discuss it here. I don't think the tweet is particularly racist, just in poor taste. It being hyperbole and in the context of what they do... i guess it's easier to see your own faults in someone else.

[–] SecondSkin 0 points

Is it hyperbole? We aren’t being lined up and beheaded (but that is in part determined by the countries we live in, if the GC movement exactly as it is had operated exactly as we have in other countries this would have been the result imho). But women have been physically attacked, lesbians raped or raped by coercion-read Caroline Lowbridges BBC article on this. And the constant threats of rape, death, burn terfs etc create such terror that millions of women who are in roles that involve safeguarding haven’t spoken up for women and girls safeguarding. That is most definitely not because all these millions 100% believe twaw, it’s because they are scared and cowed because they are scared. Of loosing their jobs mostly but also of worse, especially what they could be at risk of once they lost their jobs. It’s not hyperbole to describe a straightforward cult like the children of god of using terrorist tactics of thought control, this is just a much wider variation of that.

[–] Estrojen 8 points

Perhaps she means ISIS as in the brainwashing that occurs by the TRA cult. Not literal ISIS behavior (yet).

[–] Researcher1536 18 points

Maybe she's referencing TRA posters that advocate for beheading TERFs that we've seen lately at protests?

[–] SecondSkin 2 points

Male violence against woman and girls is terrorism. It is meant to incite terror to control us, to make us change our behaviour, and it does this very successfully a great deal of the time. Just because all men didn’t sit down and draw up a manifesto of patriarchy doesn’t mean their violence doesn’t operate the same way any terrorism does.

[–] somegenerichandle [OP] 5 points

Edited

Certainly, she's not being literal -- it's a adjective not a noun.

There is more context here that i'm not fully aware of. She's used 'Queer Isis' in her book and in and in an article in the Critic. And in a 2017 tweet, also engaging McCarthyism, which i feel is more adept, since women are losing their jobs. I've not really noticed before though.

[–] OMalley 4 points

This is no different than TiMs who claim we're nazi's.

As satisfying as it would be to paint those smears with the same social tactics. We have to be better. We're not just fighting for our spaces, we're doing so in full view of the public. That's why we're winning.

When people test their curious waters, we want them to peruse through our thoughts and resources and recognize the rationality behind it. As clear as day when you realize how much ground the T community is losing when you have archieves of diaper fetishes, rape threats and unhinged violence.

And if by chance, she meant it in an entirely different context, it is all about public perception in the end, and not to be a naysayer, but to the average eye, they most definitely will relate it to ISIS.

[–] Lilith-Fair 2 points

I'm not sure about that. TRAs have been smearing us as bigots from the get go, and the public accept it without question. They smear JK Rowling, someone people around the world know and has been known for her philanthropy. But they called her a transphobe and tons of people just accepted it without questions. In this social media age, few people care to take time to seek out the truth. More often than not, especially on social media, just branding someone as something gets the point across more effectively.

[–] SecondSkin -1 points

We have to be better is living down to female socialisation and continuing to feed into this socialisation that enforces patriarchy.

[–] Philogynist 🦋🌍🍃 1 points

Edited

I don't like it and I don't support that she said it.

I was in a conversation with someone on here about Gen Z. She mentioned that she was a woman who immigrated from a third world country. The Gen Z-ers she met delivered threats and loud complaints and sometimes had their parents call to scream at their teachers when they weren't doing well in post-secondary. She said they'd complain about feeling "unsafe" for innocuous things, and she felt this was just such an entitled and privileged viewpoint to hold when none of these people seemed to have experienced homelessness or real threats of safety like war.

I have different and more pleasant experiences with Gen Z, but my point is when Bindel says something like this, I feel the same way about Bindel as this commenter felt about Gen Z. Correct me if I'm wrong here, But she's never suffered under the Taliban, and I think this is a very privileged Westernized statement to make. ISIS beheads people and quite literally tortures them. TRAs and gender ideology is oppressive, violent, and awful, but it just does not compare to ISIS levels of unsafety or oppression. Much like when TRAs call us akin to Nazis, it's a bit ridiculous, and I think its disrespectful to the victims and survivors of ISIS violence. I think Bindel comes across as privileged and lacking of perspective saying something like this.

[–] SecondSkin 1 points

Edited

This is a false equivalency.

Did you catch MC interview today?* She’s talking about how after she spoke (in a live discussion in HoP, filmed, surrounded by colleagues) on section 35 and LRM heckled her, slandered her and had his venomous rant at her for doing her bloody job he then crossed at sat beside her. Which is unheard of in Parliament. She said 100% this was done to intimidate her and make her feel unsafe. And she said a colleague came and sat by her recognising that she felt unsafe and wanting her to feel safer.

MC has been one of the earliest, firmest and loudest voices in GC politics. She is clearly no coward. Yet felt scared. She has to share toilets in HoP with this creep. If she feels this fear despite being an MP, then it’s not at all unexpected that all other women and girls, who have much much less protection than she does, will feel very real fear.

We aren’t scared of a few meany words. We are scared of rape and assault and worse. As someone who has been raped repeatedly I don’t think there’s anything lesser about being scared of rape or physical violence than being scared of execution. I don’t think women need to talk themselves into framing their fear of this as not real fear as if it’s the same as misgendering.

*as a side note Labour’s David Blunket was stellar and said KS needs to say sex and gender are different and separate and that women’s rights must trump gender.

[–] Philogynist 🦋🌍🍃 1 points

Her feeling scared is not to be minimized and yes that's an incredibly serious act of intimidation as LRM attempted to threaten her out of a political space and got away with it.

TRA are aggressive and violent and oppressive, and also they just do not compare to the Taliban using IEDs on schools, entirely denying women and girls the right to an education (with the consequence being death), beheadings, mass assassinations of journalists to the point where there's limited reporting in the country, targeting and killing female judges, etc.

A person can feel the same level of fear about just stepping outside their home as they do about rape, just as someone afraid of rape might feel the same amount of fear as someone being scared of execution. I'm not measuring these situations by human emotions, I'm measuring these situations by their socio-structural conditions; the extent, reach, and brutality of this violence; the organization behind it; the casualties and numbers caused from it; etc. If I hypothetically was in charge of an organization with a certain amount of funding and was presented with the decision of whether I should prioritize my resources to protect women from TRAs or from the Taliban, the women under Taliban rule would without question be prioritized. I'm Jewish so maybe I have a bit of a different take on this, but surely we can agree that people calling other people Nazis - unless they're actually Nazis - is lacking of the perspective that Holocaust survivors and victims have gone through.

While there are ways in which it can be useful to draw analogies between oppressed groups or bond and relate to people across differences (i.e. a white woman based on her experiences of being female relating to the social exclusion black men also go through on the lines of race), I don't think Bindel did this in a respectful or appropriate way.

Discussion What're your thoughts on the recent controversial tweet by Bindel?

43 comments

/o/GenderCritical

Gender Critical Feminism