Tuesday, September 25, 2012

Julie Bindel - too many women are unthinkingly heterosexual

Julie Bindel
Julie Bindel is a 50-year-old English feminist. For better and for worse she's an intellectual type - meaning that she's more principled than most in the pursuit of her politics.

The first thing to note is that she's a lesbian who thinks that other women should also be lesbian. That makes sense if you really believe in FTP - feminist patriarchy theory.

According to this theory, men have arranged society so that they benefit from the oppression of women and men, as a class, enforce this privilege by acts of violence against women. If this were true, then it would make little sense for women to love men, as they would be loving those who violently oppress them.

And so Julie Bindel in one article urged bisexual women to stop sleeping with the enemy (i.e. men):
When I write about making a positive choice to be a lesbian, and that I believe there is no gay (or for that matter bisexual) "gene," I am accused of being an ideological robot and therefore not genuinely sexually attracted to women. That is nonsense.

...For bisexual women living under the tyranny of sexism, choosing to be lesbian is a liberatory act.

Those of us who grew up in a time and context where there was a political analysis of sexuality were able to make a positive choice to be a lesbian. I believed then, and I believe now, that if bisexual women had an ounce of sexual politics, they would stop sleeping with men.

This opinion did not exactly endear her to bisexual women, one of whom accused her of curtailing her autonomy:
Removing the autonomy to choose who one can and cannot f.... is not feminism and it never can be.

And here is Julie Bindel making the same point about not loving the enemy:
The reason why so many of the new-wave feminists bleat on (and on) about including men in feminism is because so many of them are unthinkingly heterosexual. Women are the only oppressed group that is required to love their oppressor, sexually and every other way.

Again, that makes sense if you support views like the following ones, as quoted approvingly by Julie Bindel:
Finn Mackay, a feminist activist and academic has organised the Reclaim the Night march in London for the past six years, believes that men do have a role to play within feminism, but — it is not coming along to meetings and taking part in the decision-making process. “They can stop rape by not raping, and bring the sex industry to its knees by not paying for sex,” says MacKay, without a trace of irony. “Oppression doesn’t just happen to women like bad weather. Men as a group systematically oppress and exploit women, and feminism is the political movement to challenge and change that.”

If that's what you believe, then why not be a radical lesbian separatist feminist? And why not believe that marriage, as a patriarchal institution, should be abolished:
I absolutely agree that fighting for the rights for same-sex marriage is going too far. I would outlaw marriage for everyone, including heterosexuals...

There are two paths here. One path is to accept the claims of feminist patriarchy theory - in which case it makes sense for women to avoid friendly relations with men. The other path is to scrutinise these claims. Is it really true that men as a class have acted to perpetrate violence and oppression on women? Couldn't the very opposite claim be argued for? That men as a class have acted to protect women from violence and to work to improve the circumstances of women?

In Western societies there was traditionally a very strong ethos amongst men that it was dishonourable to commit an act of violence toward women. So if men acted as a class it was to repudiate violence against women rather than to commit it.

Similarly, there was a strong ethos amongst men that they should work hard to support their wives and families. Many tens of millions of men have laboured on behalf of their families when they could have had easier lives living for themselves alone.

There is a much more positive reading of the masculine than the one normally pursued by feminists like Julie Bindel - and it's a reading that permits women to openly embrace their heterosexuality.


  1. Al these feminists that want to destroy marriage remind me of how satan despises anything Godly, and the union of marriage is representing the union of God and the Church and by destroying marriage he'll be able to destroy this world. Sorry if this is a repeat

    Im also very glad I found an active blogger that can put my thoughts on epaper and succinctly as you can, it's a breath if fresh air to know im not the only one that sees the rouse about same-sex marriage and gender bending garbage.

  2. Your right that men as a class have generally acted to protect women, even if one can argue that their efforts were sometimes misguided. Whatever one may think of the institution of marriage, its obvious purpose was to protect pregnant women from abandonment. These women who make a "political analysis of sexuality" should look at the condition of women in places where marriage has been abandoned (if not yet "outlawed"), and then reflect on what that condition would be were it not for the welfare state. The purpose of marriage is to tie down the man and make him in some degree share the immobility of pregnancy and child-rearing.

    From what I understand of lesbianism, there are two principal types: butch and bisexual. Ms. Bindel appears to be butch. She doesn't like thinking about the fact that her girlfriend could get tired of the whole lesbian thing and leave her for a man, so she's trying to nail the exit shut with an ideological argument.

  3. Women who are 'unthinkingly heterosexual' are acting on their natural inclinations.
    A normal heterosexual woman doesn't have to rationalise her willingness to be attached to a man - if she can find one who hasn't wimped out.

    Julie Bindel - who looks like a bloke in drag - has to put together a so-called feminist argument for her being sexually attracted to other women. Maybe she's suppressed her true female instinct and lost any sense she was born with.

  4. Lesbianism is just the logical conclusion of the complete autonomous project for a lot of feminists (particularly the sex-negative types). The sex-positive types try to reconcile being attracted to the opposite sex (aka men and women being together or interdependent) while being totally independent and they end up looking like prostitutes.

  5. White, Western men are probably nicer to women than most other men around the world are.

    And that's precisely why white, Western men are such an easy target for these types.

    If dominance is not shown by the men, then the women will look elsewhere in rejection of 'their own' men.

    If you don't ask you don't get. The meek shall inherit nothing. Any hole's a goal.

  6. The first thing to note is that she's a lesbian

    The first thing to note is that she's ugly and mannish (I see others said that already)... gee what a surprise she's a lesbian!

    There are two paths here. One path is to accept the claims of feminist patriarchy theory - in which case it makes sense for women to avoid friendly relations with men. The other path is to scrutinise these claims.

    The third path is to ignore them because they are irrational. Feminists did not arrive at their conclusions through a rational process, and therefore you won't be able to reason them out of their conclusions.

  7. typical ugly dyke. why don't they just get together and go live apart from the rest of us if we oppress them so much? why wouldn't they want to get away from us?

  8. I was thinking in the shower just now, in us so it's probably midnight there or something, and what i thought about was how liberals tend to think that you're somehow born gay and that there's no choie involved, if that is the case then wouldn't they be throwing a hissy fit about it not being an autonomous decision?

    I figure that they know that allowing gays to get married will thus weaken the special meaning behind marriage, you know creating children, and thus end the oppression that white straight christian conservative men.

  9. JMSmith - I save good blog comments and your "The purpose of marriage is to tie down the man and make him in some degree share the immobility of pregnancy and child-rearing." has gone into my save file.

  10. Having read the Wikipedia biography of Julie Bindel, it seems like she's a far-left lunatic who basically wants heterosexual men not to have sex.

  11. Mr. Richardson,

    "Liberalism" is homosexual "nature."

    "Feminism" is devout dyke "nature."

    The homosexual and devout dyke "nature" is a radically autonomous "nature," i.e., the SELF-annihilating "nature."

    Self-annihilation being the flip side of self-creation (your "autonomy theory" of Liberalism).

  12. First anon and CM,

    Glad you like the blog. Thanks for commenting.

    Elizabeth wrote:

    Lesbianism is just the logical conclusion of the complete autonomous project for a lot of feminists (particularly the sex-negative types).

    I think that's true for Julie Bindel. I found another quote which would support this idea which I'll post shortly.

  13. People with similar views to Julie Bindel are actually deeply involved in running our schools, universities the media and public service - yet so many Australians plod along as though ignoring the problem will make it go away - the leftists aren't going away, in fact, they're expanding their influence across every meaningful institution of society.

  14. Why does Ms Bindel wish bisexual women to give up men? Because misery loves company. She validates her lesbianism by getting other women to join her.

    The words 'peace' and 'contentment' are not in Ms Bindel's vocabulary.


  15. Feminism is the theory. Lesbianism is the practice.

  16. Anyone else ever noticed that most dykes look a lot like blokes?

  17. "She looks like a man."

    No. She looks like an ugly man.