Megathread TERFs / Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists / Gender Critical Feminists - ft. r/GenderCritical & related reddits, Mancheeze, Cathy Brennan, GCDad, RadFHarva, Jamie Shupe, etc; "Gender Critical Feminism is Homophobic" - Cathy Brennan, 2019.

[Ctrl+Alt+Rt]

Like other radfems she believes men are inherently violent and women must disassociate from them - watch how quickly she blames men and their violent tendencies for everything. She is a Political Lesbian and believes hetereosexual relationships are a form of patriarchal Stockholm Syndrome. If those are mild views then I hate to see what an extreme version of her would think.

Just because she thinks it's dangerous for males to access to female spaces because they could assault women doesn't mean she thinks men as a whole are inherently and incurably violent. A cursory twitter search for 'man/men/male' shows her advocating against domestic violence in cases of women literally murdered by their male partners, declaring love for a man for his thoughtful life's work, praising a man who ran for charity, and expressing the belief that men can change and raise the bar for others to make hetero relationships better.

tldr: so she doesn't wanna suck your dick, doesn't mean she hates you bro, don't take it personally

 

[Stock Image Photographer]

and expressing the belief that men can change and raise the bar for others to make hetero relationships better

Did you miss the implication in the tweet she's responding to that men are the biggest things wrong with heterosexual relationships? From what I've seen Bindel herself is harmless and a good person, but some of the stuff she says reminds me of the much more hardcore radfems who I'd be actually afraid of gaining large amounts of societal power.

 

[BE 911]

Just because she thinks it's dangerous for males to access to female spaces because they could assault women doesn't mean she thinks men as a whole are inherently and incurably violent.

A cursory twitter search for 'man/men/male' shows her [...] expressing the belief that men can change and raise the bar for others

I'm sorry but if that's not thinking that men are inherently violent and dangerous and in general bad by default and that they must be "cured" out of it, I don't know what is.

 

[Ctrl+Alt+Rt]

Did you miss the implication in the tweet she's responding to that men are the biggest things wrong with heterosexual relationships?

She's responding to someone specifically saying that "acceptable male behavior in relationships and sexual encounters" has a low bar and can be improved. That's certainly a valid point to argue whether you're considering studies showing that women still take on the majority of domestic chores and child rearing duties on top of full-time work now, or whether you're considering attitudes toward things like, for example, sharing intimate photos without the other person's consent. That's not saying that women do no wrong in relationships. And in any case, Bindel didn't write the tweet she's responding to, so it's an irrelevant point. Bindel just chimed in to add that men can change men's behaviour, implying that women are responsible for women's attitudes, not men's. Everyone responsible for themselves.

Not sure what you're afraid of if they'd gain power in this context. Are you worried they'd convince all women to lez out cuz they think hetero relationships are a "raw deal"?

I'm sorry but if that's not thinking that men are inherently violent and dangerous and in general bad by default and that they must be "cured" out of it, I don't know what is.

(1) it says nothing about violence
(2) stating that men can change their behavior and that of those around them is the complete opposite of saying men are inherently bad. If it's inherent, it can't be fixed. Saying it can change means that you believe it's nurture not nature. After all, do you think these two statements are equivalent or opposite: "sexual orientation is inherent" vs. "sexual orientation can change"? Try 'biological sex' in that context too. I hate to pull out the dictionary on you, but inherent is defined as "existing in something as a permanent attribute". Permanent is the opposite of changeable. So... no?

If you want to criticize someone whose views don't align with yours, the first thing you've gotta do is make sure you're criticizing things they're actually saying. You can't just assume the worst, take the most uncharitable interpretation against all evidence, and then cancel them for things they didn't say. Those are some sjw tactics.

Now can we get back to making fun of things they actually say? Idiotic tinfoil hat conspiracy theories are posted on gc reddit all the goddamn time, no lack of material.

 

[Stock Image Photographer]

She's responding to someone specifically saying that "acceptable male behavior in relationships and sexual encounters" has a low bar and can be improved. That's certainly a valid point to argue whether you're considering studies showing that women still take on the majority of domestic chores and child rearing duties on top of full-time work now, or whether you're considering attitudes toward things like, for example, sharing intimate photos without the other person's consent. That's not saying that women do no wrong in relationships. And in any case, Bindel didn't write the tweet she's responding to, so it's an irrelevant point. Bindel just chimed in to add that men can change men's behaviour, implying that women are responsible for women's attitudes, not men's. Everyone responsible for themselves.

Nothing you've said here is wrong, but it also kind of misses the point. Yes, all the things you brought up are real problems that women deal with in heterosexual relationships and they should be addressed. Yes, men should be responsible for fixing their own shortcomings, obviously. You complain about taking uncharitable interpretations of people's words, but you shouldn't be taking overly-charitable interpretations either. If anything, Bindel's response reinforces that she agrees with the views in the original tweet, which imply that men are shitty by default. I understand why she probably feels that way, given her extensive work getting women and children away from shitty men, but it's pretty likely that her experiences may have warped her perspective on the entire male sex.

stating that men can change their behavior and that of those around them is the complete opposite of saying men are inherently bad. If it's inherent, it can't be fixed. Saying it can change means that you believe it's nurture not nature. After all, do you think these two statements are equivalent or opposite: "sexual orientation is inherent" vs. "sexual orientation can change"? Try 'biological sex' in that context too. I hate to pull out the dictionary on you, but inherent is defined as "existing in something as a permanent attribute". Permanent is the opposite of changeable. So... no?

Way to pick on one bad wording choice, you pedantic autist. You didn't address that Bindel sees men as "bad by default", which she very clearly does.

 

[tuscangarder]

She's responding to someone specifically saying that "acceptable male behavior in relationships and sexual encounters" has a low bar and can be improved. That's certainly a valid point to argue whether you're considering studies showing that women still take on the majority of domestic chores and child rearing duties on top of full-time work now, or whether you're considering attitudes toward things like, for example, sharing intimate photos without the other person's consent. That's not saying that women do no wrong in relationships. And in any case, Bindel didn't write the tweet she's responding to, so it's an irrelevant point. Bindel just chimed in to add that men can change men's behaviour, implying that women are responsible for women's attitudes, not men's. Everyone responsible for themselves.

Not sure what you're afraid of if they'd gain power in this context. Are you worried they'd convince all women to lez out cuz they think hetero relationships are a "raw deal"?



(1) it says nothing about violence
(2) stating that men can change their behavior and that of those around them is the complete opposite of saying men are inherently bad. If it's inherent, it can't be fixed. Saying it can change means that you believe it's nurture not nature. After all, do you think these two statements are equivalent or opposite: "sexual orientation is inherent" vs. "sexual orientation can change"? Try 'biological sex' in that context too. I hate to pull out the dictionary on you, but inherent is defined as "existing in something as a permanent attribute". Permanent is the opposite of changeable. So... no?

If you want to criticize someone whose views don't align with yours, the first thing you've gotta do is make sure you're criticizing things they're actually saying. You can't just assume the worst, take the most uncharitable interpretation against all evidence, and then cancel them for things they didn't say. Those are some sjw tactics.

Now can we get back to making fun of things they actually say? Idiotic tinfoil hat conspiracy theories are posted on gc reddit all the goddamn time, no lack of material.

The original tweet sounds like something an MRA would say about marriage to a woman. Just change women/men and the reasonings behind it. The problem lies in generalizing 50% of the population. But it also takes on another level of dumb by implying lesbian relationships are inherently superior to heterosexual ones. As if a woman is automatically going to be a better life partner.

 

[BE 911]

The original tweet sounds like something an MRA would say about marriage to a woman. Just change women/men and the reasonings behind it. The problem lies in generalizing 50% of the population. But it also takes on another level of dumb by implying lesbian relationships are inherently superior to heterosexual ones. As if a woman is automatically going to be a better life partner.

It's an even more ironic statement when you know that statistics show that the amount of abuse, rape and stalking by a partner is alarmingly high in lesbian relationships. If I recall correctly, it's a good 40% of lesbian relationships that happen to have an abusive partner in it, which honestly should make you feel REALLY worried if you are a lesbian. If you show that to these people they will flip their shit and irrationally defend the position that lesbians do not objectify, vulgarize, abuse or rape women, despite the statistics proving the contrary, and will continue to demonize men and heterosexual relationships because it has a man in it. It is literally the same reason why they demonize bisexual women because they think they are putting themselves at risk by dating men. It's just fear mongering and a pure emotional response that has no ground in reality, plain and simple.

 

[TerribleIdeas™]

That's certainly a valid point to argue whether you're considering studies showing that women still take on the majority of domestic chores and child rearing duties on top of full-time work now...

There's also a ton of studies showing that men work vastly more hours of paid work, and others showing that women control domestic spending. I'm not sure why feminists get worked up over the labour distribution in people's relationships, when it's pretty obviously the responsibility of the individuals involved in those relationships to negotiate that distribution, or renegotiate it when necessary.

(1) it says nothing about violence
(2) stating that men can change their behavior and that of those around them is the complete opposite of saying men are inherently bad. If it's inherent, it can't be fixed. Saying it can change means that you believe it's nurture not nature. After all, do you think these two statements are equivalent or opposite: "sexual orientation is inherent" vs. "sexual orientation can change"? Try 'biological sex' in that context too. I hate to pull out the dictionary on you, but inherent is defined as "existing in something as a permanent attribute". Permanent is the opposite of changeable. So... no?

Should I mention that the CDC NISVS shows that, by sexuality, the 3 most likely orientations to experience DV/IPV victimization by sexuality (in order) are bisexual women, bisexual men, and lesbian women. They all date women, coincidentally? Sure, correlation isn't causation, but it's an interesting datum to consider, when people like Bindel will insist that men are a problem without any evidence for the assertion, and when data tells a different story entirely.

Now can we get back to making fun of things they actually say? Idiotic tinfoil hat conspiracy theories are posted on gc reddit all the goddamn time, no lack of material.

One of the many reasons I don't have a reddit account - it's a slightly more erudite version of tumblr. Sometimes.

The original tweet sounds like something an MRA would say about marriage to a woman. Just change women/men and the reasonings behind it. The problem lies in generalizing 50% of the population. But it also takes on another level of dumb by implying lesbian relationships are inherently superior to heterosexual ones. As if a woman is automatically going to be a better life partner.

Can you link the tweet, because I went back looking for it, for context, and I'm probably an idiot, because I can't find it.

It's an even more ironic statement when you know that statistics show that the amount of abuse, rape and stalking by a partner is alarmingly high in lesbian relationships. If I recall correctly, it's a good 40% of lesbian relationships that happen to have an abusive partner in it, which honestly should make you feel REALLY worried if you are a lesbian. If you show that to these people they will flip their shit and irrationally defend the position that lesbians do not objectify, vulgarize, abuse or rape women, despite the statistics proving the contrary, and will continue to demonize men and heterosexual relationships because it has a man in it. It is literally the same reason why they demonize bisexual women because they think they are putting themselves at risk by dating men. It's just fear mongering and a pure emotional response that has no ground in reality, plain and simple.

In fact, gay men are the least likely to experience DV/IPV, according to the same CDC NISVS that shows that lesbians have higher incidence of it than heterosexual women. 100% noggin joggin'.

 

[sunshine]

If I recall correctly, it's a good 40% of lesbian relationships that happen to have an abusive partner in it, which honestly should make you feel REALLY worried if you are a lesbian.

The problem with that study is that the participants were surveyed about abuse they’ve experienced in their lifetimes, and most lesbians have relationships with men before realizing they’re gay (and being abused by men might even drive women to exclusively seek out same-sex relationships). Shame the research on this was so sloppy, because it is an interesting question.

Either way, the 3 women killed every day by intimate partners are certainly not killed by women; the homicide stats don’t have room for that many female murderers. This arguably does make lesbian relationships safer, though of course they’re not perfect, and Bindel didn’t claim that.

Anyway, here’s Serious Feminist Meghan Murphy tipsily giggle-flirting her way through a livestream with Benjamin Boyce to hopefully bring this thread back on topic:

 

[tuscangarder]

There's also a ton of studies showing that men work vastly more hours of paid work, and others showing that women control domestic spending. I'm not sure why feminists get worked up over the labour distribution in people's relationships, when it's pretty obviously the responsibility of the individuals involved in those relationships to negotiate that distribution, or renegotiate it when necessary.




Should I mention that the CDC NISVS shows that, by sexuality, the 3 most likely orientations to experience DV/IPV victimization by sexuality (in order) are bisexual women, bisexual men, and lesbian women. They all date women, coincidentally? Sure, correlation isn't causation, but it's an interesting datum to consider, when people like Bindel will insist that men are a problem without any evidence for the assertion, and when data tells a different story entirely.



One of the many reasons I don't have a reddit account - it's a slightly more erudite version of tumblr. Sometimes.



Can you link the tweet, because I went back looking for it, for context, and I'm probably an idiot, because I can't find it.



In fact, gay men are the least likely to experience DV/IPV, according to the same CDC NISVS that shows that lesbians have higher incidence of it than heterosexual women. 100% noggin joggin'.

 

[Ctrl+Alt+Rt]

I'm not here for gender wars debates. I'm just here to say that you can't call someone a scumbag who has batshit crazy views when you're attributing those extreme views to them. Bindel never said men are bad by default. Of course she wouldn't, because it's a contradiction of gender-critical beliefs, which is that gender is a construct of society, not inherent/default sexed behavior. And if the entire gender is bad by default, then it would fall to women to fix them, yes? But she thinks men should be doing this for each other. Unless you think she's advocating the blind leading the blind, it's pretty clear she's not saying All Men Are Evil™.

And frankly, seems like you'd need pretty delicate fee-fees to be offended by her saying "Men can [change the bar for male behavior if they want to], you mean"...

 

[TerribleIdeas™]

View attachment 790394

Those 2 are blatantly misanthropic, at the best of times, and that's a dumb tweet.

I'm not here for gender wars debates. I'm just here to say that you can't call someone a scumbag who has batshit crazy views when you're attributing those extreme views to them.

Bindel wrote an article advocating for locking men and boys away from women, which sounds like the position of someone that's convinced that men are inherently dangerous. The tweet above indicates she's either confused about whether men are inherently dangerous, or doesn't have a cohesive opinion on the topic.

Beyond that, I'll absolutely call someone a scumbag, if I think they're a scumbag, whether you like that or not. They can return the favour, if they like, for all I care.

Bindel never said men are bad by default. Of course she wouldn't, because it's a contradiction of gender-critical beliefs, which is that gender is a construct of society, not inherent/default sexed behavior. And if the entire gender is bad by default, then it would fall to women to fix them, yes? But she thinks men should be doing this for each other. Unless you think she's advocating the blind leading the blind, it's pretty clear she's not saying All Men Are Evil™.

Advocating for men and boys to be shut up in camps, away from women? That's doesn't sound like the position of someone that's got the opinion that men can change, it sounds like they think the opposite is true - that men are inherently dangerous, and that even young boys are a risk to women.

And frankly, seems like you'd need pretty delicate fee-fees to be offended by her saying "Men can [change the bar for male behavior if they want to], you mean"...

Or, it's entirely reasonable to be irked that the pair in question have repeatedly ignored statistics that directly rebut their claims that men are the problem, whether those statistics are ones showing -

• that women are at least as abusive as men,
• that lesbian women are more likely to be abusive than hetero men,
• that gay men are the least abusive, which is the exact opposite of what such stats should show, if men are inherently violent, since twice the men should demonstrably have twice the domestic and intimate partner violence.

It's not a matter of "men can change", since the issue is not men's inherent behaviour; instead, it's that abusive people are abusive people, regardless of their sex, but neither Bindel nor Penny seem capable of admitting that they're really clearly wrong. Both of them are blatant ideologues that refuse to examine huge meta-analyses and peer-reviewed data that directly contradict their pseudo-religious positions.

At least Bindel will simply ignore people that disagree with her, but Penny will claim that disagreement constitutes harassment.

 

[Alberto Balsalm]

There's not much room for debate on Bindel's position on men - she's written that she hates all men who do not actively combat abuse against women. If you're not an ally of hers, you're a scumbag. She claims that she has made room in her life for the "good ones", but it's not too difficult to find instances of bias, as such:

Her organization retweeted this thread. Sounds reasonable, right? Well, until you find out that they're celebrating their successful campaign for the release of a woman who killed her husband with a hammer for emotional abuse, isolation, and cheating. You can take virtually the same story, swap the genders, and she'll still go to bat for the woman no matter what.

And she is indeed a supporter of political lesbianism:

To me, political lesbianism continues to make intrinsic sense because it reinforces the idea that sexuality is a choice, and we are not destined to a particular fate because of our chromosomes. I also suspect that it is very difficult to spend your daily life fighting against male violence, only to share a bed with a man come the evening. Then there's the fact that working with women towards a common goal means you develop a strong and passionate bond with them - why some feminists then block out the possibility of sexual relationships with their political sisters and instead turn to men for intimacy is beyond me.

I think it's time for feminists to re-open the debate about heterosexuality, and to embrace the idea of political lesbianism. We live in a culture in which rape is still an everyday reality, and yet women are blamed for it, as it is viewed as an inevitable feature of heterosexual sex. Domestic violence is still a chronic problem for countless women in relationships with men. Women are told we must love our oppressors, while, as feminists, we fight to end the power afforded them as a birthright. Come on sisters, you know it makes sense. Stop pretending you think lesbianism is an exclusive members' club, and join the ranks. I promise that you will not regret it.

As well as a condemner of bisexuality, saying it's merely a fashionable trend, and women with integrity should "choose" to be lesbians. It is a bit ironic that /pol/ created "drop the B" to try to rally people against trannies, when many TERFs have been sincerely arguing the same thing for years.

I'll give her (like many other high-profile radfems) props for actually going out and doing legitimate activism, but her views are undeniably fringe. We definitely wouldn't be having this discussion if some irredeemable unhinged lunatic hadn't tried to assault her.

 

[Ctrl+Alt+Rt]

There's not much room for debate on Bindel's position on men - she's written that she hates all men who do not actively combat abuse against women. If you're not an ally of hers, you're a scumbag. She claims that she has made room in her life for the "good ones", but it's not too difficult to find instances of bias, as such:

View attachment 790533
View attachment 790536

Her organization retweeted this thread. Sounds reasonable, right? Well, until you find out that they're celebrating their successful campaign for the release of a woman who killed her husband with a hammer for emotional abuse, isolation, and cheating. You can take virtually the same story, swap the genders, and she'll still go to bat for the woman no matter what.

They are not the same story. The first one is an abusive husband (documented history of abuse) who has previous convictions for holding his wife hostage to abuse her continuously over 2 days, and who murdered her and his two children because he wanted to control her and not let them leave him – he incorrectly thought she was having an affair.

The second was an abused wife whose husband was actually having an affair while abusing her since she was 16 years old. She apparently could not escape from him because his domestic abuse hadn't been made illegal yet at the time (it was later) so he couldn't be jailed at the time. She murdered him to be able to escape his control. She didn't kill any children.

That's not "virtually the same story" with a gender swap. That's two abused women and two controlling men. The only thing identical is the murder weapon was a hammer – that's not the relevant detail.

Additionally, they're not celebrating releasing her scot-free, nor are they campaigning to have her get off entirely. They're celebrating a successful appeal for a retrial with the goal of allowing the woman to plead guilty to manslaughter, which carries a jail sentence. And she did end up pleading to manslaughter.

Maybe I'm just not a true warrior in the gender wars but it seems to me that a family annihilator (someone who murders their spouse and children) should get a harsh sentence and someone who kills only their abusive partner to escape them should get a less harsh sentence. The crime isn't as severe and they're not as dangerous an offender. I don't see any miscarriage of justice or hypocrisy here.

You're right that we wouldn't be having this discussion if someone hadn't attacked her, because I can't really think of any other context where the victim of an attack is called a scumbag and then we scrutinize everything they've said in the past for a whiff of wrongthink, trying to find something to justify the conclusion that was already reached.

 

[Alberto Balsalm]

They are not the same story. The first one is an abusive husband (documented history of abuse) who has previous convictions for holding his wife hostage to abuse her continuously over 2 days, and who murdered her and his two children because he wanted to control her and not let them leave him – he incorrectly thought she was having an affair.

The second was an abused wife whose husband was actually having an affair while abusing her since she was 16 years old. She apparently could not escape from him because his domestic abuse hadn't been made illegal yet at the time (it was later) so he couldn't be jailed at the time. She murdered him to be able to escape his control. She didn't kill any children.

That's not "virtually the same story" with a gender swap. That's two abused women and two controlling men. The only thing identical is the murder weapon was a hammer – that's not the relevant detail.

Additionally, they're not celebrating releasing her scot-free, nor are they campaigning to have her get off entirely. They're celebrating a successful appeal for a retrial with the goal of allowing the woman to plead guilty to manslaughter, which carries a jail sentence. And she did end up pleading to manslaughter.

Maybe I'm just not a true warrior in the gender wars but it seems to me that a family annihilator (someone who murders their spouse and children) should get a harsh sentence and someone who kills only their abusive partner to escape them should get a less harsh sentence. The crime isn't as severe and they're not as dangerous an offender. I don't see any miscarriage of justice or hypocrisy here.

Fair enough to point out that the two crimes weren't equally severe - I wouldn't have objected to the man remaining in prison, if he hadn't killed himself afterward. Yet I still don't think her organization approached the two cases with equal parity. With the male assailant, there was evidence that he suffered from severe untreated mental health problems, but the tone in the thread implies that focusing on that downplays the severity of what he did. We're judging him based on his actions here.

In Challen's case, we're going to judge her by her intentions - or perhaps the post-hoc rationalization that she was trying to escape her abuser, rather than her statement that "if I can't have him no one can." Or maybe it's just that the man she murdered was a massive prick. Regardless, her mental health problems are placed front-and-center, and she's effectively portrayed as a victim and a martyr in spite of ending someone's life. Why the sudden switch between a punitive and rehabilitative point of view?

Certainly, Challen's husband was a disgusting, manipulative man who had groomed her since she was underage, and continually made her feel worthless and subordinate, even if he had never technically assaulted her. There are millions of women living in that situation right now. You probably know at least one. It begs the question: Why is it that the one woman who kills her husband is lionized and plastered all over the press, while the many women who would not are treated as footnotes, and the ones who have divorced and moved on from their abuse may very well not exist? How many women are actually helped by the knowledge that they can do less time in prison for killing?

This is the same problem I've always had with much of radical feminism. While the issues they fight are valid, legitimate problem-solving so often takes a backseat to ideological concerns about "fighting the patriarchy". God knows I would much rather be a stable human being than have people asspat me for fitting their victimhood profile.

You're right that we wouldn't be having this discussion if someone hadn't attacked her, because I can't really think of any other context where the victim of an attack is called a scumbag and then we scrutinize everything they've said in the past for a whiff of wrongthink, trying to find something to justify the conclusion that was already reached.

I wasn't aware that being the victim of an attempted assault suddenly excluded a subject from discussion on the Farms. I suppose we need to shut down the Sargon and Blaire White threads, then.

Also, while I don't believe she's lying about a troon lunging at her, the story she's trying to sell the press seems... less than plausible.

What are the odds that these college protesters would be using a dead, nearly decade-old meme that Bindel just found out about last month?

 

[ES 148]

lol I hate men

 

[Spinster]

Sadly, Julie has said that she won't be pressing charges against the bloke who assaulted her.

 

[Da Grim Reaper]

View attachment 792579

Technically everybody is Cis, because chopping your dick off, getting high on HRT, and having a blue hair isn't changing your gender anyways

 

[Larry David's Opera Cape]

Sadly, Julie has said that she won't be pressing charges against the bloke who assaulted her.

Why? He is clearly a nut who is dangerous to many more women than just her.

 

[TotallyAChick]

Technically everybody is Cis, because chopping your dick off, getting high on HRT, and having a blue hair isn't changing your gender anyways

It's not changing your SEX. Gender is a different thing.