Our discussion of Julie Bindel‘s latest book, Feminism for Women: The Real Route to Liberation, took place on 18 January 2022.
Key issues raised include the following:
Liberal vs radical feminism: According to Bindel the difference between these two approaches boils down to equality vs liberation. Radical feminists see women as an oppressed sex class subject to male violence (a class based analysis rooted in Marxism, though Bindel doesn’t go into this).
The liberal vs radical theme runs through the book, and was picked up by a number of MACS members. Evan flagged up the work of Janice Raymond, who criticises the liberal view that by reporting on women’s victimhood, radical feminists make them seem passive and lacking in agency. Björn pointed out that while a woman might freely choose to work in prostitution for example, seeing this purely as an exercise of free choice ignores broader issues of general oppression and power imbalance.
Subversion of feminist concepts: An interesting aspect of the liberal/radical feminist conflict. Examples include the concept of safe spaces – originating in 1970s feminism, these were actual spaces protected from the threat of male violence, but the concept has increasingly come to mean safety from threatening opinions (Bindel talks about an academic conference she attended where students were offered a “safe” room plastered with comforting slogans like “trans women are women”).
Another example is intersectionality, which began as the idea that people can be subject to a variety of different oppressions, therefore it’s not enough to talk about women’s liberation without taking account of the fact that women can be further oppressed on account of being black or working class, etc. Nowadays intersectionality has come to mean inclusivity, i.e. feminists are expected to be inclusive of people who are oppressed or marginalised but who aren’t actually women. The problem with this is that it risks turning feminism into a campaign for social justice in general with no specific focus on women’s rights (or even hostile to them).
Sexual revolution – good or bad? The sexual revolution of the 60s and 70s is usually seen as liberating for both men and women. But Bindel questions this, pointing out that women have continued to be held to account for their sexual behaviour in a way that doesn’t apply to men (i.e. the same old story). The pill, while “liberating” women from the fear of pregnancy, ironically makes it harder to resist pressure for sex from male partners as it is one less reason for saying No. A number of feminists such as Sheila Jeffreys have been saying this for a long time (Anticlimax, 1990) but the explosion of pornography and porn culture has recently given it new traction. A new book by Louise Perry The Case against the Sexual Revolution takes up the theme.
Standout passages:
Chris identified several pages that stood out for him, among them the following extended discussions:
p.42-44: on the mainstreaming of pornographic violence and the ‘rough sex’ defence in murder cases.
p.80-84: on how the concept of equality fails women and leaves patriarchy intact.
See also pages 15, 24, 29, 37, 39, 50, 62, 90, 91, 107, 150, 162.
Our verdict:
We found the book very readable and accessible, and were in agreement with the key points it makes.
Further reading:
During the meeting Chris also mentioned MACS’ work with a pro-feminist society at a UK private boys’ school, which included recommending the following books for beginners:
Key issues raised include the following:
Liberal vs radical feminism: According to Bindel the difference between these two approaches boils down to equality vs liberation. Radical feminists see women as an oppressed sex class subject to male violence (a class based analysis rooted in Marxism, though Bindel doesn’t go into this).
The liberal vs radical theme runs through the book, and was picked up by a number of MACS members. Evan flagged up the work of Janice Raymond, who criticises the liberal view that by reporting on women’s victimhood, radical feminists make them seem passive and lacking in agency. Björn pointed out that while a woman might freely choose to work in prostitution for example, seeing this purely as an exercise of free choice ignores broader issues of general oppression and power imbalance.
Subversion of feminist concepts: An interesting aspect of the liberal/radical feminist conflict. Examples include the concept of safe spaces – originating in 1970s feminism, these were actual spaces protected from the threat of male violence, but the concept has increasingly come to mean safety from threatening opinions (Bindel talks about an academic conference she attended where students were offered a “safe” room plastered with comforting slogans like “trans women are women”).
Another example is intersectionality, which began as the idea that people can be subject to a variety of different oppressions, therefore it’s not enough to talk about women’s liberation without taking account of the fact that women can be further oppressed on account of being black or working class, etc. Nowadays intersectionality has come to mean inclusivity, i.e. feminists are expected to be inclusive of people who are oppressed or marginalised but who aren’t actually women. The problem with this is that it risks turning feminism into a campaign for social justice in general with no specific focus on women’s rights (or even hostile to them).
Sexual revolution – good or bad? The sexual revolution of the 60s and 70s is usually seen as liberating for both men and women. But Bindel questions this, pointing out that women have continued to be held to account for their sexual behaviour in a way that doesn’t apply to men (i.e. the same old story). The pill, while “liberating” women from the fear of pregnancy, ironically makes it harder to resist pressure for sex from male partners as it is one less reason for saying No. A number of feminists such as Sheila Jeffreys have been saying this for a long time (Anticlimax, 1990) but the explosion of pornography and porn culture has recently given it new traction. A new book by Louise Perry The Case against the Sexual Revolution takes up the theme.
Standout passages:
Chris identified several pages that stood out for him, among them the following extended discussions:
p.42-44: on the mainstreaming of pornographic violence and the ‘rough sex’ defence in murder cases.
p.80-84: on how the concept of equality fails women and leaves patriarchy intact.
See also pages 15, 24, 29, 37, 39, 50, 62, 90, 91, 107, 150, 162.
Our verdict:
We found the book very readable and accessible, and were in agreement with the key points it makes.
Further reading:
During the meeting Chris also mentioned MACS’ work with a pro-feminist society at a UK private boys’ school, which included recommending the following books for beginners:
