Feminist Guardian Journalist - "All men should be shot" Tweet.

Scroll to see replies

this is why no1 outside of academia takes the guardian seriously.

she seems bitter probably because shes obese. any guys who retweeted/liked that are a very special type of human.

Reply 41

Cato the Elder

Like my English teacher.

Reply 42

username471863

She's a freelance journalist who has also written for Huffington Post, she is not employed by the Guardian.

There is actually an article in the Guardian criticising her:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/feb/01/julie-bindel-transphobia

Reply 43

CookieButter

Original post by WBZ144

She's a freelance journalist who has also written for Huffington Post, she is not employed by the Guardian.

My friend, I already stated that she is a freelance journalist in my original post. Still, this does not change the fact that the Guardian buys and publishes her articles.

Original post by WBZ144

There is actually an article in the Guardian criticising her:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/feb/01/julie-bindel-transphobia

The article isn't critical of Bindel's sexism or misandry. The article starts off with the author praising her. No, the author goes so far as saying she admires her and only questions her for her opinions about transsexuality.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 44

jape

Original post by CookieButter

We are free to express opinions but we are not free to make sexist or racist remarks in this country (nor any other civilised country for that matter). In this country people are not free to abuse others. In this country people are not free to commit hate crimes.

In the UK, gender is a protected characteristic. It is protected from discrimination under the Equality Act 2010. It is protected from discrimination by the law. We are free to debate gender issues and protest in a civilised manner but we are not free to demand that people be put in concentration camps or be killed because of their gender, as this women has done in her articles and comments. Such actions are considered hate crimes and are subject to litigation and punishment by the law. People who make sexist or racist remarks , like this, in public and/or on the internet can and often do wind up in court or in prison, loosing their jobs and fading into obscurity as apposed to going unquestioned and being celebrated as heroes.

In my original post, I questioned why this woman has not been challenged by her employers and why she has not been held to account by the law despite publicly expressing criminally sexist views. More importantly, I questioned why people like her are given the tools and power to enact their sexism and platforms from which they can preach and perpetuate their hate filled ways.

I hope that this has clarified things.

The solution to retrograde speech restrictions on gender issues isn't to just replicate the situation in favour of men. Julie Bindel is repulsive, and so is what she has to say. She should still have a platform.

Reply 45

CookieButter

Original post by jape

Who said that the solution is for men is to replicate the situation? No-one should have the right to break the law.

Reply 46

MyFightSong

So... even her dad, granddad, brothers and future sons?

Reply 47

Antigonus

>put them in jail
>then shoot them
Why not shoot them at the start, and save the hassle? Are all feminists this stupid?

Reply 48

Zargabaath

Original post by Antigonus

>put them in jail
>then shoot them
Why not shoot them at the start, and save the hassle? Are all feminists this stupid?

Well yeah... they're feminists

Reply 49

anarchism101

I agree. But the same applies with people like Yiannopoulos. He is no more being "censored" by being potentially denied a book deal or denied a speaking slot at a university hall than Bindel would be "censored" by being denied a Guardian column.

Reply 50

ChaoticButterfly

Well it worked and they got away with it. Also what do you peacefully but forcible protest? Surely sits and occupying building is a form of that. You could do that deny someone a platform to speak.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 51

anarchism101

OK, we're agreed at that level.

Things are different when public institutions, supported by taxpayers, are involved. Berkeley is a public university and I worry that being denied a slot to speak ignores the wishes of taxpayers who would've liked to hear him speak. They have to have some say in who gets to speak in public spaces supported by their tax dollars.

This is a bit multifaceted. For a start I don't really accept the argument that the public should necessarily have a say over public universities just because they receive public funding. Universities are places of academic research and learning, and that means certain standards. To give two relatively clear-cut examples, substantial sections of the American population believe in Creationism and the Confederate Lost Cause Myth, but neither belongs anywhere near a serious university.

Political speakers are somewhat harder to determine, as inevitably what they say is largely subjective opinion. On that basis alone, I think it might be fair to give Yiannopoulos the benefit of the doubt. But I'd say that changed with the UWM speech, in which he deliberately and premeditatedly singled out a student at the university to mock and abuse. From that point on, universities should be applying much greater scrutiny on him. Not necessarily bar him completely, but require him to submit his speech for review beforehand, or make him aware that if he does try a similar trick, he'll be asked to leave there and then, without finishing.

Now, the problem with the Yiannopoulean protests weren't that people voiced opposition to him speaking there. The problem was the violence and the hooliganism. If people want to peacefully but forcefully protest - great. But the law's the law, you don't get to break stuff or use force as a citizen to prevent anyone from speaking.

There are two levels to my answer here.

Firstly, just a more general point about protest and "violence". The latter is a bit of a nebulous concept, and people often tend to conflate violence, disruptiveness, and illegality together. Personally, I would only consider a protester to be acting "violently" if their acts are directly and physically targeting another person. For example, I don't really see window smashing as inherently "violent". Whether it's an advisable or sensible thing to do is another question.

Secondly, with regard to the Berkeley situation itself, I would note that the violence was (at least in part) sparked by a report that Yiannopoulos was planning to 'out' several undocumented students. Obviously I can't know for sure that this was going to happen, but it was credible enough for the university authorities to believe it, and it's certainly plausible. Yiannopoulos later denied it, but his denial isn't really very credible, as his claim of what the speech was going to be about was completely different to what he said it would be about before he went to Berkeley. If the report was true, however, then I'd say protester disruption to prevent him from speaking was entirely justified.