My letter to The Spectator, in response to an absurd article by Julie Bindel on prostitution

In January 2014 Julie Bindel lied about her involvement with a website which I’d mentioned in the course of my speech during a debate at Durham University, and while she later apologized to me privately in a phone conversation, she declined to do so publicly. The story is here. She was a particularly worthy winner of our Toxic Feminist of the Month award.

Bindel’s article The ‘sex worker’ myth is in the current edition of The Spectator, a magazine to which I’ve subscribed for some time. The article is absurd on so many levels, little more than a series of unsubstantiated anecdotes – without evidence, I’ll assume most were invented by Bindel – and rehashing of long-discredited feminist narratives. It spans two pages in the print edition, and includes one (short) paragraph on boys being prostituted, as a way to batter alleged ‘powerful men’. There is not one sentence on adult male prostitutes, because that would derail the feminist narrative in itself.

I’ve just emailed the magazine (letters@spectator.co.uk) and invite you to do likewise. The content of my email:

Sir: As a subscriber to your magazine, and the leader of Justice for Men & Boys http://atomic-temporary-215937230.wpcomstaging.com, the only political party in the English-speaking world campaigning for the human rights of men and boys on many fronts, I am regularly appalled by the amount of absurd feminist narratives you publish. But to publish an article on prostitution by Julie Bindel, one of the most odious (lesbian) radical feminists of her generation, is beyond the pale. It would not be out of place in the New Statesman.

Might I suggest a non-feminist narrative on an important gendered issue, for a change? I’d be happy to write an article for you on why non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors – Male Genital Mutilation, MGM – is still not the subject of action from the criminal justice system despite being illegal (as the infliction of Actual Bodily Harm, probably Grievous Bodily Harm) under the Offences Against the Person Act (1861). No exemptions from the law are permitted on religious or cultural grounds.

If everyone who read this gave us just £1 – or even better, £1 monthly – we could change the world. Click here to make a difference. Thanks.

4 thoughts on “My letter to The Spectator, in response to an absurd article by Julie Bindel on prostitution

  1. Great letter Mike. I think Bindel has acquired an entirely unwarranted popularity in the right-wing press because she doesn’t like female-to-male transexuals, (she was banned from giving a talk at a university as a result).

    Like

  2. Well done Mike I saw the Spectator in Waitrose picked it up looked at the cover and put it down again. The portrayal of men in the “picture” related to the article was enough for me so I voted with my wallet. In the end I suppose they print what sells and an article that creates controversy may lead to an increase in publicity and circulation ,so I didn’t want to fall into the trap of aiding that process.

    Like

  3. reasoning with a feminist is like trying to explain E=MC2 to a Grade 2 student. At least grade 2 student will make an effort to understand. But the feminist does not want to know the truth. Truth is her and her ideology’s biggest enemy.

    Like

Leave a comment