Zoe Williams opinion piece in The Guardian

Yes, they really really do. It's actually quite shocking at times to see the levels of hostility.

As condescending middle class writers they KNOW that the only class to support is the working class.

That’s the only part of your informative post that I’d say is no longer correct, Stumbledin. The Guardian’s patronising concern for the working class became open contempt when someone realised you could call them ‘white racists’ instead, and suddenly they became the problem.

Dishonest, but you have only to read the comments (where these are allowed) to see how many of their readers despise the working class.

Has anyone asked her yet what happens if Harvey Weinstein decides (s)he wants to transition? No it is not all about toilets.

Well, I'm stretching thoughtful to include anyone who goes beyond parroting dogma but yes, standards are low right now.

Hadley Freeman I might call thoughtful, Moore not so much, really. But the feminist writers at the Guardian have always been pretty poor, they used to run Laura Bates, Jessica Valenti, ugh.

The Graun has some thoughtful writers such as Suzanne Moore and Hadley Freeman. They also employ Zoe Williams.

The kindest interpretation I have is that they needed a piece to balance that of Suzanne Moore and Williams drew the short straw. More likely is that, for Zoe, being Left Wing outweighs being a feminist, what with that early mention of 'taking the side of the oppressed' and her wish to redirect that energy towards climate strikes rather than in ways that 'suit the Alt Right' (I hope you're proud of yourselves).

(Also, this was quite a revealing quote 'As a cause matures, it gets to the point where everyone recognises that their individual view no longer matters' - not for Zoe the threads here and elsewhere as people try to puzzle out the issues of the day. Nope, it's all about toeing that party line).

My takeaway was that, for Zoe, feminism is more about recruiting that monstrous regiment of women and pointing them at whatever the cause du jour is rather than about the interests of those women themselves.

(Reading back, looks like stumbledin beat me to it. Oh well).

I wonder what Hadley Freeman makes of it.

Just saying I haven't read all of this thread but it is no surprise that Zoe Williams would have written this.

This is well in line with the comments she has been making about (radical) feminism ever since the Guardian put her forward as their (faux) feminist commentator.

She is part of a group of socialist women who think that being condesending and partonising to people (particularly women) who dont have correct thoughts, will somehow re-educate them.

The pro-trans position of the Guardian is just part of what has been their position on feminism for the past 3 decades. They do not accept the analysis of women being oppressed as a sex class.

As condescending middle class writers they KNOW that the only class to support is the working class.

The trans mythology didn't take hold in the Guardian by magic. It was / is just the tool to berate radical feminists with.

Also, if anyone can be bothered, 9 times out of 10 when articles are closed for comments on the web site they are open for comments on facebook. Interestingly Zoe Williams' article has not been that well received on facebook! www.facebook.com/GuardianOpinion/posts/3051580644874444?tn=-R

If you aren't signed up to facebook you will need to keep dismissing the annoying sign in box that keeps popping up.

The facebook entry of Suzanne Moore's article hardly got any response at all. www.facebook.com/GuardianOpinion/posts/3050607921638383?tn=-R

Context:
Next Tuesday Centre for Women's Justice & End Violence Against Women Coalition,

"will be in court trying to get permission for a judicial review against the CPS for their change in policy that has seen a 51% drop in charges of reported rapes in 5 years. Please come and show your support!"

mobile.twitter.com/centreWJ/status/1237338562745548801

Centre for Women's Justice
"OUR MISSION:
To hold the state to account and challenge discrimination in the justice system around male violence against women and girls.
We do this by:
Holding the state accountable for failures in the prevention of violence against women and girls

Supporting individuals and groups who challenge institutions and laws that perpetuate such violence

Undertaking strategic litigation and facilitating legal assistance

Bringing together victims, women’s groups, lawyers, academics and other experts in the field of violence against women

Raising awareness of specific cases and issues arising from our work

Monitoring and challenging trends in policy, practice and the law which impacts on violence against women and girls"

www.centreforwomensjustice.org.uk/about

threads:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3845203-The-Decriminalisation-of-Rape

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3844803-Spades-required-Judicial-review-against-CPS-Justice-for-rape-victims

Feminine men escaping toxic masculinity? There are many ways people, including women, including feminists, would look to help those men have a better place in the world.

These men aren't fleeing toxic masculinity. Many are the embodiment of it. Taking on superficial markers of femininity doesn't equate to taking on feminine behaviours. It's perfectly possible for a man to demonstrate male-dominant behaviour while wearing lipstick and a skirt. I have no interest in helping sexist men, regardless of what they wear. Sorry for being terse, but I'm sick of the lie that clothes and hairstyles = 'gender'. Gender (sex roles) is about male entitlement to women's bodies, labour and lives. Feminine-presenting men often display that entitlement in spades.

As for Zoe Williams, I wouldn't even give her the benefit of the doubt as being blinded by misplaced compassion. Because unlike some women, she really DOES know what she's supporting. She makes that clear in the article. Of course she's aware of White, Yaniv et al. She even alludes to them when she speaks of 'operational difficulties'. That's code for 'of course women are being hurt and will continue to get hurt'. She doesn't care, because she considers men more important. At one point she implicitly sneers at the idea that 'cis women need protected status', so presumably she includes her daughter in that too. She really just is that callous when it comes to women and girls. She has all the sympathy in the world for males like Belcher, and none at all for women like Dances.

And that callousness needs to be pointed out at every opportunity. Rank misogynists like Williams should not get to pose as noble and compassionate when they are pushing the most horrendously sadistic policies on female victims of male violence. Spell out exactly what it is they are supporting under the guise of 'inclusiveness'.

Zoe Williams once wrote what a shame it was that Labour lost the 1992 general election, which a lot of people had got their hopes up about. And then she casually said that she hadn't actually voted, because she couldn't be arsed.

The continued Tory government was a disaster the botched privatisation of the railways was just one result that we're still suffering from. I can understand voting for someone else, even voting Tory if that's your belief. But just not bothering, and then agreeing what a shame it was -

I didn't read her stuff for years after that. Then I thought she must be worth reading as the Guardian still publishes her. Then I read some of her stuff and realised it still wasn't worth it. She should get it all translated by Torktorkbam before it goes into print.

Dances me neither. ❤️

Thanks chilling. I'm not sure why that piece got to me. That and Billy Bragg, it's depressing to find that women are so obviously unimportant to supposedly 'caring' people. Or it's 'enforced caring' - women must care about everyone else and not their own interests or safety.

Have shaken myself off. Not going down without a fight.

Puuuuuuuulllllll.

True - and yet she must be aware, surely, not only of the Karen White case, but of the dozens of violent male criminals who now identify as trans women? Of the case of sexual predator Jessica Yaniv targeting vulnerable immigrant women? Of the trans women admitted into women's shelters who then take pics of themselves with their dicks hanging out, relishing the transgression? How can you be aware of that stuff and not have some pause for thought?

It would be really ineresting to know which 'information' Williams (& many others) have received which has meant they are able to discount all of this.

There are narratives which are accepted by many people, that White was placed in female estate because of a failure in the risk assessment process. That this failure was acknowledged by the prison authorities & that 'anti-trans' activists have relentlessly used this single event to 'label all trans women as rapists' etc etc

Those who rely on Twitter are more susceptible to manipulation.

March 2019 Speech by Helen Belcher given to London-based human rights lawyers Leigh Day may give some insight into how any pause for thought might be limited:

challengingjourneys.files.wordpress.com/2019/03/leigh-day-27-feb-2019.pdf

Tribalism, basically.

I mean, someone should write a bloody sociology thesis on these mechanisms, really, because who knows, human being might one day evolve to be able to really learn from our collective weaknesses...

Confirmation bias is very powerful.

True - and yet she must be aware, surely, not only of the Karen White case, but of the dozens of violent male criminals who now identify as trans women? Of the case of sexual predator Jessica Yaniv targeting vulnerable immigrant women? Of the trans women admitted into women's shelters who then take pics of themselves with their dicks hanging out, relishing the transgression? How can you be aware of that stuff and not have some pause for thought?

She has a daughter too. Does she really want her sharing the PE changing room with a teenage boy who identifies as a girl?

I find it very depressing that people like Williams can't see this.

The majority of people are susceptable to manipulation.
Confirmation bias is very powerful.

It was a huge mistake when the government (and Stonewall) decided the best way to help those men was by rebadging them as women in the eyes of the law. Keep in mind this was done primarily to avoid having to legalise gay marriage at the time.

They were lobbied by transactivists from Press For Change, GIRES Beaumont Society etc not Stonewall.

The same transactivists lobbied Stonewall for many years to be included. This was resisted for a long time.

The same transactivists have continued to lobby the media, charities, public services.

Important thread with collated history of UK policy aking by trans activism:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3463920-Lets-go-back-to-2007

Agree with every word, TorkTorkBam. I find it very depressing that people like Williams can't see this.

Royal I can see where they are coming from, however, I think it is only an issue because the law has created the lie that men can be women. If the GRA did not exist and legal sex could be checked by a DNA text then it would be an entirely different conversation.

Feminine men escaping toxic masculinity? There are many ways people, including women, including feminists, would look to help those men have a better place in the world. Same for the masculine women. No doubt well tailored to their specific needs.

It was a huge mistake when the government (and Stonewall) decided the best way to help those men was by rebadging them as women in the eyes of the law. Keep in mind this was done primarily to avoid having to legalise gay marriage at the time.

Of course a tragic unintended consequence has been the psychological and physical destruction of thousands of girls who heard that lie created to soothe feminine men and were led to believe they could opt out of growing up to become women, which is of course impossible. Those poor detransitioners. I even feel sorry for daft Freddie with the pregnant man and lies on birth certificates palava. Sold a lie.

Oh dear Helen won't like how her thread has gone. I'm not sure what will be worse for her: the high proportion of women pushing back or the fact that her thread has been mainly ignored.

No doubt Helen Belcher is cheered by the impact of the speech made on Zoe Williams seven years ago & perhaps also the recent twitter 'rant'.

Excellent post from DonkeySkin: absolutely right in every respect. And this is a good summary of the argument made by people like Williams:

IMO one of the big beliefs driving women's support of trans ideology is that men who are marked as feminine are just like us, and therefore we are united in the fight 'against patriarchy'. There's no downside to letting males onto 'team woman', because we basically want and need the same things. They suffer like women, they are treated like women, and most importantly, they are ON THE SIDE OF WOMEN, so we owe them solidarity in return. All of these assumptions are mistaken, the last one especially so.

I'm sure I've mentioned it on here before, but there is a blog post somewhere that says the split among feminists is between those who see trans women as refugees from masculinity and those who see them as colonisers of femininity. Because people like Williams see trans women as essentially vulnerable people trying to escape the restrictions and trappings of masculinity, then those of us who cast doubt on that by oh-so-inconveniently pointing out that men are still men, and women, especially vulnerable women with a history of sexual abuse, don't want them in our spaces, look like a bunch of old meanies. How dare we be so horrid by implying that trans women might be sexual predators? I think this mindset is so strongly engrained that arguing people out of it through logic and evidence is almost impossible.

Gah! Missing out words. I need to stop typing when feverish.

DonkeySkin, you're more eloquent than I am, and yes, that is the kind of reasoning I meant - if we spent all our time doing a weird back back and forth of 'men can women!' 'NO, they can't!' then we'd be on a spiral to nowhere.

Getting down to the nuts and bolts, showing the faulty underlying premises, talking about consequences and properly examining motivations.

Trouble is, so much of this is bloody hard work - both for those of us trying to make the case, and those we are trying to convince. I tend to think that's the basic reason we find it so difficult to make progress; this is a huge endeavour, requiring commitment and hard work, and nearly all of us have jobs, families and wider lives to contend with too.

Oh dear Helen won't like how her thread has gone. I'm not sure what will be worse for her: the high proportion of women pushing back or the fact that her thread has been mainly ignored.