Owen Jones talks to Judith Butler

Critical Theory (aka Marxism under another name) is now mainstream and socially approved by the big corporations and politicians for opportunistic reasons. The purpose behind Queer Theory is to disrupt the "bourgeois family." Women are, of course, kicked under the bus.

Judith Butler wrote 'Gender Trouble' in 1990 and still 30 years later, only 25% of congress is female, there has never been a female US head of state, American women can't take their access to birth control for granted, and there is no maternity pay.

I prefer my feminism more British and tangible, thanks very much.

That is really interesting. Not meaning to derail thread but do you have any examples? Did the Guardian ever respond / change their ways

Yes, I'm pleased to say this has changed. All it took was consciousness of the practice in the first instance, and then a few reminders. But it is worth continuing to look out, particularly when you see crowd scene photographs...Not just in the Guardian , but in other publications too.

He has so much invested.

As much as I dislike LOJ, he isn't stupid. He will realize he's been scammed soon enough. That's why he's doubling down at the moment, I think. Most people double down before they hit the peak.

Just saw this on Twitter

Justhadathought - pertinent points.

Egyptian women"; or "Palestinian women".......as if being a citizen really meant maleness, and women were just add ons. Women could not be referred to simply as Iranians, Egyptians, or Palestinians.

Similar to the usual racist women trope women =‘white middle class women’.

Nope - we mean women - all women - most of whom aren’t white and many of whom are most vulnerable to the pernicious aims of TRAs/MRAs

They don’t care about Black women, Asian women etc - they are just ‘add ons’ to them which projects their own racism to support their sexism.

Nuttbar waffle best

I watched the first five minutes of this video...conclusions were:

JKR: best selling author of truth and light against Judith nutler waffle vest.

I cant even see the name without thinking "Burble burble Judith Butler" from the annals of the terf wars

A lot of talking to say nothing & that was just the first answer...#BoreOff (and leave women's rights alone)

crowds

Hey, it's almost as if they are using the Islamophobia argument in bad faith and they really don't give a fuck about Muslims

And certainly not about Muslim women.

For years I ran my own little campaign that focused on reporting to the guardian its own internalised sexism as it related to the by-lines that accompanied their photographs.

Typically, a photograph might show a gathering or crowd of men in Iran, Palestine, Egypt or so on...and the by -line would say " Iranians protest...", or " Egyptians demand......", or "Palestinians storm the walls"........But whenever a photograph included women, or the crows consisted mainly of women the by-line would say, " Iranian women..."; "Egyptian women"; or "Palestinian women".......as if being a citizen really meant maleness, and women were just add ons. Women could not be referred to simply as Iranians, Egyptians, or Palestinians.

This whole Islamaphobic accusation really translates as the unacceptability of people being critical of the treatment and positioning of women in Islamic states. Women's rights are not human rights. they are seen as being relative to culture. and this is on the British left - which hails equality above all.

Like I said before, he used to pride himself on the fact that he interviewed people he didn't agree with. Peter Hitchens, Jacob Rees Mogg, Anna Soubry and Dan Hannan to name a few.

So why isn't he interviewing gender critical feminists? Is he scared to debate someone like Julie Bindel or Julia Hartley-Brewer? Is he scared of the backlash by the trans community or worried that his arguments wouldn't stand up to scrutiny?

he is aware that the profoundly anti-feminist trans ideology cannot be defended on its own merits. So he has to pretend that those who oppose it are racists, and therefore bad people.

This seems absolutely correct, to me.

Feminists wish to centre females in the movement, and maintain single-sex spaces - this is totally uncontroversial and everyone knows it.

Therefore, those who wish to include males within 'female' have to swerve into random smears and non sequiturs.

Little OJ is doing these to take on the MSM, whilst being employed by the Guardian? Also - fuck being lectured on feminism by Little OJ

Actually as this situation becomes more visible they will start to find a huge amount of GC women from ethnic minorities simply because women like us are the ones most affected by the patriarchy and oppressed becaus of our sex. We cant identify out of our sex to avoid arranged marriages or fgm.
Fuck OJ and JB and their armchair idiotic spewing.

The trans rights activists never have explained how you can have males in female spaces while respecting religion.

Exactly. They are the true Islamophobes because they don't recognise Muslim women's right to single-sex spaces. All over the country local authorities have been running women-only swim sessions or gym sessions at least in part as a way of enabling Muslim women to participate. As soon as you allow biological males into those sessions, you exclude Muslim women.

Hey, it's almost as if they are using the Islamophobia argument in bad faith and they really don't give a fuck about Muslims.

So the accusation of racism is a deliberate, calculated attempt to smear. Why? Because he is aware that the profoundly anti-feminist trans ideology cannot be defended on its own merits.

It's definitely a smear campaign. Repeating the same propaganda - "Don't listen to those women (making all sorts of sense about their rights and safeguarding) because they're racists." Repeat until it's lodged in everyone's minds and distract them, as you say, from the lack of substance in their own arguments.

I find the accusation of islamophobia interesting... I remember during the man Friday protests the gender critical feminists argued that if you got rid of female only swimming then Muslim women wouldn’t be able to take part. The trans rights activists never have explained how you can have males in female spaces while respecting religion. As for criticism of the veil - come on! Judith butler is supposed to be a subversive queer theorist. You are supposed to question culturally hegemonic power structures on her theory. A better question would be why postmodernists are so accepting of veiling , given its patriarchal background and regressive connotations. I don’t see what’s so special about veiling that makes it entirely immune from feminist criticism.

Maybe if OJ or JB were people of colour they would understand the difference between literal violence and actual violence.

Absolutely. Two white people appropriating other people's experience of racism for their own ends is sickening.

And there's a fundamental dishonesty too. OJ knows perfectly well (as, I imagine, does JB) that a large proportion, if not the majority, of gender-critical feminists have a long history of left-wing and trade union activism. I was going on anti-apartheid demonstrations before OJ was even born. So the accusation of racism is a deliberate, calculated attempt to smear. Why? Because he is aware that the profoundly anti-feminist trans ideology cannot be defended on its own merits. So he has to pretend that those who oppose it are racists, and therefore bad people.

Except theres a large proportion of GC women like myself who are women of colour who are sick of seeing TRAs conflating mothers wishing for safeguarding around children, the breaking down of safety around women's spaces and the normalising of mens fetishes as anything do to with racism. Maybe if OJ or JB were people of colour they would understand the difference between literal violence and actual violence.

Spot on RoyalCorgi