Jane Clare Jones, her friends and their impact

JCJ is a silly woman who seems to think that her opinions matter. She accuses anyone who disagrees with her of being a “ Nazi “ who wants to put her up against a wall and shoot her, although perhaps that was posted when she was pissed…
She spent most of her time at the Glasgow Filia moaning to Julie Bindel

That’s excellent - thank you for sharing that.

Um, the title of the article followed by going on to say that Jane's words were a direct response to the question 'why haven't you tweeted about the report?'

I have no idea whether Jane has tweeted or written about the Commissioners report (or much else recently, as I haven't been on Twitter\X).

What is very clear, from Jane's previous writing and her recent posting on multiple channels, is that she's not apologising for or excusing rape.

It would piss me off if someone accused me of that tbh.

Where is that allegation in the article? That is JCJs typical hyperbole. Where is the evidence that she has read and acknowledged the full extent of Oct 7 laid out in this new report.

The reason I have no time for JCJ is that her whole shtick is the patriarchy. Yet when faced with the most vicious totalitarian patriarchy on the planet she makes excuses for them and blames liberal democracies. Does she really want Hamas to control all the land from the river to the sea, it would appear she does.

So the allegations that Jane is a rape denier or rape apologist are indeed not true.

Yes her position is clear. Yes, she acknowledges Hamas raped women but immediately follows with the ludicrous claim that they are no worse than the IDF.
She even references that gross piece of antisemetic propaganda in the NYT.
The fact that there is no ackowledgement of the sadistic cruelty inflicted on young people attending a music festival shows her true colours. She doesn't miss a beat before it's but the IDF do bad things too.

I think Jane outlines her position very clearly. She notes that there were two articles in the Telegraph last week using poorly evidenced arguments to try to position feminists as rape deniers.

Anyone know what the other one was?

I personally despair of the parties so desperate to find some women who deny that some members of Hamas have raped women, or believe that rape is a legitimate tactic in political struggles or conflict that they resort to making things up.

Just read JCJ's blog. [self righteous rant]
I despair, I really do
janeclarejones.com/2026/05/17/i-have-been-defamed-in-the-telegraph/

Susan says
Likewise. the feminists who draw any kind of moral equivalence between rape in war (everyone knows it happens, stop straw manning), and rape as war should be forced to read the Commission's report. Hamas are evil & choose women's bodies as their battlezone: it is that simple.

If l live to be 100. I'II never understand why intelligent women leap through psychological hoops to avoid acknowledging the bleeding obvious: some men are worse than others. Is it actual blindness. or fear of social consequences? Come on! Surely you are better than this

JCJ responds
We think it’s flagrant racism and dehumanisation being used in order to justify war crimes.

I don't know what she's whining about.
Hamas are not a race for a start they are a terrorist/political entity. They have committed war crimes against Israel.
The Telegraph article is fair comment. You're admitting that JCJ has made no direct acknowledgment of the new report and it's content.

catspyjamas1 has linked to the Twitter thread above. Those are Jane's words but that is not the question, comment or Tweet she was responding to.

This is the article.
https://archive.is/dPEV4

What answer did JCJ give when asked why she hadn't tweeted or comment about the new report.?

Was a JCJ fan. Was disappointed when I heard her speak (didn't finish thoughts or always make sense), and was very bored by the magazine. She's a valuable part of feminism but not the best all and end all.

It's not accurate though. Jane didn't make that reply to that question.

Spreading disinformation in a national newspaper is lazy, potentially slanderous journalism (which has probably had a high click through rate, so make that also self-serving journalism).

On being asked why she, and some other prominent British feminists, had failed to even tweet about the report, Dr Jane Clare Jones wrote: “We think it’s flagrant racism and dehumanisation being used in order to justify war crimes

This is the only quote relating to JCJ. It is accurate
The whole article is about the reaction to Oct 7 by Palestine supporting feminists.
I agree entirely with what is written, these feminists disgust me.
Why do you think it should not be in a newspaper? Is feminism not a political movement seeking to change society and the status quo? Should it not be scutinised publicly?
As usual you haven't laid out your reasoning. What do you object to exactly?
It is true that there has been silence about the new report from these feminists. Perhaps you could suggest a feminist reason for this silence.

What change has JCJ brought about ? Can anyone tell me ?

What are you talking about?!

I did what is quite common on FWR added a link about an issue a thread had already been created with a further development.

The initial part was about online interaction between feminist commentators commenting on each other.

I point out that for some unknown reason because as I say, I have no idea who JCJ is, that now a female journalist was also joining in this online critique of other women, but was more serious because it seemed to be a false accusation published in a national newspaper.

It may not bother you, but even though I dont know JCJ I think it disgusting that feminism in the national media is so constantly misrepresented.

If you dont think it is, or dont care, you dont have to pay any attention.

Let alone make up some fantasy in your mind about why I wrote what I wrote.

Just bizarre.

Lets hope you get a better nights sleep tonight.

Although you seem to be using the thread to air your interpretation of what JCJ has said, primarily by twisting her words to fit what would appear to be your preconceived agenda.

Oh, no I have somehow been misinterpreted sorry. This thread bitching about JCJ is the bait. The whole turning everything into a stupid tribal loyalty thing.

Not sure if you are addressing me but think you have missed the point.

Why are women in main stream media attacking feminists - of which there are many types - to make their own political points.

This thread was started about JCJ as an virtual commentator.

I was pointing out this bizarre situation.

Having some sort of virtual disagreement with other feminists is as I have already said of no interest to me.

But in the grand scheme of political interaction in the UK where does feminism within that fit? Why would randomly mentioning what a feminist may or may not have said figure in a broad sheet article.

And even if she did say what the newspaper article implied why would that be important enough to make it the basis of a whole article to trash feminists.

I am not trying to suggest no feminist should post online, or that other feminists should ignore them for doing this.

But for me it is just another example of when the main stream, both media and politicians, cherry pick feminism or feminists to suit themselves.

No respectable journalist would say the because a party member of a particular party said something that this was then the policy of the party.

For me it is about the fact that the mainstream media and politicians have no respect or real interest in feminism.

When convenient they will find a lone voice to justify what they want to do.

I'm just sick of it.