Jane Clare Jones, her friends and their impact

I think that’s Clare Page.

Jane is clear that she's not excusing rape. She's said that unambiguously on multiple channels the last few days.

Sorry no one is rising to your bait. Maybe you could engage with the actual topic if it’s something you care about instead of trying to turn it into a soap opera. I’m sick of political discussions being about trying to besmirch anyone you disagree with rather than being actual discussion of actual serious complicated topics. Like, I don’t actually even know who I agree with in that thread. But this game of whipped up outrage about quotes out of context and misrepresentations of people’s actual views just drives away anyone who doesn’t love the feeding frenzy away from the debate.

Quite. Jane is replying to the 'some men are worse than others' post.

Which bit of my suggesting that Nicola Lampert (among others) are so desperate to find some feminists who supported Hamas' atrocities on 7 October that they're making it up is nonsense, btw?

I read the Telegraph articles. The quote from JCJ gave me a WTF moment so i'm glad to learn she's trying to be more nuanced than Lambert's article implies. I don't blame her for being upset and i hope the Telegraph amend the article. I don't really think there's any need for nuance though. Hamas are monsters, for doing what they did on October 7th and for what they knew this would bring down on the heads of the Palestinians. Any Israeli who rapes, condones or ignores rapes is no better than Hamas imo.

I do think the influence of KJK’s politics are a worry and that does go beyond personality clash nonsense.

Why did you have to spoil it, I was almost agreeing with you, I used to enjoy her writing. Now she's heading into Judith Butler territory, a kind of tedious self righteousness. She's making the same arguments Owen Jones does.

I enjoy much of her writing. I don’t care about stirry stirry factionalism other than feeling sorry for the people involved that other people are using them for entertainment. I do think the influence of KJK’s politics are a worry and that does go beyond personality clash nonsense.

It looks like JCJ is a target of Nicola Lampert who appears to be DESPERATE to find an example of feminists who believe that rape is resistance and a legitimate tactic in political conflict and/or deny the atrocities committed by Hamas against Israeli citizens on 7 October.

Given that there do not appear to be any, Lampert has resorted to using some of Jane's words out of context to try to prove her unevidenced view.

It's a gross thing to do to any woman, let alone someone who has put in the public domain that she is a rape survivor, as Jane has.

People who feel strongly about an issue are bound to argue among themselves if they have different ideas on how to solve the problem. The more they care, the more passionate the argument.

In my experience, feminists of the 1970s paid at least lip-service to the principle of sisterly solidarity, but that didn’t stop some pretty robust disagreements.

I’m not interested in nit-picking about women’s political purity. Her personality is even less important. If a woman defends women’s rights, she’s a feminist and I’m with her on those issues even if I dislike some of her other views.

Just to say I have no idea who she is. And dont follow indiviudalist feminists - of which there are many on SM platforms - because i believe feminism as a collective project.

But as some on this thread said they find her interesting this is a recent post https://janeclarejones.com/2026/05/17/i-have-been-defamed-in-the-telegraph/

NB I have zero interest in derailing this thread to become one about the Israel Gaza conflict, but it is noticeable that the Telegraph is relentlessly pursuing this line that "feminists" deny there was sexual violence on 7 October, as those feminist who believe all men are potential rapists and rape is a weapon of war would be so dumb.

Although recently the Telegraph has been challenged to provide evidence of which "feminist" said what when. And this seems to be par to them saying here is one, but assuming JCJ is able to show how they have edited quotes to prove the Telegraph's assertion she has every right to complain.

But I suppose this is an added risk if you put yourself forward as an individual to comment as a feminist about feminism, you then become a target of more that competint feminsts who comment about feminism and other feminists.

Ah right. My apologies !

JCJ and Glinner are examples of people who need to get off Twitter or Substack, put down their phones and go outside and touch grass every now and then. Their basic philosophies are in the right place, but the online world has a habit of sucking you in and driving you crazy, with its relentless petty battles and addictive drive to reply to every idiot, and these two have been quite negatively affected by it.

I used to follow her in the old days and nearly went to one of her Feminism 101s (chickened out of going to a city I didn't know on my own). But I muted her after several long screeds and fallings out, and the edition of her journal that was all about KJK. Can't be doing with the intensity and frequency of the drama.

No, it's not. Alessandra Asteriti maybe?

Is it JCJ who is always bitching about Forstater - saying that the 'belief' line was the wrong one to take because sex isn't a belief it's just reality. Given that Forstater has allowed everyone to talk about gender critical beliefs without getting fired and JCJ doesn't appear to have an alternative suggestion I started to find her a bit tiresome and unfollowed her.

Obviously the wonderful Barracker posted Rohypnol on a thread here on mumsnet first.

I lost respect for her when I saw her using stupid argument tactics straight from tras. She’s used one in this debacle.

There’s feminism and there’s safeguarding and the two are not the same.

I agree. Too much drama.

The GC movement is a very broad church. We didn't elect a leader. We haven't all signed up to a manifesto.

I don’t need to agree with everything JCJ, KJK or even JKR says.

I quite often disagree with them all.

Sex is immutable and politically and socially relevant. Women are entitled to certain single sex spaces. That’s all I need to agree with anyone on.

I really, really dislike virtue signaling, purity spirals and tribalism. I don’t have to agree with you on everything you believe in to stand with you on biological reality.

I’m not very keen on MN threads designed to whip up feeling against another woman either.

My impression of JCJ, and I don’t follow the ins and outs of it all, is that there are ins and outs. I’m fairly sure I’ve read more than one denunciation from her. An extended essay about how someone unnamed (but we are supposed to know who) is doing it wrong and we should all withdraw our support.

Sorry mate, but A I’ll support whoever is doing something useful looking in any given moment. B Don’t tell me what to think. C stop trying to send people to Coventry, we are supposed to know better.

I felt the same way about the letter from the actresses. Have opinions, share them, don’t behave as though you have the right to tell me what I ought to think.

There is a need; it helps to satisfy @BusyAzureTraybake narcissistic obsession. It's not enough to quietly hide the thread and/or simply not engage; they have to INFORM YOU they are not engaging because, because, because.

It's all so predictable with that type...

I read her posts way back when, probably almost a decade ago by now. Much of her writing was very lucid and illuminating. And complex, of course. Later it seemed to veer more to complexity than lucidity and being a lazy sort of blighter, I read her less and less.

Didn't follow all the various arguments between feminists.