Why are some gender critical feminists praising Rod Liddle?

Well yes, the Sun and Sunday Sport etc was also disgusting in it's open sexualisation of children and was part of a much wider general tabloid and media culture that viewed girls**, particularly working class girls, as sexually fair game, provocative and responsible for tempting men. And sexual relationships between said young girls and much older men as OK. Several men in that millieu were later sent to prison as a result of crimes committed that their jobs made easier. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-27259318
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce8pk06wrx0o . Of course that doesn't mean everyone involved in the sexualisation of sixteen year olds (and younger) was a predator but they had a role in facilitating a culture in which predators thrived.

Nowadays that very open attitude towards young teenage girls as being "up for it" has been memory holed but it also had a role in the way the grooming of young girls was ignored for so long. As much as those same tabloids like to pretend that it was only a result only of foreign attitudes completely alien to our own. They were part of pushing the "slags" narrative about working class children

The fact the Liddle's views were common among his peers does not make his views any less bad.

**I use the word girls to mean girl children as in under 18 as opposed to young women.

https://spectator.com/article/a-teenage-girl-a-maths-teacher-and-a-righteous-tabloid-fury/?edition=us

"I don't think I'd have dabbled much below year ten as it is now called."

So 14-15 year olds.

This article was written in 2012, by the way. The Sun stopped publishing topless photographs of under 18s by the early 90s so I'm not sure of the relevance.

Unless he is specifically claiming to be attracted to girls below the age of consent, I think he is talking about potentially being being sexually attracted to older female students, which might be a bit ick, but it's a stretch to call it paedophilia. It seems much more likely that he was just trying to shock

Year 10. So that's 14 -15 year olds.

And there have been massive bust ups between Gender Critical feminists because they don't share political views. I think some of them would find it easier to be in a room with Jolyon Maugham than they would with each other.

And women still require sex based rights and it's still impossible to change sex.

I thought you were referring to his article in the Guardian where he talked about child sex abuse images.

"I could not remotely conceive of not trying to shag the kids"

Is that the entire quote? Unless he is specifically claiming to be attracted to girls below the age of consent, I think he is talking about potentially being being sexually attracted to older female students, which might be a bit ick, but it's a stretch to call it paedophilia. It seems much more likely that he was just trying to shock.

For comparison the Sun used the strapline "Sam, 16, Quits A-Levels for Ooh-Levels" when they first used her photo in 1983, Katie Price first appeared in the Sun when she was 17 and Charles proposed to Diana when she was 19. I don't approve of any of things (and can explain why at length), but it's going to be a long fight if you want to convict every man who is attracted to teenage girls.

But if you do want to do that and think that he was confessing to paedophilia in the pages of the Spectator, you should definitely contact them.

Is it interesting? I can't speak for anyone else, but I was certainly aware of all that about Liddle. What does it tell us?

That some people, including feminists, get on with people we probably wouldn't? Because, again, I already knew that.

That some people have different boundaries? Again, already knew that. In fact anyone who had paid any attention at all to FWR might note that many of the discussions centre on where people's boundaries are, and their right to establish them and have them respected.

What it doesn't tell us, however, is anything about whether any male people are women who deserve the right to access women-only spaces and services. Spoiler: they aren't and they don't.

Oh sure, but it's a waste of time even bothering to mention that on MN - overt racism and making jokes about the Holocaust is generally brushed off as "having a different opinion". Although it seems being a barely repressed nonce is too nowadays.

Interesting to see that no one else on this thread has picked up on Rod Liddle's fondness for making racially provocative posts - either just within the line, as in his mainstream media work, or well beyond the line in his anonymous Millwall online persona.

There is a carefully balanced thread by the excellent Sunder Katwala here (it also mentions, which I didn't know, that Liddle was found in contempt of court for an article on the Stephen Lawrence trial):

bsky.app/profile/sundersays.bsky.social/post/3msakfjnvrk2c

Of course. Many (most hopefully) paedophiles do not act on their perverted desires. However that does not mean they are not paedophiles.

Are you referring to his article in the Spectator where he said he could never have been a teacher as "I could not remotely conceive of not trying to shag the kids"?

If you don’t want to see ‘things that violent men can join in with’, I suggest you avoid transactivism.

You don't do trans people any favours by suggesting that it's transphobic to believe that people can't change sex and women need sex based rights.

No, but TBH if it was someone writing as a friend of course they have that right to do so. But also, I do judge people in the sort of women's rights spaces who are friends with those people. Maybe that's wrong. I doubt they care about my judgement anyway. But for example someone who was a very vocal campaigner against child sexual exploitation being close friends with Thatchel or that "little girls can be sexy guy" would feel a bit jarring to me. In a way it wouldn't if an anti-racism campaigner was personal friends with a very right wing person or a socialist was friends in a personal capacity with a pro-billioniare Reagan economist.
Again, no reason why they would give a shit. But I think some views are more corrosive than others.

I wasn't commenting on whether it was in general use. Just replying that rape is not sex, so cannot be porn. And completely agreeing that the term should never be used in reference to children.

It's always been known that viewing CSA creates demand.

I hate the term 'joyless' feminist. As if feminism's there to be fun. I take it to mean 'something violent men can't join in with'. Unlike transphobia.

Jenni Murray was a decent person I agreed with on several issues, and I grew up listening to her. I felt very let-down by her transphobia. She was no Rod Liddle, but all transphobic speech causes harm - and she had a position of authority. Shame she used it to kick down.

@BackToLurk
Agreed. I wouldn't mourn his passing, but I wouldn't be disrespectful either. I wouldn't be critical of the people mourning him. There's a time and a place for everything.

If Peter Tatchell dropped dead tomorrow, I wouldn’t be in the slightest bit affected. I wouldn’t however begrudge people who knew him expressing their sadness, shock or whatever else they felt.

I don't know what Sadira was claiming. But I don't think he was a paedophile. I do think he was someone who argued, in a joking but not really joking way, to downplay sexual exploitation of teenage children. I am not saying that should be illegal, free speech and all that, but they are the sorts of opinions that should be beyond the pale. Peter Tatchell is another one who, despite being very brave in protesting genuine discrimination against gay people in Russia, I would never want to be aligned with or express sympathy for. Because his views on paedophilia outweigh any other positive positions he took (and that's before he started supporting men in women's prisons etc). Of course there are some horrible people that I might end up sharing some views with. I'm not going to scrap those views just because a horrible person also thinks it. But it also doesn't change my mind about that person.

If it was someone you disagreed with (say a TRA) who wrote the same things he wrote you would probably (rightly) hold it as an example of their poor moral character (and there have been threads on people like that here. Many such cases unfortunately). It also reflects poorly on Liddle's character. Dead or otherwise.

Russell Brand

Uh?

His views were gross though.
I can remember people getting mad at the sort of "blokey" types fully supporting "trans rights" because they know a trans women/knew a bloke who transitioned to being a woman and therefore had loyalty to them even if it meant a bunch of nameless women were hurt. And then you get the very emotionally manipulative articles arguing that any disagreement is hurting real people so should be banned.

Likewise people that turn a blind eye to child abuse or rapists because they are a friend/play on the football team they support/are on the same side of politics/are a freedom fighter/are in the army.

Rod Liddle wasnt as bad as that but his views and jokes around child sexual abuse were gross. Him being dead doesn't make them less gross or mean they should be ignored. I wouldn't dance on his grave, but it's perfectly reasonable to criticise a dead persons views regardless of whether this hurts their family. I actually have a lot of space for people who disagree with me on gay rights, women's rights, immigration, foreign policy, history etc. There are lots of areas where I can disagree hugely with someone in one area and find common ground in another. But child sexual stuff is a red line. I don't think it should be seen as an agree to disagree issue and I don't think people with strange views on it should be accepted as allies in other areas. And I think it should be called out even if the person also said stuff I agree with. Even if they are dead.

I’m going to hazard a guess that @SadiraOfTyr didn’t claim Liddle was a paedophile when he was alive and would have possibly sued the arse off them.

The dead person can’t read the tweets. HTH.

The term ‘child pornography’ was in general use when Liddle was writing. The idea that ‘only’ viewing CSA images was not the same as child abuse, may not have been the majority position, but was certainly expressed by others at the time. As I said earlier, it is largely due to the work of the ‘joyless feminists’ rather than the fun type, that this has changed.

I’m assuming you enjoyed the letter from the peerless Jenni Murray regarding Liddle’s article and obviously expressed your sadness when she died.

Because the people witnessing the abuse directed at the bad person is not the bad person, it's their friends and family. They are already suffering, it's not humane to desire to make them suffer more in their grief. There's something quite ghoulish about trying to vilify the dead. There's different levels of bad behaviour, but to some people who engage in black and white thinking it's all or nothing. The person was either good or bad, and if they were bad, they were as bad as Hitler. One can only assume these people have never done anything bad in their lives and are perfect angels, otherwise by their own rules they are literally Hitler.

Anyone who views images of someone being raped - of whatever age- isn't using pornography. They're contributing to the person's abuse.

And it isn't virtue signalling to point that out. Rape is not sex. Anyone viewing it condones, celebrates and is complicit in violence.

I would really like the term 'child pronography' banned. It sanitises what the material actually is: life-destroying, violent abuse of children.

Anyone who views it fuels its creation, and is actively harming kids. Liddle absolutely knew that.

If someone was a terrible person alive why should they be less terrible when dead?