Why are some gender critical feminists praising Rod Liddle?

That article does not support child abuse.

'the one laudable and necessary aim - to protect children from abuse'

The “collective neurosis and confusion about paedophilia” had been explored two years earlier in the Paedogeddon episode of Brass Eye. All you’re doing is highlighting you have no clue about what was debated and discussed in the U.K. in the early 2000s.

Spectator compilation. Rod Liddle imitating Rowley Birkin imitating Boris Johnson; that's going to stay with me

When I made my earlier comment I hadn't realised he'd died. Mea culpa.

Doesn't change how I feel about him. But I wouldn't have been as callous.

It's a legal term that means accessing images. FWIW.

And to clarify my position: Images of CSA are abhorrent, and accessing or viewing - 'making' them - is rightly illegal. Before anyone jumps on me for 'supporting' it because I am explaining a term.

Do you understand what 'made' means in the context of accessing images of CSA?

There is an irony, unlost on me at least, that the kind of 'no-fun feminist' who would have been arguing against men who held a similar position to the one Liddle explores, are exactly the type of women that the OP and their ilk probably normally consider po-faced, puritanical kink-shamers.

Radical feminists have been pretty consistent on their attitudes toward porn and sexual images of children.

Kirstie Allsop referred to him as ‘a class act whether or not you shared his views’ - don’t think KA would ever be described as GC.

The news from twitter is that some gender critical feminists who knew him in a personal or professional capacity have said nice things about Rod Liddle.

Other gender critical feminists who didn't know him broadly share the OP's opinion.

His family clearly loved him.

Men are still not women.

He was consistently down on the mentally ill and stated that gluten and peanut intolerance were made up imaginary illnesses. He referred to "mental elf" like it was comical and a ruse to get attention or cheat the system.

OP: He was a wife-beating misogynist who argued that it shouldn't be a crime to look at images of child abuse.

None of this is true so what exactly is your issue with Rod Liddle? Is it that he stood up for women, is that it? You have made a thread to blame Kathleen Stock and Julie Bindel for admiring a man who was a friend and supported the rights of women. Well done you.

He was also a funny and imaginative writer and a person brave enough to go against the crowd. By making up over the top scenarios he revealed a lot about culture and politics. Bad faith posters can attack him by pretending everything he wrote was 'who he was' but mate, it's cringe making.

Shagging teen jokes? No I wouldn't be rushing to say lovely things but I didn't know the guy.

My impression is that the people expressing sorrow about Rod Liddle's death did know the guy.

Liddle wrote that shortly after Peter Townshend was arrested for downloading child sex abuse imagery. Townshend claimed this was for "research". Liddle was satirising this in his column by making an even more absurd claim.

Judging him solely on his writing, Liddle was a bit of a prick. Shagging teen jokes? No I wouldn't be rushing to say lovely things but I didn't know the guy.

Purity spirals and condemnation by association are nothing more than hypocritical bullshit from chronically immature people who possibly have never met other flawed, difficult, at times unpleasant, human beings and have certainly never had to make the headspace to deal with them in a professional capacity.

TRAs claiming a moral high ground when they have spokespeople like Sarah Jane Baker is laughable. Use your desire to scold to get your own house in order first.

We all draw our own boundaries, we don't have to agree and we can actually feel pretty appalled by the company others chose to keep, but then we make our individual choices accordingly. It's one of the many facets of having a personality, instead of a check list of things to fulfill, to claim an identity.

As you were.

There's something that feels very dishonest to me about using the very worst examples of humanity as the yardstick by which we decided if it's OK to denigrate a person who has just passed. It seems to be purpose designed to justify behaving awfully, indecently, towards other people.
Liddle had his flaws, it's undeniable, but his flaws didn't rank up there with Hitler, Stalin, mass murderers, etc... so why are they being used as a yardstick to measure him?
It seems a very black and white way of looking at the world. Every one is fair game for slagging off after they die, because of horrible humans in the past?
Does this rule hold in all directions? If a left winger dies are right wingers justified in slagging them off? It just seems a really nasty way to behave to me.
The dead person doesn't get to hear the abuse, but their friends and family may well get to see the abuse at a time while they are already upset by the death. What moral crime did they do to deserve the additional upset? Or is guilt by association going to rear its ugly head?
That guy who posted online about how he hoped Widdecombe's death was as painful as possible. Made himself look like a right idiot, facing police charges, being investigated by his employer. Is he a good role model, because Hitler? That just doesn't make any sense to me. However the police and employer investigations go, that stain on his character of the inhumanity of his words is going to stay with him for the rest of his life. Wherever he goes he's going to face - "You're the bloke who wanted Widdecombe to die horribly aren't you?".
I don't think what he did was a crime, but I think it will affect how other people treat him for the rest of his life, and it will be because of how he chose to behave.

Yes it's like how a stand-up comedian generally isn't expressing their sincere beliefs in every joke. Liddle used the same sort of techniques in his writing.

The talk of shagging teenagers is
a, a joke
b, an insight into what men think about and underlines why safeguarding and female safe spaces are necessary.

Liddle was admitting that you can't trust men.

Do we know for certain that Rod Liddle wannked over images of children being abused? Or is it perhaps that he became involved in the wider discussion of this growing menace and how best to deal with it or approach it?

I suspect many women here would be shocked at what some of the men in their lives are viewing on-line, including many righteous, left wing men. I suspect there would not be enough space in all of the prisons in Europe to contain them should there be mass surveillance of their computers.

I didn't know personally any of those characters you talk of and any comments I might make about them are therefore confned to their footnote in history: to the obvious fact they were disturbed and driven people who were responsible for some awful things. That's it!

The issue, for me, is these days people are villified for their political or imagined political perspectives, especially when they don't align with the supposedly 'righteous' tribe. We see this all of the time; and many of us here are sensitive to and aware of that because we have experienced it ourselves - for standing up for the dignity and integrity of female people and their established protections.

Character assasination has become something of a lesiure pursuit - and in fact, Ann Widdicombe had been speaking about this in the last interview she gave, 20 minutes before she was brutally assasinated with a hammer, by someone who had apparently singled her out for some of the views she espoused.

The nature of much on line media is nasty and spiteful and in no way redeeeming of the people who on one hand preach goodness and virtue, but then go on to defile and destroy the public perception of others who have done nothing worse than write or talk in ways that some others don't like or approve of.

Like many people who post here he was at one point a member of both the SWP and of the Labour party. He then rejected the conformist, strait-jacketed politics of the tribe and considered and approached issues with more freedom of thought.

Most people are pretty socially conservative, and that does not make them 'right wingers'. Being conservative simply implies an appreciation for the reasons that some practices and habits have become established ( such as why we have single sex categories). Radical over-throw for the sake of it is a pre-occupation only for the young, or for those who have never really made peace with reality.

It really is genuinely shocking to come onto feminist forum and see some so-called feminists referring to images of children being raped and abused, as porn.
A man wanking over something doesn't make it porn, FFS.

PP are correct to say Liddell was once on the Left, when and where when his views on pornography and women would not have been at all unusual (and really haven’t changed much among many left leaning men nowadays). He drifted rightwards over time, though his stance on Brexit was shared by many on the Left. He was a gifted writer and probably a good friend to those he counted as friends, but overall a man with unpleasant character elements that probably didn’t change much over time and despite political leanings. He was perfectly correct in his views on gender, which is not a political left/right issue.

“Can anyone give any insight“

Nope

And men can still not ever be women.

And Mouldemort is still a cringeworthy username.

Indeed, it's just yet another in the very longline of attempted gotchas which goes

"X is a person who I don't approve of, he/she has now said Y which is stupid/rude/abusive about <insert topic here> therefore this means men are women and should have all women's things"

id be embarrassed at 4 year olds making that argument