Why are some gender critical feminists praising Rod Liddle?

Because in 2003 when this article was published the attitude towards images of CSA was very different, you can tell that from the language used “child porn.”

The bulk of the article is written in a humorous/satirical manner and seems to be pointing out (in his view) the ludicrousness that viewing such images may not necessarily be a crime if you had a good reason to view them or it was an accident, essentially that we were creating thought crime.

It was a very common view amongst left wing men, I know this as I argued with enough of them. There were arguments about the criminalisation of watching porn involving teenagers over the age of consent but still classed as minors. That artwork or innocent pictures of babies in the bath could be classed as “child porn”

There were also free speech and freedom of the press arguments from the libertarians.

The view point of pedophilia being a sexual orientation was still hanging around and it was unfair to criminalise people for something that they couldn’t help. Viewing images was considered to be a passive act.

It was a very different time and I am grateful that we are more enlightened now and attitudes have changed. But I will not condemn someone for writing what was not an uncommon view point at that time.

I doubt very much i read the article at the time of publication as I considered Liddle to be leftie rage bait and read little of his work. Although I did occasionally smirk at his jabs at the hypocrisy of the left.

It always makes me laugh when TRAs give away that despite their dislike of JKR they are still obsessed with Harry Potter

It's a thing on trans Reddit

Hilarious

That's... incredibly pathetic.

Don't you dare sully Rik's memory with that comparison. :)

Only a bit? 😆

Oh god the endless tedium of the brainless "oooh you're all right wing bigots cos you said nice things once about someone I believe is literally hitler "

tho tbf I do assume this poster is Rik from the young ones because of the way they post

It seems to be a play on words - Mouldy and Voldemort. My guess is it refers to a puerile attempt by trans rights activists on social media to say that J. K. Rowling's house has mould on the walls, in spite of her enormous fortune. This is based on one picture she posted with wallpaper in the background. I suppose the suggestion is that JKR is as evil as her own villain, Voldemort.

17 and 18 year olds? Maybe you live under a rock, but lots of men find girls that age sexually attractive. It doesn’t mean they would act on the impulse though. As indeed he didn’t either.

I think they ask because it sounds a bit like someone trying to have a pop at JKR through their username.

I don't think I've seen evidence that Rod Liddle 'beat his wife' though there does seem to have been a heated argument between them in which he possibly became aggressive. That's not a good reflection on him.

I still don't want children to be led to believe their personalities or interests mean they aren't their real sex and should become lifelong patients to attain a fantasy of changing sex.

I'm gender critical and consider myself a feminist and I'm very sad Rid Liddle has died. I enjoyed his columns and listening to him on the radio.
I think his death a sad loss to journalism.

Why do people on the left defend Frankie Boyle? He's also said some vile things about women. Both men used 'entertainment ' as their excuse.

Purity tests and black and white thinking are for the very young or those unable to understand nuance.

The nuance of assault

Why do you keep asking this question?

Liddle said out loud what a lot of men think.

One of the things you realise as a feminist is that most men are misogynistic to a degree. You have to accept it otherwise you'd go mad. So yes, I found Liddle's views to be offensively misogynistic at times. But on the plus side, he refused to believe that men could be women, which, whatever his other views, placed him well ahead of all the left-wing politicians, actors, journalists, academics, trade unionists, comedians etc who pretend to believe that men can be women.

Gender ideology is as misogynistic as it comes - any man who claims to believe that men can be women has absolutely no right at all attacking Liddle for being a misogynist. Because however misogynistic he was, he is still by an order of magnitude less misogynistic than you, you utter prick.

And Steve Martin said he could never hold down a job if he were a woman because he'd be playing with his breasts all day.

I think it's called reductio ad absurdum. Although that could be a spell from Hogwarts; don't quote me on it.

It's ok to simultaneously think Rod Liddle was a shit-stirring contrarian AND a supporter of those GC women who stood tall.

Purity tests and black and white thinking are for the very young or those unable to understand nuance.

Did he beat women up? The only evidence I've seen is what's quoted upthread. Here's the link. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/oh-dear-the-telephone-puts-poor-rod-on-the-hook-again-489914.html

The broadcaster and writer Rod Liddle has become embroiled in another spot of trouble involving women and telephones, collecting a police caution after officers were called to his home following a heated domestic dispute.
The broadcaster and writer Rod Liddle has become embroiled in another spot of trouble involving women and telephones, collecting a police caution after officers were called to his home following a heated domestic dispute.
Liddle, the former editor of the BBC Today programme, was held by police for five hours after a furious row with Alicia Monckton, the 23-year-old for whom he left his wife, after she discovered their text messages.
Liddle was arrested after he and Monckton, who are expecting a baby in September, had the bust-up at their London home on Thursday afternoon. This ended in his girlfriend phoning 999.
Although she hung up before anyone answered, the police traced the call and turned up an hour later. By then, the row had subsided and Monckton told the police that there was nothing to worry about.
The police disagreed and took Liddle, who at 45 is 22 years Monckton's senior, to a south London police station where, after five hours, he agreed to accept a caution for common assault.
However, a furious Liddle, now an associate editor at The Spectator - where he met Monckton - has told The Independent on Sunday that he regretted accepting a caution. "I'm so furious and upset about it," he said. "If I'd had enough spine I would have said no to the caution. They couldn't have charged me."
The row, Liddle admitted, had been explosive - but he denied hitting Monckton. "We had this row and we were shouting at each other. I said, 'Well, phone the police', and she said she would. I thought she was only joking. She didn't talk to them, just hung up. An hour later the coppers got here. She begged them to go away, but they wouldn't."

Monckton confirmed that she hadn't been hurt. "There was a physical struggle with a suitcase, but he didn't hit me," she said. Liddle and Monckton have been living together since their affair was revealed last summer, shortly after he had married Rachel Royce, the mother of his two sons. Royce subsequently used the pages of the Daily Mail to describe in intimate detail how she checked his restaurant receipts, phone messages and even followed him after she suspected him. Royce said yesterday that Monckton "obviously sounds slightly unstable".
Liddle was held under new domestic violence guidelines in which suspects are questioned whether there has been a complaint or not.

Yes me too, Ive never really understood the sentiment either.

Hitler? What about him in the aftermath?
Saddam Hussein?
Harold Shipman?

Read the article.

He’s following a philosophical thread. I don’t agree with his conclusion, because I think he ignores the damage done on the production of sexual images of children. However, he’s using the example of Pete Townshend, who at that stage I think was trying to argue that as he had reported a child porn site he visited to the police he shouldn’t be prosecuted. Liddle concocts a rather bizarre scenario in which if he viewed child porn images for ‘journalistic purposes’ he may avoid prosecution.

He extends this to mention those professionals who may view those images as part of their jobs. Police etc. Hence, his argument is, the viewing in itself is clearly not a problem. It’s the motivation that is being prosecuted.

I've only read his Times columns for that last few years (after switching from the Guardian when they banned me) I thought they were funny and well written. I also wouldn't assume every word written represented his genuine opinion.

I still don't want to use mixed-sex changing rooms. I don't see why Rod Liddle's oeuvre is relevant to that. Take his past articles up with the newpaper editors that approved them and paid him for them.