Why are some gender critical feminists praising Rod Liddle?

Like a lot of right wing contrarians (see also Jeremy Clarkson/Toby Young/Giles Coren) the public persona is at least partially an act/grift designed to keep them in the public eye of the chattering classes and generate newspaper columns.

I don't think many people are defending him, unless saying "I disagree with him" is defending him.

What most people are doing are examining the reasons why some feminists, who knew him, may have expressed sadness or whatever when he died.

Of course the OP and other's position is. RL wrote some terrible things, some GC feminists knew him and expressed sadness at his death, therefore this is proof positive that the GC movement is a far right movement that approves of the abuse and sexualisation of children. Which is a bonkers position, and what most people were addressing.

Cruelty to animals, actual cruelty not just making a creepy theoretical argument about it, is a pretty strong indicator of the likelihood that someone is capable of actual violence against people. I find that pretty abhorrent. I suppose though that is an illustration that people have different boundaries.

And I do think there is a difference between "child abuse, sexualising children [and] people who make creepy theoretical arguments about sexualising children". Sure, the latter may indicate that the person making the argument is more likely to do the first two, but there is a danger that no-one discusses anything ever, because there is an immediate leap from "talking about" to "absolutely, definitely wanting to do terrible things". In the case of the first article (2003) I still believe (and other posters recollections support this) that there was a bit of a debate around 'just looking'. That again is not a defence (and it's a bit depressing that this keeps having to be restated), but it is context

I also tend to agree with a PP, that Liddle was one of those professional contrarians who doesn't really believe a lot of what he says. Although I'm never sure whether that makes it better or worse.

I get all of that. But if I had to choose between hanging out with the fox killer guy and hanging out with Alok I'd still feel more comfortable with the fox killer guy. That doesn't mean I think he's a good person.

I also agree there's a difference between child abuse and makinf creepy theoretical arguments about sexualising children. Ones illegal and the other isn't and arguably falls under freedom of expression. But (and I hate this phrase so sorry) freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences and if people are going to make creepy theoretical arguments about sexualising children, a consequence might well be that they are viewed askance by people and that this is brought up when discussing their character.

And yes, it is quite likely he was taking deliberately contrarian positions. But there's something really off-putting about grown adults doing that (I know it's very common nowadays: thanks internet). It's very "edgy 13 year old". Especially when the "edgy" position is that CSE should be legal or racist stances. Again, I am not saying that it should be illegal. But an inevitable consequence of being an edgy contrarian is that many people will remember you for the positions you took publicly. Even on death. I don't agree with dancing on people's graves. But also, some people on here seem to be implying that any criticism is evidence of the "left" being goulish. It's not (and it's not the same as that person saying they hoped AW died in pains handcuffed to her bed).

I also tend to agree with a PP, that Liddle was one of those professional contrarians who doesn't really believe a lot of what he says. Although I'm never sure whether that makes it better or worse.

I agree. But if a big part of your life is spent putting on a particular public persona, at what point does that become who you are? I get people can have different faces in different situations - a public persona, how they are with friends, how they are with family, an interior life only they know. But I don't think it's the case that only one of those "selves" is real/matters. The words he wrote were real words and designed, on some level, to persuade.

There's a really good Kurt Vonnegut novel Mother Night about a more extreme situation that it reminds me of...
"We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be.”

I can happily be friends with people with whom I disagree vehemently on certain issues - I have friends who are TWAW for example - we agree to disagree or avoid the issue altogether (the latter is often the best tactic with younger people in my experience).

I could never be friends with someone who openly expresses sexual desire for children (even if in jest), or who believes that possession of CSAM should not be an offence, or who assaults their then pregnant girlfriend, nor could I hold them in any regard other than the lowest.

And I don't understand the mentality of people who can. It suggests to me that they simply think these are matters of "opinion" rather than fundamental morality.

Reminds me of a friend. Dead now, could be an absolute arsehole, could also be the most generous man alive. Anyway. He spent some time going to the pub in his dressing gown and slippers "for shits and giggles". (this was the 90s, before everyone just wore their pyjamas out) One day he looked at me and just said "There'll come a time when I won't know if I'm doing this deliberately or not."

It's the one area in which I am 100% in favour of the purity spiral.

I actually do know some people who know him. And his widow - who for the purposes of this thread has been reduced to 'pregnant girlfriend victim'. Some of them liked him very much - including a friend who had a difficult childhood, was a victim of DV and has mental health issues, and to whom he was apparently personally very kind and generous. While I won't be shedding too many tears myself, I'm not about to tell them that they can't express grief at his death and sadness for his family, nor that they are hideously flawed for doing so.

For balance, some of the people who knew him thought he was an absolute cunt

😁
I guess at least part of the reason he was wearing a dressing gown to the pub was because he wanted people to say "that man's wearing a dressing gown to the pub"

Do you remember Dylan Mulvaney? It was so on the nose that I thought they were pretending at first, either as a parody or a grift. But eventually they got surgery so either they were deadly serious all along or the persona took over.... I think I'd prefer to be stuck wearing a dressing gown to the pub non-ironically than having major surgery or having people debate whether I meant the things I said about wanting to sleep with 15 year olds. So I guess your friends path was better.

You don't give a shit about Duffield.

https://unherd.com/newsroom/rod-liddle-my-opponent-who-became-a-friend/

Well he died alone and his body wasn't found for a few days, so who knows who had the best path. Swings and roundabouts I guess. I'd moved away, years ago. Found out about his death on Facebook. I'm entirely sure that there would have been people who would have read some of the tributes to him and thought "But he was always awful".

Punching down on the mentally ill and people with food allergies is not "courageous" or "Swiftian satire." It's just being a playground bully.

A nice tribute from his editor and friend, for those who liked his writing

www.thetimes.com/article/dd98c3e8-cbf5-4dbb-b8ca-856c4ed8d18d?shareToken=67322d4aa3a74bf1f4e131c2d57d5b12&ver=article

I only remember his nasty shit about the mentally ill. There was no need for that.

Do you think rape can't result in pregnancy, since it's not sex?

I mean, do you actually not know what the word sex means? Because that's what it sounds like.

I am actually pretty flabbergasted, even coming from someone who thinks people can change sex.

She's not genuinely concerned about it. There's no way to read that article and think he was condoning adult men having sex with teenagers in school. That's the point of the article.

This exactly.

It's great that he was later supportive of her and they became friendly (caveat : not read the full article yet but assume that's the gist of it).

I hope he apologised for mocking her DV speech like that.
I don't think his later support for her means mocking her speech about DV was alright- do you?

Phew, knowing this makes me even more grateful Mumsnet exists! Kudos to you for doing that. As you say, it's very valuable female perspectives are the default here, unlike much of the wider Internet.

At the same time, I don't think that really excuses Liddell's views (apologies if thar isn't what you meant): as I said above, it's the same principle as someone having harmful views like TWAW. Just because their social circle mainly shares those views isn't an excuse.

I do understand this concern but is that the kind of stuff Liddell was advocating against banking?

I have read about, eg. innocent nude photos of children being censored or artworks as you say. But images of children being sexually abused is different from that.

The question is whether Liddell was advocating ensuring eg. artworks weren't caught up on a ban, or whether he was saying watching children being abused shouldn't be a crime?

I think what you have to understand is that a person can think a given thing is morally wrong, and even seriously morally wrong ,without thinking it should be illegal.

We seem at the moment to live in a time of very flat thinking, where many take it for granted that all bad things should be illegal, and illegal things are awfully bad.

Liddle seems to have been quite positive that child pornography was morally wrong, and that creating it should be illegal, but less sure that it made sense to make viewing it illegal. To me his view seems to have been to a certain extent what he saw as pragmatic.

I don't quite get his hesitation, but the idea that people are condoning or even of approving of things because they don't believe it should be illegal is just not true.

I suppose the test for me is, if this was someone from a position I usually disagree with would I be prepared to give them as much grace?
Eg, if instead of Rod Liddle saying those things it was a six foot trans activist who wanted to "queer conversations" on crime and had argued publicly with JKR on Twitter who had also said they didn't think viewing child porn should be illegal, with the same "irreverent" framing and sarcasm that Liddle used would you be as likely to write the post you wrote about it? Those people exist

In the same way that the Green MPs recent comments on rape got one side very angry, and the other side explaining that really what he probably meant was blah blah blah.

Personally I don't think all bad things should be illegal. I do think that things that have a very significant negative impact on other unconsenting parties should be illegal. You can't get much more negative impact than child rape and sexual abuse. Therefore committing child rape and sexual abuse, paying for child rape and sexual abuse, and viewing images of child rape and sexual abuse should all be illegal.

Andrew Doyle's sensible response to the frothers:

It would be far better for society if we were to execute the literal-minded. We could do it discreetly, under cover of night, so as not to upset their relatives. Instead of scouring social media for potentially offensive posts, the police could be enlisted to identify anyone who takes an obvious joke at face value. No trial. No appeal. Just toss them into a volcano and be done with it.

Might it be possible that anyone could read these words and assume that I meant it? You would be surprised. It was tremendously sad to hear of Rod Liddle’s untimely death last week, but it was some consolation to know that he would have relished all the unhinged reactions on Bluesky from its resident hobgoblins. Many of his old articles were dredged up as evidence of his wrongthink, and obviously satirical lines were quoted as though they were admissions of guilt.

How the ghouls celebrated and jeered, all the while exposing to the world the lie that they were ever on the side of compassion and progress. Titania McGrath even weighed in for the Spectator. Even many on the right were apparently delighted with Rod’s passing because of what they perceived to be his unpardonable sins. Literal-mindedness is a disease that transcends political boundaries.

The chief accusation – invariably posted underneath the many tributes from Rod’s friends, colleagues and admirers – was that he was a ‘nonce’ who had admitted that he ‘wanted to shag schoolkids’. And so, with due exhaustion and contempt, I feel obliged to explain that this is not even remotely true.
I suppose we had better take a look at the passage in question from Rod’s 2012 article about the story of a maths teacher who had run off to France with one of his charges.

‘…the one thing stopping me from being a teacher was that I could not remotely conceive of not trying to shag the kids. It seemed to me virtually impossible not to, and I was convinced that I’d be right in there, on day one. We’re talking secondary school level here, by the way – and even then I don’t think I’d have dabbled much below year ten, as it is now called. I just thought we ought to clear that up early on.’

It would take amoeba-level stupidity to assume that this was in any way serious. Such people would require 24-hour care in order to accomplish the most basic of quotidian tasks: tying shoelaces, brushing teeth, remembering to eat. And yet a surprisingly large number of people apparently cannot distinguish between a provocative and satirical article and an authentic statement of belief. The congenitally literal-minded do indeed live among us, and they are legion.

Of course, many of those citing Rod’s article as a confession of noncehood were doing so wilfully. In a sense, these people are even more deserving of the volcano treatment. It should be straightforward enough to admit that one finds Rod’s writing to be crass, offensive, or just downright unfunny. If Rod’s detractors believe that it is improper to make jokes about child abuse, they ought to say so. But to pretend that there had been no attempt at humour in order to score points against a dead opponent is about as low as it gets…