Women come last in Labour's deranged victim hierarchy - Rod Liddle in The Spectator

[AttillaThePun]

No punches pulled (but no names named either, probably sensible):

www.spectator.co.uk/2018/01/women-come-last-in-labours-deranged-victim-hierarchy/

I have to say the Spectator these days is very good on publishing a range of voices on a topic.

I've mentioned this before but my "step out of the liberal bubble" resolution post Trump involved taking out a subscription to the Torygraph, and as with the Spectator, I've been pleasantly surprised by the wide range of voices, including quite a lot of solidly feminist articles. (They also have Allison Pearson, and her victim blaming, and "brown-ness" scale of culpability on rape, but I guess nothing is without its annoying features).

What's up with Fraser Nelson's accent, Assigned?

That's interesting Hairy. I only look at the Telegraph online (same reasons as you, try to read a range of views). Online it seems to have morphed into the Brexit Times and hugely repetitive on the arguments for leaving with no counter arguments. So good to know the actual rag is more wide-ranging.

Hairy I was following someone who'd tweeted something sensible in the US, and then they changed their username to end with "...theTruther" and after thinking !!!!!!! I carried on following them anyway. It's produced quite a few unpleasant surprises in my timeline, but it's certainly been illuminating.

And there are things about the Spectator I like! (But Rod Liddle isn't one of them.) And ten years ago if I'd been asked what broadsheet would have a reporter really standing up for women, I'd never have guessed that it would be The Times.

I don't read the Graun much anymore. I can't afford a times subscription. So it's the Telegraph for me. It's OK.

I still don't like Rod Liddle. But even a stopped clock is right twice a day, and this is an excellent piece of writing. Well done kiss

The biggest problem in politics at the moment is the divide in which its constantly, "you are either with us or against us". Both the left and right are guilty of it.

Who the fuck does that help?

All it does is mean you have to pick a tribe rather than talk about individual issues on a case by case basis and take good ideas from across the political spectrum which provide a balance in society.

I am of the opinion that its good to have change in politics. If you don't you have people who end up out of touch or corrupt or power crazed or you become too dependant on a small pool of individuals. None is good.

Politics needs an input of fresh ideas and fresh blood. So what happens if you have an electorate which is top heavy with older people? You stagnate. What do the young do? They can only get a reaction by being extreme.

With the young being so heavily concentrated in a small area of the political spectrum, without any real meaningful power or influence the only thing that can happen is an extreme reaction.

The thing is they have no life experience, and little responsibility. Which makes if they do get elected and do dominate politics, it will be an utter car crash.

Moderating forces and anything that negates continued polarisation is essential to this country not becoming an utter basket case.

If someone says something that encourages you to be tribal and demands you to be loyal at all costs, give em a two fingered salute. They are not working in the best interests of the country.

I'm sure Rod Liddle thinks we are all dicks as well. But he has taken time to listen, understand and put some critical points of the feminist argument forward on a critical feminist issue. Which is a darn sight more than any left wing male writers I can currently think of, so far.
Peter Hitchens has also written on this subject a few months ago, admittedly from a slightly different perspective (more a sort of Christian injection to it, which as an atheist, I’m always a bit reticent about). Rather than the feminist argument, his was more about the dangers and damage it will do to a generation of children. Both Liddle and Hitchens clearly take note, and reference, left wing media a lot so will no doubt be very much aware of what’s going on. Let’s hope they keep it up, neither of them are likely to bother about the mud slung in their direction for doing so.

It seems logical to me that radical feminism and more conservative with a small or even a larger C will be aligned on this point.

I don’t know RL and I have not yet read the piece, but I do find myself reading the Times now, which is conservative with a small c, surely, yet has some of the best coverage on this issue.

Conservative or even centre people believe that men and women are different because it upholds the social structures we have today. Men are the main breadwinners, women are the home-makers. Sex gives rise to sex roles.

Radical (second wave) feminism agrees that sex gives rise to sex roles, but called them gender roles to distinguish, and sees them as oppressive, not the foundation of social order. However, radical feminism also believes that men and women are different (biologically, based on sex)

The argument against the TRAs hinges on that fundamental point. Both conservatives and radical feminists argue that men and women are different based on sex, not an idea of gender in your head. They differ about the implications of this.

So it is equally possible that fundamental evangelicals will agree with radical feminists that men cannot be women and there is sexual difference, but the two groups will differ about the implications of this.

None of the above groups base their arguments in double think. The libertarian left (is there such a thing?) argue that men can be women, defined through gender stereotypes, whilst suggesting this is progressive. The radical feminist position is going to end up seen as right-wing because it harks back to ideas related to sexual difference which women sought to dismantle, and which are now seen as regressive - however, no women’s movement ever argued that sexual difference does not exist.

I am tired so not making much sense.

Over the past few weeks I've heard people say that they feel politically homeless in the current climate. I feel 'newspaper homeless'. I used to devour The Guardian but I find myself more and more irritated by it now.

Any suggestions? I could live without but I do like getting papers on the weekend.

I love The Times. It’s very fair. And only place in the newspaper world you will read gender critical pieces. Janice Turner is my homegirl.

The libertarian left (is there such a thing?) argue that men can be women, defined through gender stereotypes, whilst suggesting this is progressive.

I'm libertarian left and it can be tricky but there is such a thing! But it's the authoritarian left that is making the pro-TRA arguments. They're Maoists. That's why they have all their purge lists and witch hunts. Cultural revolutions are the hallmark of an authoritarian left, not a libertarian one.

Thanks Kiss! Not once in my life have I bought The Times. Am very excited about this weekend's newspaper purchase

Yep. I am libertarian left. It's definitely the authoritarian left saying men can be women. I say, be what you want to be, but not if your identity is harming mine greatly.

JustaBunch (massive digression follows - everyone else feel free to ignore). Well, yes, the Torygraph is unashamedly the Brexit Times, but one can skip those articles (and even some of the pro Brexit articles can be interesting, obviously not the ones consisting solely of Bozza or Farage ranting - but their economics editor for instance is always very interesting on the issues facing the Eurozone, and the way Macron and Merkel's interests pull in opposite directions, not to mention issues with "capital flight" from Italy, which I find a useful corrective to the "everything in the EU garden is lovely" polarisation. I'm always reminded of former Greek finance minister Varafoukis' comment that he came to Britain and campaigned for remain, but, having been at the centre of the Greek crisis, he totally gets why people might want to vote leave.)

Sorry for the digression. Or is it a digression? One of the things hamstringing British politics is this "package deal" attitude to political decision making, across the board. And when it becomes the orthodoxy against which you cannot raise questions, it prompts a backlash. I'm pretty sure that played a large part in Brexit. The Remain campaign ran a largely negative campaign, rather than saying "here are the advantages (massive economic ones, keeping the peace, social stability) but here we are being honest about some of the shortcomings, and here are the reasons why you should keep those shortcomings in perspective in the overall bigger picture." If you simply say "Brexit voters are evil racists", you've lost. (Which is why I think I knew Clinton had lost the moment she uttered her "basket of deplorables" comment - I just sat there jaw on the floor thinking "did you not follow Brexit? Did you learn nothing?")

KissMaCis thank you I think you are a legend.

Thank you Kiss

My OH has a Torygraph subs, and I kinda like it. He’s a Tory Wet, but Brexit supporting. That was fun times. 😂 I know a lot of journalists across papers. They are all talented people, and I respect their work. Regardless of where they work. Hey, even the Mail bought Stephen Lawrence’s killers to justice. No one else touched that.

Transcult are authoritarian right. Not libertarian. Hence all the Stalinist comparisons. They want everyone to be controlled and to agree with them and do and think as they say.

I agree with all that Hairy.

Emyroo's analysis is fabulous. Hadn't heard of the authoritarian left, going to google.

And agree with Kiss, free press has a vital role to play in a decent society, across the board.

Ah, that makes sense, the tactics are authoritarian. Whereas accepting that individuals are just that, individual, is not. The point for libertarianism is about not doing harm to others. The TRA approach is clearly doing harm.

Thank you, I am very tired.

I just read the article. It has a bit of a ‘get your house in order, Labour’ tone, and the thrust is against Momentum not for women, but it is an opinion piece and I think it conveys the issues.

It’s horrible, horrible racist Rod Liddle though.

Haven’t RTFT so this might have been posted already but his last column said women’s pay could bankrupt the BBC

Maybe he was drunk when he wrote one of them