Jean Hatchet, new blog post

[SugarPlumFairy99]

jeanhatchet.blogspot.com/2019/01/why-i-wont-be-standing-up-for-women.html

This blog post from Jean is eye-opening. Working alongside anti-abortion, hard right groups undermines decades of feminism.

Shame on Posie. I agree with Jean, I will also be sitting down for women.

Putting down what I wrote to a “crab mentality” rather neatly illustrates the point I was making about blind spots - thx

Eh?

I didn't say what you are saying is a crab mentality. I am sharing my experience of witnessing crab mentality and my reasons for being less strident as a result about how everyone should do a 360° to check for marginalised voices before speaking. I know this insistence can be paralysing for certain types of people which can be exploited by stirrers - turning into the farcical horrors of 'call-out culture' - turning things into the 'left are eating themselves' bucket full of crabs.

I think Posie has become a kind of leader, simply by taking bold action, making things happen and creating opportunities for others. The fact that she isn't the type to do a 360° before speaking or acting is no a reason for her to stop taking bold action, even if you think she isn't leadership material.

Left wing men's enthusiasm for the idea that women should empower ourselves via the sex industry came as more of a surprise than it should have to me - not so much the fact that they like the idea of us being in that position as the fact that they have the brass neck to try to pretend that it's for our benefit. Which is part of why the tribalism irks me - whichever point on the political spectrum you look at most men don't seem to really think women are people, though they disagree on the specific ways in which we're designed by nature to be of service to them.

The old saying: right wing men think women are private property; left wing men think women are public property.

That's why they all shit themselves when women of varying political stripes get together. It must be stopped at all costs.

No woman should pander to their terror.

I'm perfectly capable of supporting aspects of GC activism that I agree with and not supporting aspects that I don't agree with without having forty fits and falling to the floor because blinkered women keep shouting traitor and the men hiding behind their skirts are loving it.

This thread has been so instructive. Disturbing to see how quickly the idea that Posie supports Tommy Robinson has taken root, even though I haven’t seen a single poster produce any evidence. Yes I am now wondering who else this might have happened to - and how often I might have swallowed it myself.

Yes I am now wondering who else this might have happened to - and how often I might have swallowed it myself.

It's that 'if you repeat a lie often enough' thing.

I have been woken by all this out of some lazy thinking.

This thread has been so instructive. Disturbing to see how quickly the idea that Posie supports Tommy Robinson has taken root, even though I haven’t seen a single poster produce any evidence

It has been deliberately promoted by those who are determined to silence her.

Its the construction of a false narrative eg women who are questioning trans ideology are nazis/white supremacists/taking baseball bats to beat up transpeople/ think they are all parasites and all transwomen 'hateful bastards' etc just as the false narrative that 'Mumsnet is calling for a new section 28'

These narratives have bounced around on social media platforms protected by mass terf blocks, over zealous moderation and the gaming of reporting systems.

Many people have absorbed these as 'truths'

As you're no doubt aware Posie Parker can't respond on Mumsnet as she was targetted by TRAs here and received strikes resulting in her being banned.

She probably did get reports from activists, but I don't think it's accurate to represent that as the reason she is not permitted to post on this forum.

There were also the times that actual mumsnetters reported her quite a lot for, amongst other things, saying trans men should not have children and that trans parents having children at all was child abuse, and then she repeated it and doubled down on it when challenged.

She was given lots of chances to decide to post within TGs but for whatever reason continued to break them, so she was banned by MNHQ.

That's why she isn't allowed to post here any more and it's disingenuous to suggest she's the victim of some concerted outside effort in this instance.

And no, I can't refer to the posts themselves because they have been deleted.

I've seen this explained as people thinking and interpreting the world in terms of symbols, so they do a quick scan and fit whatever they see into preexisting patterns. A sort of mental shortcut that doesn't always serve us well and makes us easy to manipulate via marketing or propaganda.

The current symbolism associated with transwomen for most people is "effeminate gay man who just couldn't function in male society and wishes he was a woman". That symbolism is significantly impeding efforts to get the public to understand what's actually happening.

She probably did get reports from activists, but I don't think it's accurate to represent that as the reason she is not permitted to post on this forum.

She had received strikes but was banned after being targetted on a specific thread by known TRAs who were gloating about it on twitter when they succeeded.

I dont suppose it would make ANY difference at all to poin out that I have not suggested doing this, or done this, or that I would be unlikely to do this? While I would love the political spectrum to revolve around me and I do believe the world would be a better place if it did, I have gotten to adulthood and realised this is not likely to be achieved.

But you have posted in support of a position which advocates for that very thing. read back over this thread. A lesbian has been hounded off for suggesting that alliances with groups that deny her right to exist might be a bit problematic.

Oh, and I've also got to adulthood - quite a few years before you did - and I'm still sticking to my principles. It's not about thinking anything revolves around me, it's about having a basic concept of the humanity of women who don't tick all the same boxes as me. I'm not prepared to overlook those women, because any victory gained at their expense will be hollow and meaningless.

Saskia I can guarantee that is not on this thread or in my words, I am not even a friend of Posies and nor do I go near either side of that tribalism. i am quite capable of notr standing with someone and simultaneously recognising that feminism as a central control tells women they can only discuss inequality they live if they are morally correct. When men stop being assholes indiscriminaely and women stop being fucked over for something that is not about their views, I will treat it as that. in the meantime it is not. Posie gives zero fucks what i think, she has NEVER claimed to be on the left and nor did she have to. It is perfectly acceptable and expected for the political spectrum to reform quickly in a nascent social movement in a stable country. And when you use chucking women to the wolves and solidarity as a whip its always women like me who get it. Always. If you dont like what Posie is doing, stay away. Thats alright. Noone is suggesting allying with things you dont agree with or staying silent, I am not capable of doing either nad dont expect it.

It is a sad loss. Mumsnet has lost some vim and flavour since some of the more outspoken and defiant posters have been banned.

That's why she isn't allowed to post here any more and it's disingenuous to suggest she's the victim of some concerted outside effort in this instance.

Those who put their heads above the parapet on social media or speak out to challenge trans ideology are targetted. The same is true for all platforms including Mumsnet.

Please don't accuse me of being disingenuous. I'm not.

I came to this thread late and now the original blogpost has been deleted but I really want to know what it’s all about. Can someone explain? I’ve read the whole thread and I still don’t know. What did Posie Parker say or do?

Posie Parker organised an event in her own way and didn't want to divert from her own plans which pissed off Jean Hatchet, who had misgivings about Posie's choices and felt uncomfortable about endorsing or being seen to endorse them.

It a huge 'two women disagreed' shocker!

What is really really dangerous is the burn the witch mentality and the moral purity that nobody but nobody can achieve. Its as important that Jean is not throw under a bus for saying I wont stand here or do this, as it is important to recognise Posie is not fucking remotely obliged to you for her actions. When you throw either to the wolves you are saying that is what you do and telling women who will routinely feel the back end of that that that is the environment. I never once saw heretic burning achieve anythig good.

Well said, Lisa. Let's leave the witch-burning to the would-be Inquisitors on the other side.

@harryharry
The blog post was Jean explaining why she was opting out if an event she was going to attend with Posie. Jean felt uncomfortable because so questionable characters (pro choice, right wing trump supporters etc) were attending and she didn't want to be associated with the event any more.

I agree Lisa. And I think it causes paralysis.
Women who could make a huge difference and are absolutely itching to make a difference are made to feel they are not entitled to act because they don't have the 'right' knowledge/words/politics/oppression/personality/eduction/etc.
Be bold women. Act. Don't be perfect. It is okay to disagree. Be true to yourself.

Ah OK. What was the event? We’re the questionable characters invited by Posie?

Its actually a good and useful process to find out who you are really stood with when shit hits the fan, and its good to see the dynamics that emerge quickly when so many women come together, its even good to find out what your lines are, but I reject this model of feminism thaht is entirely about policing women and throwing women to the wolves of clearly organised and dangerous activists is not ok in my view. Free speech does mean people you dont agree with and it also means the right to challenge.

Disturbing to see how quickly the idea that Posie supports Tommy Robinson has taken root, even though I haven’t seen a single poster produce any evidence

Posie, although she has said a fair few things that I personally disagree with vis a vis grooming scandals, has not said Tommy Robinson is the great saviour, or anything like it. She has specifically sited the blame for Tommy Robinson exploiting grooming scandals for his own ends, as failures of the left.

The left identify as good - and it is therefore easier for people whose identity as good is rooted in belonging to the left, to characterise Posie's stated position as positive support for Tommy Robinson rather than criticism of the left. It's a reflex response - often unconscious - to injured identity (as Lisa above me so often points out).

Who said anything about questionable characters Harry?

She has specifically sited the blame for Tommy Robinson exploiting grooming scandals for his own ends, as failures of the left.

The left identify as good - and it is therefore easier for people whose identity as good is rooted in belonging to the left, to characterise Posie's stated position as positive support for Tommy Robinson rather than criticism of the left.

Very perceptive.

flashbac did, in response to my question.

Also, “were” not “we’re” - stupid autocorrect!

The left pose a far more significant threat of fascism and Tommy Robinson has largely been a construction of and entirely sustained by the left, I sometimes think the EDL is a projection related to the left more thn to any of the communities they identify as representatives of.

That's why she isn't allowed to post here any more and it's disingenuous to suggest she's the victim of some concerted outside effort in this instance.

It's also disingenuous to pop up and imply that Posie Parker is your only problem with gender critical views.