Clare Foges in the Times on the sinister aspects of the culture wars

[Uncompromisingwoman]

She looks at Maya's case - a very good read. Share token:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/tory-victory-was-a-verdict-on-culture-wars-ccbv0xj7l?shareToken=319886c7d404ca94a39a2bdbddcac053

Thank you for the share token. It is interesting to read as I feel the writer is a Tory content with the election result. I’m not sure this is well written or thought through/informed though. The lesson to take from Maya’s case (or the solution to any clash of rights) isn’t for everyone to be kind to each other. What relevant laws did Theresa May bring in?

Also The drumbeat of stories such as the Forstater verdict has turned the culture wars from a rather peripheral concern into something deeply troubling — and it has divided our country into two camps. (We are primed for such polarisation now, after Brexit). On one side we have the woke warriors, on the other the silent majority; self-styled progressives versus those who view themselves as the defenders of common sense. Social media has inflamed the divide. We see enemies everywhere; the silent majority blame snowflakes for every undesirable development in society, the woke see racist gammons behind every injustice.

It’s a lot more complicated than this. I’m not happy with the status quo for women and not many feminists are even if we can see the problems with the direction of the left. Many women spoiled their ballot

A well-reasoned article. The Times must surely have noted that readers' comments on any such issues (such as the Sarah Baxter opinion piece yesterday) show that the public are not prepared to be hoodwinked or browbeaten over this.

Agree ChattyLion

I’m hugely gender critical but would be seen as your classic lefty woke remainer on almost everything else. Such a superficial analysis helps no one. I’m so tired of everything being boiled down into binary arguments, wicked problems are by the very definition full of complexity & nuance. Screaming at each other across divides isn’t going to solve anything

Tho I make an exception for self ID - I’m having no truck with anyone ID as a member of the opposite sex and everyone playing along in that fiction

It's rather a facile article but it does make some good points.

Not that many more people voted for Boris in 2019 than they did in 2017. British culture wars will never be as extreme as the US because we don't have a religious right with any significant national influence. Most Labour voters continued to vote Labour, even if they are not on board with extremist Wokeism including, but not limited to, genderism.

That said, the balance of electoral power has changed. If Labour won't address these swing voters, it won't win another election. Maya's case appeals to the sense of fair play that many Britons pride themselves in. 95% of the country thinks pomo is a load of old bollocks navel-gazed upon by posh people with nothing better to do.

The article, I think, is a pitch for the new received wisdom. I've seen much better written since the election and, indeed, we've had more insightful conversations on here.

I'm surprised to find I'm part of the silent majority. I thought I'd been pretty vocal.

Managing to not mention feminists when writing about this is quite an achievement.

The danger is, as has been said before, if you read the comments, that other rights and protections for minorities will go out the window. It is boiled down to lefty-liberals are extreme, not there are some good aspects and some problematic aspects. In other words, the danger is that hard-fought for equalities provisions will be thrown away with the bath water of extreme positions on gender.

The point that made me sit up was the suggestion Boris's dodgy comments about bumboys and letterboxes didn't put people off, they worked in his favour. I think that's probably right and it will have been part of the 'I'm voting Boris because at least he's funny' line.

The danger is, as has been said before, if you read the comments, that other rights and protections for minorities will go out the window.

We've been warning about the potential backlash on here for at least five years now. Not the fault of feminists that nobody would listen. And not incumbent on feminists to prioritise anyone but women (and child protection) if and when it comes. That's what the LGBAlliance is for.

I just looked up loads of links criticising that offensive and incoherentUCU ‘Equality’ statement on tran rights which also promoted self ID on race and disability then managed to lose my post.
The Voice, the Mail and Metro all covered it critically from a race perspective. Couldn’t find any specific examples criticising from a disability perspective. Great quote from Kathleen Stock on the anti intellectual and propagandist nature of it all. But these issues aren’t exactly the same as sex and self ID, although there are clearly common areas of concern and harm. But the government and main political parties are not considering these at all for legal promoting in the way they are doing for sex and self ID.

Trying to say there hastily that (unlike the premise of the article) these other-types-of-trans issues, while concerning and appropriative, are not all the same as each other and are not examples of the exact same phenomenon or social context/reaction created by wokery.

This ‘common sense’ line from the writer looks like a view of sex and gender being in some way naturally or historically or truthfully aligned which I object to.

But I am a Progessive, and I believe (if that's still permitted?) that all this wokey-cokey is bourgeois Gramscian hegemony designed to entrench the privilige of the terminally clueless but with wealthy parents at the expense of the career open to talent.

So where does that leave me?

LangCleg I do not just mean LGBT, if you read the comments and comments in other Times threads, I mean single parents, minority ethnic groups and anyone who does not fit the definition of what ‘traditional’ middle England should look like.

I have been on here since 2011, my first awareness of the transgender issue was 2012 when the RadFem conference at Conway Hall was closed down by activists.

I know what you mean, December. I've been sucking those eggs for several years.

So I would suggest these other groups look at what is happening and disavow themselves from Wokeism before it is too late. As materialist feminists already have and the LGBAlliance is attempting to do.

We've been warning about the potential backlash on here for at least five years now. Not the fault of feminists that nobody would listen.

Yes. It's like watching a realtime Thermidorean reaction where we're in danger of having the protections, civil rights and progress of so many minority or vulnerable groups removed.

the phase in some revolutions when power slips from the hands of the original revolutionary leadership and a radical regime is replaced by a more conservative regime, sometimes to the point where the political pendulum may swing back towards something resembling a pre-revolutionary state

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermidorian_Reaction

While complacency is always foolish, I'm not sure about how much of a 'backlash' is likely to happen in reality. We didn't have a revolution to win rights re sex, race and sexuality - they evolved, public opinion has shifted. Look at the current batch of MPs - people (some in erstwhile 'working class Labour' seats) have voted for Conservative women, gay people, POC.

I doubt very much that single parents, for example, are at the forefront of ‘wokeism’ - reflecting on the passage of the GRA in 2004, aside from the fact that it was not well-publicised, that year was the year I was left with a baby to bring up myself and working to support us. I genuinely did not have time or energy to look at the news for about two years.

Poverty is also material reality, and one of the things that ‘wokeism’ has done quite well is re-configure who is the ‘most vulnerable in society’. I know people on here know that and have been saying that - but taking down ‘wokeism’ in the culture wars only goes so far, and the second part of the argument is everything that has lost out in terms of attention and indeed funding whilst the culture arguments have been going on. When Foges talks about a realignment of conservative values, I fear this means the traditional male breadwinner, two-parent model with everyone else on the margins.

I fully agree that how to define a woman and the protection of women’s spaces must take precedence; but this board used to be vibrant with a diverse range of topics affecting women. The ‘culture wars’ or ‘identity politics’ has sucked energy away from other topics and problems women face. As I have said before, it is how coercive control works, it monopolises your perception because you fight for survival (if not literally, then in terms of your perception and sense of self). How much energy will be left to fight for women’s needs other than in the context of transgender? Not much. (and I know that women’s rights mean nothing if you cannot define a woman, I understand the necessity of this, that is not my point).

X-post, Errol, I hope you are right.

imo, people don't care about boris joke because that joke give
some relief.

at least he isn't the man who will shout at people's face
'racist! nazi!' for wrong pronounce.(and i think people don't care about boris joke also don't care about labour antisemitism row)

and people voted for 'conservative' gay, woman, poc
not
conservative 'gay, woman,poc'.

that means if thoese mps seems to share same value with them
they don't care who mps are.

@DecemberDays you are so right about how this debate has taken over and is crowding out many other considerations. It's a bit like the parasitism of the Brexit debate, which has made it difficult (and, actually, impractical, given the political and institutional uncertainty it's brought about) to discuss much else. It's not even Wag the Dog distraction; it's blocking action as well.

I do sometimes look at my twitter feed and wonder if this is an unreasonable obsession rather than a keen concern. It's difficult to tell, though, because other issues which might be equally absorbing, aren't really "on offer". The only leavening in my news feed tends to be some sort of: I know I'm depressing and worrying you, so maybe I can cheer you up... um... oh, I know! Here's my cat! Unfortunately, I don't like cats, and just can't believe that even a cat lover could get enough dopamine from a cat picture to offset the constant anxiety of what-do-I-have-to-worry-about-now.

I hope you're in a better position now, December.

A similar article in the Mail

www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-7823365/Dominic-Sandbrook-Farewell-hate-mobs-joyless-intolerance.html

Inevitably a post election “all is right with the world and the one nation conservatism we push” kind of article, but perhaps accurately reflecting the zeitgeist.

As well as Andrew Gilligan as an adviser, author of some very good GC articles, I realise that Dominic Cummings, Boris’ Chief Special adviser, is married to a Spectator journalist. It would be quite difficult, I assume, to be much of a TRA ally at the Spectator.

I assume the election is used as a reference point, not because wokeness and GC issues were a tipping point, but because the Swinson campaign opened the topic up for discussion.