The nerve of Jon Ronson

[RoyalCorgi]

Jon Ronson has an interview in the Sunday Times (sorry, no share token) about why the culture wars will soon burn out:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/jon-ronson-interview-the-culture-wars-will-burn-out-soon-8gsj9wrj0

This is a man who failed to stand up for women who were being bullied on social media and being banned from Twitter for standing up for women's rights. He fell out with Graham Linehan over Linehan's support for women's sex-based rights. Far from being a dispassionate observer of the culture wars, he has actively chosen a side - the wrong side.

Because expecting them to care about women and girls for our own sake is too much to ask, obviously.

TWEET
Mic Wright
@brokenbottleboy
·
7 Nov
The most maddening thing about this Jon Ronson interview is the pretence that he is ‘above’ the politics of the issues he’s discussing. He is Hundred points symbol not. It’s the classic claim to cold rationalism while the angles are absolutely apparent

@nauticant

The problem with having a discussion is that it's not simply different perspectives on the same thing but it's two largely separate conversations, one based in material reality and the other based on self-perception, with the latter actively rejecting material reality. What is the "middle ground" is such a situation?

Exactly this.

I've had enough of the blahblahblah, to paraphrase Helen Joyce - we just need to win.

Take it as a straw in the wind. Ron son would not even put his head far enough over the parapet to say “middle ground” if there hadn’t at last been some progress lately

Here we go, it's just starting.

I used to really like Jon Ronson but he is now ruined for me.

This discussion is so interesting and so eloquently puts into words what I cannot coherently express myself.

Ronson has unearthed some weird and wonderful stories in his time and I always admired him. But this goes to show he's not averse to pushing his own version of events rather than report on what he sees and it does make me question him now. Will catch up with this.

The first programme came across as Adam Curtis lite.

@midlifecrash

Take it as a straw in the wind. Ron son would not even put his head far enough over the parapet to say “middle ground” if there hadn’t at last been some progress lately

Exactly. He's not stupid. He's had the issues pointed out to him by more than one person IRL a long time ago. He's only going all 'middle ground' now because he thinks he's safe with it. A year ago, he wouldn't have had the balls for it, and in another year, he'll be saying exactly what we're saying now and presenting it as something new. I've lost a lot of respect for people as a result of this issue. He's one of them.

Jon Ronson is such a squirt. He’s the worst kind of hypocrite: he exploits people and their stories but stays ‘clean’ by staying above it all. He won’t get his hands dirty but he will make some cash inviting others to judgement. Same here. He sees a way to be part of the conversation as if be kind is a new initiative thanks Jon

That was a messy, poorly written article that conflated several issues and didn't seem to know what point it was trying to make, other than promoting Jon Ronson.

Of course he's promoting himself - his radio podcast came out this morning. This thread led me to it.
I will reserve judgement until I hear the trans episode but I did hear a Germaine Greer clip being used. Yes, he is playing it safe not to come down on one side and to present it as a debate - however, there are many of us struggling in that department... I agree that trans competitors in women's sport is unfair, that male-bodied inmates in female prisons is a potential danger, that any child on early meds is being placed on a pathway fraught with contra-indications, that one vulnerable person's right to protection should not override another's/ a woman's right to feel safe.
But I don't have an answer other than 'gender-neutral' spaces/a third space/a trans category for sports etc which I concede might feel ''othering''. Validation, however, comes with a cost to women, who have fought just as hard and are equally, if not more, vulnerable.
So there is no compromise position, is there?

Jon Ronson is pretty brave- he attended a KKK rally and when asked if he was a Jew he replied “yes”. That must have taken guts.

So it’s a shame he hasn’t been so brave on social media.

@Deliriumoftheendless

Jon Ronson is pretty brave- he attended a KKK rally and when asked if he was a Jew he replied “yes”. That must have taken guts.

So it’s a shame he hasn’t been so brave on social media.

Yes. It's more likely that he's not a coward, but that he simply doesn't think women are important. I think that's true for an awful lot of men in this debate. He sees the men on lesbian dating apps, or the six foot man in a women's football team and thinks: why not? Indeed when you look at a lot of men in this debate, you can see they are genuinely bewildered that women complain about having to share their spaces with men. It's as if they think it's women's role to accommodate what men want, and when women refuse, it just doesn't compute.

Yes RoyalCorgi I think you’re right.

Very sad thing to find out though.

Indeed when you look at a lot of men in this debate, you can see they are genuinely bewildered that women complain about having to share their spaces with men. It's as if they think it's women's role to accommodate what men want, and when women refuse, it just doesn't compute.

Agreed. One of the most frustrating things about this whole saga is not just the ridiculous unreality being pushed on us, but that it has highlighted how much many men don't really care how women's lives are negatively affected by all this.

Even the ones who proffer themselves as 'good guys' who see themselves as such. They know it's all really bullshit, but just go along with the nonsense because it's trendy or whatever, and once again we are reminded that they don't give a shit. They just carry on regardless, safe in the knowledge that they protected from the worst of it. And clap themselves on the back at how progressive they are.

They don't give a shit, because they don't have to. Their spaces, their sports teams, their prisons, their language is unaffected. How nice for them!

And we are just supposed to shut up and take it - how dare we see ourselves as fully fledged human beings, and not just support bots to facilitate an easy life for them .

I have listened to the first episode. It was really interesting, about the place of abortion in US culture wars, and the development if the pro life evangelical movement. He takes the story of some anti abortion films produced by the Schaeffers, a father and son team, and centres it around that.

It's interesting that in the 70s and early 80s the Southern Baptists were pro choice, and didn't want to touch anti abortion with a barge pole. Anti abortion was a Catholic position (as it still is mainly in the UK I think), but the Schaeffers basically campaigned to get evangelicals to take it up.

My criticisms are that it rather skimmed over and truncated the later history. I remember that George W Bush's republican party was influenced by pro life evangelicals, but that wasn't mentioned. Surely the unison of Dem with pro-choice, and Rep with pro-life is the essence of the culture wars? I suspect he's over emphasised the significance of the schaeffer films in the historical change, as that's his hook, and I always think there is likely to be a more complex context and other influences that produced the change, rather than just one actor. But I don't know. His delivery is a bit annoying (does he always talk like that?).

In general though it is good to have someone who tries to be outside the issue looking in. The moment he was most human and empathetic was when the film tour was going badly because they had booked stadiums but only filled half of the front row! He told it as history, and got good interviews from the people. We do need high decouplers to do this. I will be interested to hear the other episodes.

The abortion program was absolutely fascinating and I recommend it.

Essentially, being anti-abortion was considered an irrelevant "Catholic thing" by evangelical Christians until an obscure film made it a rallying point and it mushroomed from there. The younger of the film-makers is now filled with regret and tells the story.

Re Johnson I hadn't realised his voice was so high-pitched. I genuinely thought it was Julian Clary presenting till the end.

Today's was decent, about a campaign by reactionaries in 1960s America to ban indecent books. All the way through I was thinking that it would make sense to point out that in the current day banning "wrong" books is something that both extremes are keen to indulge in and in the final part of the programme Ronson gave a clear example of this.

Sounds to me like he could be leading up to something.

We know how things can be spun.

A good one this morning, about an evangelist reaching across the cultural divide:

It’s the early 1980s and a hugely popular television evangelist is having a crisis of conscience. She wants Christian evangelism to be less bigoted. And so, to the horror of her peers, she invites a very unexpected guest onto her TV show…

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0011sf7

Yup, I've lost all respect for him over the past couple of years.

So far this series is pretty good. Heard the satanic panic one today. Really fascinating. Good interview with the radio evangelist who helped popularise the idea that ppl are in league with the devil doing ritual abuse, and a brilliant interview with the poor woman who served time in prison for crimes that didn't occur. She was able to laugh about some of the things she served time for because of the absurdity.
I wonder what the children who gave evidence now think, and their parents? And how the police and psychologists who made the case view it now.

Towards the end he was very keen on the angle that progressive, well off, intellectual types are capable of being fooled by a moral panic. I wonder where that's going.

Can't listen to his radio programme, his voice is so awful.

Which is a shame as it's probably quite interesting.

has the article gone? I can't find it.

tbh the last couple of articles I read from him, I couldn't follow them. It was the blah blah blah that Helen Joyce refers to, I guess.