Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

The nerve of Jon Ronson

159 replies

RoyalCorgi · 07/11/2021 15:45

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.

OP posts:
nauticant · 30/11/2021 10:34

I know what you mean about his voice Tulipomania.

Today's episode was about the moral panic in the US over the Satanic Abuse of children. A reminder how the authorities and people believing they're on the right side of history will, in certain circumstances, latch onto self-evidently insane ideas, sweep away evidence and critical thinking, do incredibly harmful things, and destroy anyone identified as a witch.

The structure of these programmes is standard: find an example of the culture going dysfunctional, find an individual who had an extraordinary experience in the midst of this, and present a story of them pitted against the dyfunctionality. It'll be interesting to see how this structure will be applied in the programme about the gender identity ideology. That looks like it'll be episode 6.

hamstersarse · 30/11/2021 10:42

He's always been over-confident

His Psychopath book was an absolute shambles, universally denounced by anyone who knows anything about psychopathology, including Hare, the guy who Ronson 'quoted' a lot in his book - who went on to write many rebuttals to the claims Ronson makes in the book

Charlaton

RoyalCorgi · 30/11/2021 10:48

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.

My guess is that instead of looking at all the women who have lost their work, been threatened with rape or violence, or experienced actual violence, or had malicious legal action taken against them by trans activists, the programme will focus on those silly women who foolishly imagine that trans women are a threat. Because obviously trans activists are lovely, gentle people who aren't a threat at all (except when they're threatening rape or violence or making people lose their jobs, but we'll skip over that).

OP posts:
nauticant · 30/11/2021 10:59

The recurring message that Ronson seems to like is that there are people on the extremes and people in the middle, and in order to end a particular culture war you need to increase the understanding and kindness of those in the middle, and once you hit a critical mass of people being nice, the extremes become irrelevant and the conflict ends.

allmywhat · 30/11/2021 11:04

Yes. It's more likely that he's not a coward, but that he simply doesn't think women are important.

It’s this. I remember, because it was so outrageous to me, why he eventually decided he wasn’t on Glinner’s side.

It was a photo Glinner posted of a college basketball team; one seven-foot 50+ year old TW with a bunch of ~20 year old women.

The photo is very striking; if you’ve seen it you’ll know what photo I mean. The unfairness is so OBVIOUS; it’s angering. But Ronson didn’t register that; he seemed to think the point of posting it was to mock the male player for looking different from the female players, and that Glinner was just posting it to be mean.

MedusasBadHairDay · 30/11/2021 11:13

I found the first 2 interesting, but I'm really not expecting much from the trans one. The impression he's given so far is that he's very much picked a side and hasn't made any effort to understand even the absolute basics of the GC/radfem position, maybe he'll surprise me but.. I'm expecting a lot of misrepresentation.

RoyalCorgi · 30/11/2021 11:25

The photo is very striking; if you’ve seen it you’ll know what photo I mean. The unfairness is so OBVIOUS; it’s angering. But Ronson didn’t register that; he seemed to think the point of posting it was to mock the male player for looking different from the female players, and that Glinner was just posting it to be mean.

Exactly. And what's fascinating about that, as you say, is that Ronson doesn't even notice the unfairness to the female players or think about how they might feel. It's as if how women feel is completely invisible to him, and all he cares about is the putative hurt feelings of the 7 ft male. It's so telling.

OP posts:
nauticant · 30/11/2021 11:30

He thinks that unfairness can be smoothed away by being kind. What he misses is when the unfairnesses are largely going just one way, and this is a structural feature because of sex, then the burden of kindness falls on women, and actually serves to enable some of the worst behaviour they're having to put up with.

prudencepuffin · 30/11/2021 11:51

I think that more interesting than Ronson in today`s programme was the woman who was caught up in the extremist panic. She was very clear that many of the people who had believed in it, were often decent fairl minded people, and that using your brain and applying reason were a defence against this kind of hysteria. Which is why "no debate" was the best defence of the genderists.

nauticant · 07/12/2021 09:33

Another good episode today, this was about the arrival of the battle for free speech on the Internet. Even from the very start, decades ago, it seemed that people leapt for "you are a bigot" rather than "I think you made a mistake, can we discuss it?"

As is common with these programmes, Ronson goes to get the "gosh" response at the end, in this case when updating on the people 30 years later, what happened to the reporter.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 07/12/2021 09:37

I listened to the first one, will catch up. The trans one is on 14th, I think?

nauticant · 07/12/2021 09:46

It looks like it: www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0012fs8

This story is about how the unique experiences of a little girl growing up unconventionally in America in the 1970s seismically changed the face of feminism in the 90s and beyond. It's a story too about the invention of a word - one that's contributed to a ferocious schism in the British culture wars.

ArtemesiaK · 07/12/2021 14:17

I don't think I can bear to listen to this one. If it's skewed towards the trans or makes out that women are being mean, I think I may explode with rage...

Ereshkigalangcleg · 07/12/2021 14:25

I think that's inevitable!

ditalini · 07/12/2021 14:33

I think weirdly it was JR who first got me thinking about trans.

He did a piece about Jennifer Prizker and the robot JP is building of her wife.

At no point was it hinted that JP was not female, but what was said, done, the relationship - it all just felt WRONG.

So I looked up JP and sure enough... Really got me thinking about how the clothes, hormones and surgery absolutely do not make the woman.

ditalini · 07/12/2021 14:36

Not JP, Martine Rothblatt.

Manderleyagain · 07/12/2021 22:43

Today's episode was interesting again. About very early Internet public shaming, because of a joke made on usenet.

I'm not looking forward to the trans one.

HelloDulling · 07/12/2021 22:49

I’m not sure there is a trans ep. I heard him interviewed last week, and they asked him about it and I think (but was only half listening) he said he didn’t do a trans ep, as it would drown out the other stories.

MedusasBadHairDay · 07/12/2021 23:05

@HelloDulling

I’m not sure there is a trans ep. I heard him interviewed last week, and they asked him about it and I think (but was only half listening) he said he didn’t do a trans ep, as it would drown out the other stories.
He uses a quote from Greer in the intro to the show, where she's clearly talking about transwomen, so.. suspect he has.
GlomOfNit · 07/12/2021 23:33

I was catching up on the Fortunately podcast today, and he was a recent guest of Fi and Jane - and yes, there appears to be a trans episode. They were asking him specifically against it and there was a fair amount of 'Oh I don't want this whole series to become about just the Trans Thing!" flannel. TBH I wasn't encouraged to listen based on this, but I'll give the abortion one a go.

Bertiebiscuit · 07/12/2021 23:39

I'm no longer shocked or surprised by all the blokes, straight and gay, punching down on women and our hard won rights - that brief moment of having to pretend that they saw women as full human beings, to be respected and treated as equals must have nearly killed them, and now the familiar dam of misogyny has burst its banks

Bosky · 08/12/2021 20:06

Interesting comment on the Graham Linehan Substack article about Jon Ronson:

grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/so-what-if-youve-been-publically/comment/651985

AlisonWontWheesht - Oct 25, 2020

"I hoped you taped the conversation you had with him, Graham.

I am unsurprised at him being disingenuous. I knew of him solely because he falsely represented himself as an expert on Dr Robert Hare's psychopathy test. (Dr Hare is the one who said Ronson falsely represented himself).

At roughly the time this was happening, I was learning about psychopathy myself, and watching lots of videos, which is how I stumbled across his. A psychologist I had been to see for PTSD related to a car accident had asked me to read the book Without Conscience, Psychopaths Among Us. He believed a "friend" of mine might well be a psychopath. Usually psychologists will not agree to the definition "psychopath" preferring narcissistic personality disorder, which has the same basic traits.

Psychologists generally prefer not to believe someone is absolutely unfixable and untreatable, as psychopaths basically are. They offer attempts to engage with and treat people diagnosed with NPD, which is why you won't often hear a psychologist discuss psychopathy. The truth is, trying to treat people without empathy, shame, guilt, or love just trains them how to better psychopaths.

Anyway, I was lucky, as it just happened to be James David Haynes' (the psychologist I visited) area of interest at this time. I wish I had read the book about two years (or twenty years) previously, would have saved me a lot of trouble with my psychopathic "friend" and made some sense of some things going on in the world.

I am not associated with Dr Hare or his work in any way, but highly recommend everyone reads the book.

Seriously, if you haven't read it, you don't understand psychopaths, even if you think you do. Please, do read it.

It could explain a lot about the current situation women find themselves in. That is not to say all transologists are psychopaths, but that it only takes a few with power to cause absolute havoc and destroy progress.

www.booktopia.com.au/without-conscience-dr-robert-d-hare/book/9781572304512.html

Ronson took the work of an educated scientist and rode his coat tails to make claims that were untrue in order to sell himself as a psychopath expert. Dr Hare says he is not. His "talk" on the subject was one of the last TED talks I subjected myself to, because I realised at that point that anybody could and did say anything they liked in TED talks and they may present themselves as authorities but they often are not. In this "talk", which was grandstanding nonsense in my opinion for the most part, he tries to downplay the reality of and concern of psychopaths amongst us. Having read the book and followed up with further reading, I could clearly see that Ronson's claims could not be true, regarding his expertise and ability to diagnose psychopaths. Only trained mental health practitioners with years of expertise are even allowed to attempt this. He did a workshop on it.

Of course I am not claiming this about Ronson, but it has been pointed out that people who would be diagnosed as psychopaths themselves often make a point of trying to dismiss, downplay or make a joke out of the dangers of psychopaths. They minimise their behaviours and appeal to neurotypical people's sense of empathy to thwart any attempts to reign in the harm psychopaths cause.

This is Dr Robert Hare, an actual expert who has spent his life studying psychopaths and who devised his psychopathy test, speaking up about Ronson's behaviour here:

www.hare.org/comments/comment3.pdf

So, I remain unsurprised that he downplays the issue of harms caused by people with low empathy."

nauticant · 14/12/2021 09:03

Let's see what today's episode brings. Remember, the structure is to focus on an individual who finds themselves caught up in one of the culture wars and then to define the culture war in terms of what happened to that individual.

Obviously that leads to a partial and biased picture. With something as complicated as how trans has developed, there have been an large number of separate or loosely related inputs.

In case anyone is looking for something amusing, here's a Dead Ringers take on John Ronson from last Friday:

www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001287t (from 24:30)

WarriorN · 14/12/2021 09:04

Listening.

Finding the emotive music annoying

nauticant · 14/12/2021 09:06

Unless I'm misunderstanding the introduction, this episode, which Ronson has said is about trans, is being presented in terms of racial acceptance in a racially segregated society.