First they came for KJK, now Helen Joyce

[Jellycats4life]

I’ve been feeling very disillusioned by leftist feminists denigrating the single issue campaigners for not being feminist enough (even if they never claimed to be feminists in the first place) and for either being right wing or aligning with the right wing. I know HJ copped a tremendous amount of flak for attending KJK’s event in Brighton (and I actually suspect she might have lost a few friends too) but now we have this.

I know HJ is economically right wing and centrist/conservative in her politics. I’m politically homeless and so couldn’t care less about anyone’s politics not aligning with my own. This purity spiral I keep seeing within left wing GC circles is so deleterious to the movement, surely?

I thought it had all died down but clearly not.

I have never heard HJ discuss her views on abortion, and even if her opinion differs to mine I seriously doubt it would impact upon my opinion of her as a GC campaigner. I think she’s one of the best voices we’ve got. Will we ever get anywhere if disagreeing with someone means you have to cast them out?

Anyway, the upshot of this is I’m interested in the journal, haha!

Helen Joyce is an inspiring voice on this issue. She can clearly talk about the issues and comes across as likeable and approachable, which in fact she is.
Again, I am getting pretty pissed off with some women dictating what other women's politics should be, just because they believe in biological sex and the current threat to women and girls.
The Labour Party have been treacherous bastards and it will be a cold day in hell before I vote for them again. If that makes me 'not a feminist' now, so fuck.

I think there is so much crap written and posted about feminists who want sex to be prioritised over gender where sex matters. Last night on a thread on this board we were told that GC feminists did not fight for ‘equality of opportunity’!

Well, I was surprised. I mean, in my mind so much of the fight is integrally tied into providing females with equal opportunities and sometimes, where it matters, efforts towards achieving equity too. Obvious, I am wrong but I am waiting to be told where I went wrong.

I have decided that so many people deriding women who prioritise sex over gender have a very prejudiced view of the issues and our priorities but are so sanctimonious and entrenched in their own superiority (either/or of morality or intellect) that I don’t think we will ever get through to them.

“The Labour Party have been treacherous bastards and it will be a cold day in hell before I vote for them again. If that makes me 'not a feminist' now, so fuck.”

I am coming to believe that many women are rejecting the label of ‘feminist’ because of the constant barrage of ‘right wing’ and ‘guilt by association’.

If you cant say who a woman is, how can you fight for equality?

I'm not a fan of Helen Lewis since she threw Glinner under the bus

grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/helen-lewis-is-a-dishonest-unethical

I actually typed out, then deleted, a reply saying that as much as I enjoy Helen Lewis as a writer and podcast guest (her piece on Tiktok Tourette’s and social contagion really is fantastic) I have always been disappointed at the extent to which she sits on the fence. She skirts so close to the gender critical line, but is never brave enough to actually step out. Slippery fish is about right @pattihews

So I’m glad other people have seen it too.

Well I think Glinner largely lay himself down in front of the bus but she didn't need to drive over him.

I have JH muted as well for the same reason. I can see that refusing to engage with women who seem to only ever tweet to bring other women down could technically count as a purity spiral.

But for me, the defining nature of purity spirals is ostentatiously distancing yourself from other people and their work, because their opinions diverge from yours on an unrelated issue.

I'm not doing that. I'm privately (and occasionally publicly) avoiding people based on their behaviour and actions.

I have come to think that recognising and avoiding participating in purity spirals is a moral imperative, but that belief is derived from my pre-existing belief that you should have clear boundaries on what behaviour you are willing to be part of. As a child, I pushed myself to have the mental strength to walk away from friendship groups when the afternoon veered towards destruction, rulebreaking, or bullying and harassing others. I tried not to let myself go along for the ride. I would hope we all did the same, because that is what growing up is about.

Those skills are indispensable: our desire to avoid purity spirals cannot progress to the point that we fear that it's judgemental to have moral boundaries on what people should do. That would be a regression, not progression.

This is such a good, clear explanation - you've really nailed it IMO, thank you.

Isn’t the gain, in their eyes anyway, that TRAs can no longer play that same guilt by association game and proclaim that GC views are right wing? Calling someone/something right wing these days seems to be tantamount to declaring something “alt right”, fascist etc?

Aye but the 'real feminists' are also calling women right wing for having different political / social views. Same as the TRAs, imo.

teawamutu

Thank you! Glad to hear the effort to expand beyond my first draft (which went along the lines of "what?! It's clearly totally different!") paid off.

That was to Datun’s question “Where is the gain?”.

Yes, I rate a lot of Helen Lewis's material in The Spark and various podcasts highly. Like Helen Joyce she's able to express complex ideas concisely and with clarity. Unlike Helen Joyce she's taken the easy way out and refused to take a side on the biggest threat to women's rights in a century and I think that will come to haunt her reputation down the line. It raises questions about her judgment.

I had a quick look at HL's Wikipedia entry and in the past she's promoted the idea that TWAW (including commissioning articles by people such as Jane Fae for the New Statesman). Since then she's started asking questions about the conflict of women's and trans rights, but still from a TWAW position — which as we know is an impossible balancing act. That's where the slippery fish image came to mind.

As for attacking Graham Linehan, kicking kittens is never a good look.

Since then she's started asking questions about the conflict of women's and trans rights, but still from a TWAW position — which as we know is an impossible balancing act.

It was enough to get her the boot (retrospectively) from a video game:

www.pcgamer.com/ubisoft-is-removing-a-controversial-uk-journalist-from-watch-dogs-legion/

Two in-game podcasts in Watch Dogs: Legion(opens in new tab) that feature British journalist Helen Lewis will be removed as a result of "controversial" statements she's made in the past. Ubisoft said that it was not made aware of Lewis' previous statements until after development of the game was complete.

"Neither Ubisoft nor the game reflect this journalist’s viewpoints," Ubisoft said in a statement. "The development team worked with an external producer to select speaker profiles for these podcasts and were not aware of the controversy at the time of booking or recording.

"While the in-game podcasters are following a pre-approved script and are not speaking in their own name or with their own opinions, we understand this collaboration itself may be seen as offensive and we deeply regret any hurt this has caused. In response, we will be replacing these two podcast episodes in an upcoming update and will reinforce our background checks for partners in the future."

This is absolutely correct and why I no longer refer to myself as a feminist. Anecdotal evidence but evidence nonetheless.

Thanks for clarifying it is her, as I thought.

Vandalizing and stomping on flags is generally seen as hatred, wouldn't you agree?

Ah, the faux-naif tone again. Never gets old.

Or works.

So how about the Nazi salute that no one was doing? Anything to say about that?

While we're discussing the moral nature of things that never happened, what's your stance on going to the future, stealing a almanac recording historical sports results, coming back to the present, and using the almanac to place bets?

And what's your stance on trans activists destroying women's signs and using the pieces to physically threaten the women protesting? Oh wait, that one did happen.