Women's rights general conversations - Thread 4

[Kucinghitam]

Continuation of Thread 3.

There is so much excellent information and so many active discussions on FWR that I wondered if it would be useful to have a thread to sort of "cross-fertilise" between them - airing little thoughts or vignettes that wouldn't themselves merit their own thread, to highlight other posts/threads of particular interest or to point to notable developments on fast-moving threads so that casual observers know where to look.

(For example, "the X thread has meandered onto a fascinating discussion of Y" or "Poster P's amazing analysis on thread Z might have relevance to the scenario in thread W" or "Has anybody noticed this recurring theme that keeps coming up??" or even "Random bloke asked me to smile while I was choosing onions, grr"- that sort of thing).

Suella Braverman, Sarah Vine and Katie Hopkins probably. Allison Pearson and Jan Moir as an outside bet. Hope the odds are good.

It’s not misogynistic to disagree with or criticise women in the public eye especially when they make a living from airing opinions which are intended to provoke. From what I know of JHB she’s nothing if not robust, she’s not afraid to put it about a bit, and she wouldn’t whinge or complain or cry misogyny just because someone dislikes her. She’s successful, she has an audience by being controversial. There’s no need on her account to browbeat the people she winds up and who dislike her into either staying silent or pretending to admire her. I very much doubt that’s her style. She’s not a fraud.

Among other things JHB was/is a columnist. If disliking her makes me persona non grata then so be it but it has fuck all to do with misogyny.

Genuine question. Am I supposed to admire her and if so, why?

Any woman who dares to have a mind of her own is on the list!

You're not supposed to do anything. Like her, hate her, I don't care. But if you're going to attack her on a public forum, then expect pushback from women who are sick of seeing us get lied about and targeted.

Personally I think it's fair to discuss and debate her ideas. But focusing on your personal feelings of dislike, and using that as a basis to try to discredit a woman - well, it's a witch trial, isn't it? You accuse her of "hate hate hate" and all manner of hateful things, but you clearly don't listen to her show or follow her interviews to know what you're talking about.

She's been on Brendan O'Neill's podcast at least once - why don't you listen to that and if you still hate her at least you'll be able to base it on something real.

At the risk of sounding like a shit-stirrer, I'm actually glad this discussion is taking place. To me, this is how it should be. People disagreeing, but being able to discuss it (however annoyed they might get with each other).

If the events of the Great Departure have taught me anything, it's that wholesale labelling of people such that they become persona non grata and in fact should be hounded out (or, conversely, that their presence is so toxic that others can't bear to be on the same fucking hell INTERNET forum) is just utterly batshit crazy.

Me, I happen to agree with JHB on the matter of female single-sex spaces, with Piers Morgan on penguin gender, with Jeremy Clarkson that Brexit is a disaster. At the same time I am aware that all these people have expressed, yes, vile opinions on other matters. But then I feel exactly the same about (e.g.) Alex Sobel MP who is fervently against Brexit (I agree) but also fervently against single-sex prisons and healthcare (I think this is vile).

I just think it should be about ideas and opinions and we should use evidence to support what we say.

I personally despise Owen Jones and I'm well aware that it's personal. But if you asked me about his ideas, I'd be able to discuss them using evidence, and I'd be willing to change my mind if someone was able to convince me with evidence. He is the worst person I can think of in terms of public punditry but I don't think he should simply be called names and everyone be expected to agree to ignore him. He has a right to his voice. The answer is to keep talking back.

I feel it's even more important when we are talking about women not to monster them as this leads to their being silenced and unheard.

As Voltaire apparently didn't say: I may not agree with what you say, but I defend to the death your right to say it. That goes double for women.

Agree 💯@beastlyslumber Thinking back I'm know I would have been guilty of that kind of wholesale labelling and I'm ashamed of it now.

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/radio-host-claims-migrants-that-drowned-in-the-channel-were-not-desperate-184726601.html?

I don't think anyone has said the JHB has no right to a voice, or that everybody should ignore her. But she does have some pretty unpleasant opinions.

She has the right to express them, and I have the right to say they are wrong.

I just think to say her opinions are wrong (and explain/evidence why) is fine. But to say they're unpleasant is monstering. It's not unpleasant to have one opinion and pleasant to have another. Are your opinions pleasant? Do they make you a nice person? Is that what's important? What about the truth?

Fwiw I agree with JHB that the people traffickers are to blame and when people are in France they shouldn't be getting into boats to the UK and risking their children's lives in the process. I assume you think that makes me unpleasant, but I don't find your moral judgement to be relevant. Logic and evidence leads me to that conclusion. If someone can show my logic and evidence are faulty, then I'll accept I'm wrong and think again.

Can we not just leave the moralising and monstering out of it?

She has the right to express them, and I have the right to say they are wrong.

Absolutely. That's how it should be.

(I agree with you that her views on migrants are horrific).

I disagree with @beastlyslumber that calling somebody's views unpleasant is monstering, BTW. It's a criticism of the views. Unless we're going to get into a spiral where the next person says that labelling the [opinion about the opinion] as monstering is meta-monstering...

They're not "horrific"!!! You just don't agree with her.

Present the evidence that shows you are right and JHB is wrong. That's fine. She can present her evidence and then the person with the most convincing argument wins. That's how this should work. Give her respect that she's an intelligent woman who has reason and logic supporting her, so discussion is perfectly possible.

Using language to describe women as vile, unpleasant, repugnant, horrific for expressing their perfectly ordinary and legal views is monstering. You can see it when the view is "men aren't women" but for some reason you are blind to it when it's a view you personally don't hold? How does that make you any better than a TRA?

In my opinion, saying that people desperate enough to drown in the channel aren't desperate, is horrific. It would be my opinion of such a view, whether it was said by a man or woman. Kindly note that I did not describe the person as [mean words].

It sounds like you are monstering me personally now.

It's a criticism of her views IF you explain what you disagree with and why. E.g. I find this view unpleasant because... (although you will find you are moralising, because that's your starting point.)

Simply saying she has unpleasant, vile, repugnant, disgusting etc views is monstering. Of course it is. You say, oh her views are vile - so you're not listening to them, you can dismiss them as not worth listening to, by extension that means she's not worth listening to, you've just told anyone who agrees with her that they're agreeing with something vile and they are going to assume that you think they're vile for agreeing, because why would you think something vile unless you're a vile person? Of course it's monstering and attempting to silence women you don't agree with.

I feel like you are monstering me.

There is factually correct and wrong, and there is morally right and wrong.

To me, saying people drowning in an attempt to cross the channel is their own fault is both types of wrong - but only one of those types can be evidenced by both side presenting their facts. And yes, I'm very comfortable calling that opinion unpleasant/vile. As Kucing says, that is not monstering the person.

No, I'm explaining why I disagree with you. Don't take it personally. I haven't said your views are horrific. I've said that by labelling women's views this way you are taking part in attempts to silence those views and by extension those women.

I think you are entitled to disagree with JHB but I don't understand why you can't put forward a logical argument as to why you think she's wrong rather than simply labelling her "horrific" and then getting upset when someone takes issue with that? I agree with JHB on this and I don't consider myself to be horrific, rather the opposite. I'm sure I could be wrong in my understanding, but by labelling me horrific and taking offence you are shutting down the conversation and the possibility of changing anyone's mind. I don't understand why anyone would do that who says they support women's right to speak.

So it's factually right that men aren't women but it's morally wrong to say it? Am I getting this right? So we can say that's a horrific view? Which means we can assume the person expressing it is horrific, because why would you say something horrific unless you were a vile and terrible person?

If you think that is a wrong way of talking about KJK then you should also see it's a wrong way of talking about JHB. It's flawed logic.

No, I'm explaining why I disagree with you. Don't take it personally. I haven't said your views are horrific. I've said that by labelling women's views this way you are taking part in attempts to silence those views and by extension those women.

You're telling me that my views of her views are wrongly expressed and are monstering her and labelling her horrific and silencing womankind. You are also saying that I am labelling you horrific. I content that there is zero evidence that I have labelled anybody as a person. You have therefore labelled me as an ad hominem labeller.

I would point out that it behooves us all not to take things personally when somebody disagrees with our views.

I didn't know where to put this but as the topic here at the moment seems to be monstering of alternative political views it seems relevant. It's a Brendan O'Neill interview with Matt Goodwin who is a political scientist. I've heard him interviewed many times before and he makes a lot of sense to me.

He makes a very clear distinction between radical progressivism and classical liberalism and talks about how radical progressivism is fundamentally illiberal and it's adherents form a new political elite who are disconnected from the reality of most people's lives.

It's an hour long but MG is articulate and very easy to listen to.

It is a massive irony if we're at the point where we're Bad People for not agreeing with TRSOH's Bundle of Good Beliefs, but also Bad People for not agreeing with [any other person/group]'s Bundle of Beliefs.

I reject Bundles of Beliefs. It's OK to agree with somebody about some things, and fervently disagree with them about other things.

I agree with my mother about many many many things, but also find her homophobic views horrific. Somehow, we manage to still love each other and have our agreements and disagreements. But perhaps I'm actually grinding her into the dirt like the monstrous worm I have labelled her.

I don't think you are following my logic, Kucing. I apologise if I am being unclear. I agree you have the right to agree, disagree, say what you like. And I have the right to respond to that how I like.

I also believe that by labelling certain views as immoral (vile, horrific etc) we make it difficult for anyone to express those views. Therefore we are taking part in silencing those we disagree with. I have a big problem with that. I think the cure for bad speech is better speech, I.e. use logic and reason and evidence to show why a view is incorrect and another view is better. That way you bring people along with you, rather than creating a moral hierarchy with them at the bottom. That could be you at the bottom, if we changed the subject.

You could be wrong. I could be wrong. The only thing we can do is use our voices to figure it out. If you tell me my voice is horrific and refuse to hear it, then we'll never know who is right or wrong and you're doing me a great injustice.

I do need to get on with my day now but I appreciate the discussion and I'm certainly not trying to silence you!

I'm not asking you to agree with anyone's bundle of beliefs. Not sure where you've got that idea from? That's the opposite of how I think.

I appreciate the discussion too @beastlyslumber - I think to a certain extent we are talking at cross purposes, but honestly, even if we don't agree on this, I think that is just real life isn't it?

Random musing, I've just dipped into the Shamima Begum thread and saw some usernames I recognise from FWR: there are various, clearly strongly-felt-and-worded, disagreements going on. And yes, some of the views are ones I find, erm, problematic.

But That Is Life.