Jane Clare Jones on purity spirals

[IamSarah]

Really insightful post on X the platform formally known as Twitter I feel it's worth sharing on here:

x.com/janeclarejones/status/1745760345954689255?s=46&t=NGJBRqkXgp1UazF5I8yjXA

people should be audited for their associations and their funding.

People. PEOPLE.

Money from my court case is not funding me as a person. It is funding the legal fees for my case which is to secure single sex rape crisis therapy for all women.

I have no access to the funding.

Donating to an anonymous survivor is always going to be risky if you only want to donate to women you politically agree with rather than the cause they are fighting for.

I think it's just general vague attempts to smear and impugn. Who here are you actually saying is homophobic or posting conspiracy anti vaxx stuff?

Agree. I haven’t seen this stuff on FWR

Why would the American conservative right want a raggle taggle of U.K. feminists in ‘it’s hands’? it’s not as if we’vr
got any power, there are only about 7 openly GC female MPs out of 650 total!

That the US right wants it’s hands on UK feminism sounds as bonkers conspiratorial as the stuff JCJ is critiquing.

“lots of people who are more or less explicitly anti-abortion, not inconsiderable homophobia, and also a lot of 'great replacement' theory discourse, as well as covid conspiracy and general QAnon type stuff. “

These things exist in isolation from feminism though. Homophobes can be feminists and feminists can be homophobes. Ditto al the other beliefs.

Even abortion- it’s possible to be be a feminist and still be pro life. Every individual right isn’t inseparable from any other. If someone is fantastic on ten key feminist issues, but has a visceral reaction that stops them supporting abortion, they don’t stop being a feminist. They are an unusual feminist sure, and I’d argue the issue with them.

Equally people who are pro abortion rights, or sex based rights or any other single issue, are not all feminists.

Donating to an anonymous survivor is always going to be risky if you only want to donate to women you politically agree with rather than the cause they are fighting for.

An anonymous survivor accepting court case funding from randoms on the internet is always going to be risky if said survivor doesn’t want to be associated with people with right wing political views.

I think you are missing the point. People on here agree with you about this. They are saying exactly this.

It’s other places who are saying‘careful now, I think they’re right wing! Don’t let any of them touch you!’

@IamSarah do you have an issue if funds come from a broad spectrum or are you happy to have all support?

I always interpret

Yes, that is your interpretation. I’m not very keen on all of what you’ve quoted either, but I don’t think it’s likely we will go back to homosexual expression being illegal, or the repeal of the 1967 abortion act. There are enough people who would fight against such ideas, including many Christians who have been convinced that it was right to modernise those areas of law.

To me “fear of God’s judgement” means treating ethical dilemmas seriously, and not just doing what suits my own personal interests. The interpretation doesn’t have to be premised on hellfire. There is a lot of understandable fear of fundamentalism (not the same as evangelical - evangelical does not equate with creationist, for example) but within Christianity as well as in wider society there is plenty of other opinion. Why are extreme right wing Christians feared so very much? What happened to the understanding that many social reformers have been Christians, and to the memory of Christian socialists? Battles for ideas need to be won with good arguments and persuasion, not demonisation and fear mongering. I would not agree with Miriam Cates on everything, but I used to know her parents, and they were people I had a lot of time for. I very much doubt that Cates is the monster you imply.

As far as I can see, what seems to be at the core of JCJ’s twitter thread, that was shared in the OP, is the difficulty that Labour Party affiliated women are having in getting the Labour Party publically to prioritise women, and women’s right to the dignity and privacy of single-sex spaces when in a state of undress. As publically criticising the party would make them Persona Non Grata in the party, their frustration somehow gets redirected onto other women who are campaigning (often more successfully) in other ways, in the form of “you can’t trust that lot over there!” prophesies of doom, and with a dash of “and those of you aren’t merely being manipulated by right wingers are actual right wingers”.

Here’s the final post from that twitter thread.

“It is also a practical political problem for the many women who are working diligently behind the scenes to try and ensure that the likely next government will listen to them, and to be in a position to hold their feet to the fire if they try and fudge the resolution to the trans issue.”

I guess it must be galling to watch female Conservative politicians seeming to have more sway and influence within their party than their “side” are having.

I don’t really understand why there’s a link between the online disagreement over the Q&A event and the photo, and the JCJ thread posted in the OP. Unless the point of the twitter thread was “you don’t agree with us hobnobbing with KJW, and we don’t like that some people/groups we despise have started agreeing with some of the things you believe”.

I completely agree with you on sucking out energy. It’s a real ‘here we go again’ thread, isn’t it.

Thank you for being specific.

So, Jean admits that she invited herself on the trip. She admits that no UK woman was funded by any right wing group but that they did have lunch. Jean complains that she wasn't included in the organisation of a trip that she admits that she invited herself on. That she was unhappy with what the other women had organised for themselves so she pulled out. And that KJK was upset by this and didn't talk to her. And you call this 'shitty' behaviour from Kellie Jay Keen?

Did I miss anything? Has Kellie Jay ever deviated away from the line that she will talk to anyone who wants to talk to her about these issues?

Are we supposed to agree with everything that Kellie Jay says? Because I don't. However, I will question people who want to accuse her of things though and ask for evidence.

And the screenshots on Women's Place, do you believe that a reluctance in appearing racist hindered the investigations into the grooming gang that she is referring to?

However, regardless of your personal issues with Kellie Jay, do you think it is appropriate for a feminist group to have a publicly available web page listing the sins of a women's right's campaigner? If you think this is appropriate behaviour, why is it appropriate behaviour?

@EasternStandard there is no way of me telling who has donated and there are no conditions attached to the donations.

I wouldn't accept a donation in return for promoting far right material for example but that hasn't happened.

Purity Spirals for Thee but not for Me!

The Real Feminists of Brighton can post photos of them hanging out with an ‘esteemed’ Genderman off of GB News but if the rest of us so much as retweet a Matt Walsh clip we’re enabling fascists 🙄

https://www.heterodorx.com/gender-wars-cards/

Playing Card Art by Nina Paley

Increasingly now its A TRANSWOMAN IS WHATEVER I SAY IT IS SHUT UP YOU ANTIWOMAN BIGOT to anyone who posts anything not on the "party line".

lots of people who are more or less explicitly anti-abortion, not inconsiderable homophobia, and also a lot of 'great replacement' theory discourse, as well as covid conspiracy and general QAnon type stuff.

I'd like to see receipts for any of this on FWR. I'm not here all the time, sometimes I lurk and sometimes I take a break, but I'm here a bit and I don't recognise this.

@Helleofabore are you on Twitter and have you seen what KJK has been posting about Brighton feminists the last few days? That sin page is very tame in comparison.

Yes quite.

I made a similar point on Twitter.

x.com/transwidows/status/1745070491205857386?s=46&t=PSGltfjrMyZmBtYq2-AVIQ

My only point was that page outlines some fairly crap things KJK has done, in my opinion. Yours might be different.

I'm not from a school of feminism where I think women can never be questioned, so I don't really care about the page. I do find it a bit weird you are taking this view on a thread where the op is taking a pasting for various "sins". Seems like the exact behaviour you are complaining about.

Well at the risk of sounding like we're in the playground, the Brighton feminists did start it.

I would like to make it clear that I support your case and wish you all the very best with it. I think you're doing a brave and important thing.

Thank you @Floisme that is lovely to read.

Can you blame her? Seriously?

JCJ and her gang devoted a special issue of their fanclub rag to trashing KJK FFS.

Do you really not think she should have a right of reply?

Fucksake.

Yep it’s not right.

@IamSarah any response to my questions or are rape survivors - you know, the women you say you are raising funds to support via single sex crisis center - beneath your consideration?

I am fully aware of what your case is for.

I am also fully aware that there was no attempt to screen out people whose views you do not share from donating.

This is not about whether we risked anything. It's about whether you view yourself as having risked anything by accepting donations towards the legal fees. Do you think you're putting the UK on the path to becoming a racist, misogynist, homophobic theocracy by not screening donations?

Originally I didn't think you were putting the UK on any such path, but then I also thought I could read and talk to whoever I like on twitter without needing to fear I was putting the UK on the path to becoming a racist, misogynist, homophobic theocracy. Apparently that's an unreasonable opinion.

Why should it be one rule for you and another for the rest of us?