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

So has someone calmly written to her away from Twitter or picked up the phone and talked to her, given her correct information and she has refused?

Yes, of course, they all have KJK's phone number...

Let's be realistic about this. KJK wrote something untruthful and arguably defamatory about Rise to her very large audience. You're now making out that it's Rise's fault for not correcting KJK in the "calm" manner you deem appropriate. Silly, hysterical women, right?

You platformed him by tweeting out a photo of him, Stock and Bindel and referring to them all as esteemed guests.

You platformed him on Twitter.

Is it not a part of the problem that when someone is, effectively or literally, a 'professional feminist' they tend to guard their ground quite strictly? I'd certainly put both JCJ and Julie Bindel into this category.

When you are a professional feminist or any other type of committed party member you are always having to define and protect your ideological boundaries.

Many of us, though, don't even identify as 'feminist' - what interests us more is valuing the experienece, the voice and the integrity of women and girls - whoever they may be; whatever their background; culture; relgious or political affiliation.

When you let go of ideological dogma you tend to be more accommodating. It is not about purity spirals or moral righteousness any longer - but about working towards shared goals.

Was your comment about knowing who could sell Tinsel a T-shirt a swipe at KJK?

If so, you are cemented in a headspace that everything she does is wrong. It looks like envy, honestly.

I don’t see how you can talk about golden bridges while still taking every opportunity to swipe at someone.

I had therapy that touched on a relationship I was struggling with. Every day I woke up determined that today would be different, today I would break the deadlock and there would be a truce. The therapist pointed out ‘that’s nice, but what makes you think he feels the same?’ Effectively I was unilaterally declaring a truce without discussing it with him and felt betrayed when he broke it again and again.

This feels like that.

Also, twitter creates these purity spirals and then nurtures them. When people use twitter as an essential part of their communication i imagine they become very sensitive about who else is commenting on their tweets - so as to manage who can and cannot be associated with them.

I thought no platforming was a bad thing?
Also tweeting a photo is not giving someone a platform.

Seriously Adam, tweeting a photo of three people putting the third in the same esteemed category as two significant feminists isn’t an issue to you?

Anyway Sarah has apologised for that, so she sees the problem retrospectively even if you don’t.

The longer standing issues remain and need lancing, frankly.

There’s no issue with platforming anyone. It’s when you platform someone and claim you’re not, and when you criticise others for similar but can’t see it in yourself.

Of course tweeting a photo is platforming. That person gets to be seen by the followers of the account tweeting it. It’s a platform on which they otherwise wouldn’t have stood. It’s not complicated.

No Royalcorgi. I also suggested an email. Because if something is that important, and I agree correcting the misinformation about Rise is important if it is not true, then it shouldn’t be left to Twitter interactions to fix.

If she made an error, she should address it. However, continuing to vilify her if she hasn’t seen the tweets telling her she is wrong is what I am pointing out is continuing a cycle of vilification. People are muted on Twitter. There is a risk that she honestly hasn’t seen the tweets correcting her misinformation.

I did a quick look and the people tweeting about it in the replies could be very likely to be muted. I think I found two people replying to her tweet that it was wrong.

I am saying, why risk that she hasn’t seen.

And I also asked Sarah if Rise did at any time accepted male people into female single sex spaces? The screenshot she posted had this link.

https://www.thepinknews.com/2020/09/09/sarah-savage-trans-author-womens-refuge-domestic-abuse-transgender/

Rise ‘referred’ a male to a female shelter. This was the context of that post.

To me "no platforming" refers to removing someone's ability to air particular views in public. E.g. what the BBC did to Sinn Fein in the 90s. What the media did to Nick Griffin in the 2000s. What the TRAs increasingly demanded happened to feminists like Germaine Greer in the 2010s.

Tweeting a photo of someone is not giving them a platform because its not giving them space to air their views.

I'm just very surprised given the TRA tactics of trying to no platform feminists that posters are now levelling that accusation at other women.

However rebellious post about a lot of posters here not identifying as feminists does explain a lot.

Is it not a part of the problem that when someone is, effectively or literally, a 'professional feminist' they tend to guard their ground quite strictly? I'd certainly put both JCJ and Julie Bindel into this category.

Unfortunately, it seems that the ground they see as theirs to guard from interlopers can sometimes include the grass, thus they feel entitled to police whose posts grassroots women read on twitter. Or maybe it's women they otherwise consider to be on an intellectual par with plantlife. Even more unfortunately for them, we keep noticing this attitude.

pickledandpuzzled

Was your comment about knowing who could sell Tinsel a T-shirt a swipe at KJK?

That's exactly how I read it, too.

Many of us, though, don't even identify as 'feminist' - what interests us more is valuing the experienece, the voice and the integrity of women and girls - whoever they may be; whatever their background; culture; relgious or political affiliation.

Yes, this is me. I just don't think anyone can change sex and single sex provision matters in some instances. I am horrified that there are people who will willingly put males before females in those situations. Even after having the issues pointed out to them. They never have an argument for their position either.

However rebellious post about a lot of posters here not identifying as feminists does explain a lot.

Identifying as something is worthless, hasn’t trans ideology taught us ALL that?

Any superiority stuff on here is very tired indeed

Reading some posts it comes across as this

As for claims ‘lots’ aren’t feminists again similar to anti vaxx stuff.

No foundation

I think at least part of that is in response to being told ‘If you don’t think this, this or this you’re not a proper feminist.’

If feminists are people who communicate like JCJ then I’m not one.
If feminists make lists of who is doing it right and spit at those doing it differently, then I’m not one.

Is the communication style to deliver a scolding with each disagreement? Because honestly I’ve had enough of that from my mother. It’s just another way of telling women how they should be to be ‘proper’.

And that’s not on.

I'm starting to get a feeling, @IamSarah that what this thread is really about is that you want KJK to retract and apologise for what she tweeted about Rise. Would that be correct?

I know. Scolding women

Tiresome

What does it explain?

Tweeting a photo of someone is not giving them a platform because its not giving them space to air their views.

And yet KJK was dragged through the mud when a selfie taken with her by someone she had never met, never heard of was put on Twitter - KJK was absolutely, definitely 100% no doubt platforming that person, agreeing with and condoning ALL their views. That is the issue @AdamRyan it either works both ways or not at all but, of course, the hypocrisy of the OP, JCJ and the group of Brighton Feminists means that doesn't apply to them only the wicked witch that is KJK.

The same pp moans about the downfall of FWR at every opportunity, needed the board split in two as gender overriding and yet.. here they are to scold some more rather than use a lovely new non gender section made for what they want

Yes, I think that is an attempt to smear people who don't conform to a narrow ideological viewpoint - the one that has strictly controlled parameters.

"Identifying as" something is a full time job in occupation defintion.

Like many women here I've lived an engaged poltical life but have more recently grown weary of these ideological purity spirals. They create such polarisation and divide people into camps. You don't need to "identify as" to be a woman or to be concerned with the value and dignity of women.

It seems that some who " identify as" feminists don't really care about those women who are in the wrong camp. The feminists who didn't seem to care much about the rape of Israeli women, for example, and went as far as to even deny these rapes occured.

I've questions..

Is it in the feminist playbook to have an affair with somebody else's husband/partner?
Would a feminist take the view that another woman's happiness in her marriage is more important than her own desire to have that woman's man?

(Yes it is relevant to this thread)

Tweeting a photo of someone is not giving them a platform because its not giving them space to air their views

This is revealing.

It's not up to women to facilitate males' presence.