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

It's not accusing her of lying to disagree with her that a small study of death in the 17th century will have detrimental effects on race relations today.

Archaeologists research history in minute detail and extrapolate small samples all the time. It's geeky but amazing that humans get so absorbed in these things. Completely unreasonable for politicians to wade in to something they don't understand and politicise it.

And undermining logical reason to appeal to emotion is a hallmark of populism, which is dangerous so I'm wary of politicians who do it.

I talked about you as an example of you bullying another poster. You explained you have RL experience, which I didn't know.
In my opinion, it's still bullying the way you talk to people you disagree with.

Do you think you are reasoning logically?

the UK GC space, especially on twitter, has progressively merged with both the US MAGA/Christian nationalist space, and those of UK white nationalists

I’m not on Twitter, so have no idea about the validity or reliability of this claim; however that sentence is definitely casting aspersions on some ‘GC spaces’. I have seen posters accuse FWR regulars of being tarred with guilt by association on MN despite having never seen any evidence of Christian nationalists or, god forbid, white nationalists on these threads. Though, there have been accusations of racism.

Some people are anti gender politics because they want to protect women. And some are anti gender politics because they have religious views that define "women" and "men". And some are anti gender politics because they are supremacists who think white people should be in charge of everything so any critical analysis of any kind of oppression threatens them. That isn't new, or rocket science.

Now, I fundamentally disagree with this Venn diagramme/argument. It strikes me as hugely denigrating to any woman who possesses gender critical views.

For one, white supremacists are absolutely not ‘anti gender politics’ in the slightest. They are not reacting to oppression. Along with being ultra conservative, they will be actively anti trans; not anti gender.

Some of those who hold strongly religious views define “women” and “men”, but then so do I despite not holding strongly religious views. There may be those who fall into say Christian evangelism who are anti trans, but again they are anti gender politics as they absolutely hold to hard core views on the roles of the different sexes.

All in all, that forced teaming of GC women with the religious right and the white suprematists is offensive even if some in those camps (Matt what’s his name) are illuminating some of the GI craziness.

Just for the sake of institutional memory, this was the original post about Cates.

Logical reason - list of facts, inference following from analysing the facts.
Logical argument does not necessarily mean correct or inarguable conclusion.
Yes I think I'm being logical because I can post evidence as to why I think things. You disagree with my conclusion, which is fine, because no doubt you are following your own logic.

I'd find it more helpful if other people posted their evidence but they often don't. I can't demand they do however.

I like debate and challenge as a way of exploring ideas which is why I stick around. I don't like lying and misrepresentation though. Or bullying. Or stereotype based intolerance.

FWR is one of the better places for women on the internet. Many posting are intelligent and reasoned

All this attacking stuff from one poster is just one extreme take

It doesn’t go with my experience

You didn't post the evidence of the posters on here and them being 'congruent with populist and fundamentalist Christian viewpoints'.

I thought you said you were a mother/had a child? I may have been imagining it.

Look, I've never voted Tory in my life. I'm an ex Labour party member, and was brought up in a Labour city to a trade unionist father. I'm not supporting or defending Cates because she is a Tory - but because I have respect for her, and because I reject the version of feminism/women's rights that denigrates women's role as mothers, or that sees being a woman/female as a penalty. I also respect her for standng up for women's and children's rights in the face of gender ideology.

I didn't grow up imagining myself as a wife and mother, but like most women I have have been - and it is a profoundly important part of my life - no matter how tough, challenging, restricting and frustrating that can be. No life path comes without challenges and compromises.

I don't feel oppressed as a woman. I might do if I was living in another culture where patriarchy really is a thing. I've done pretty much what I've wanted to do in my life (and have had all sorts of varied experiences) even when i've been a young single parent, or when I've been a financially supported stay at home parent/homemaker. I'm certainly not a fading wallflower, and I've never felt particularly oppressed ( not any more than is natural in a life - for anyone). Even when dependent I've taken holidays and trips on my own and bought what i liked.

Being financially dependent does restrict your choices in some ways ( although we've always had a joint account)and it also forces you to stay put when the going gets tough - but there is also a lot to be said for longevity and riding out the storms in life.

I, of course get it, that some men are very financially/emotionally controlling and I don't think i could have tolerated that. I wouldn't have.

Then read my later posts. She is an evangelical Christian with links to the US Christian right. She was on the board of a controversial that did conversion therapy (actual religious conversion therapy for gay people, not counselling for trans people). She's part of a UK based movement with another evangelical Christian to bring "Christian values" back into policy and government. She's under investigation for financial links to overseas institutions.

Those facts lead me to think she is motivated by the same kinds of things we see in US evangelists. Banning abortion. Teaching creationism as equal to evolution in schools. Being tolerant of religiously motivated abuse of women and children in our social systems.

She is not being "gender critical" because she supports women in my opinion.

If you disagree, feel free to post some facts that show she's not doing that.

I have three children and think we need to do a lot more to support mothers and get men to share the caring load.
I disagree with her premise that all women would choose to be at home if they could; I disagree that childcare is inherently bad for children and they should be brought up in a "nuclear family". As a divorcee I strongly resent implications I should have stayed in my (abusive) marriage for my children. The personal is political.

I want a situation where women can choose whats best for their circumstances, not have it dictated to them. So I want policies that facilitate choice, not one type of parenting or family life.

Thank you for the constrictive post though, i appreciate it

Gordon Bennet, your prejudices are showing. You are making assumptions about the truth of allegations, and their seriousness. You are making assumptions about the beliefs of members of a particular local church; I've got news for you, members of that church have a variety of views and are not all in line with US fundamentalists (if any are). You appear to be assuming that Miriam Cates' own views are in line with a church she left some years ago, though in my experience a local church rarely requires its members to toe a rigid theological line.

But Philadelphia is "evangelical" which in your mind equates with (US) fundamentalist extreme right wing, so therefore Cates believes the same as Dobson or Graham or Falwell.

*FWR is one of the better places for women on the internet. Many posting are intelligent and reasoned

All this attacking stuff from one poster is just one extreme take*

I've read and reread this thread and many links as I trust most of the repeat posters here. Still, I think that there have been unfair personal attacks and unnecessary snark toward IamSarah. Also, expectations she should stay in her lane when using her username which I find ridiculous and hypocritical. It's not just one extreme poster in my example. I also feel queasy at the harshness toward a rape victim, especially from women who've been victims themselves.

It's true I've never met KJK nor anyone from Brighton (feminist or not) and I thought that man who wormed his way into that event is fully untrustworthy, based on other things I know about him. But still, didn't Sarah apologize for the photo? Why isn't there grace given for mistakes within the sisterhood?

But honestly, this got too ugly and I don't give a shit if you think I'm police toning or have some #bekind agenda. Infighting just hurts the women we all want to help. Can't some of you see that it went too far?

Ok, I know this is a sidetrack, but wouldn't that be just under 20% of the sample that was black?

If so, yes, it sure would mean that black people would over-represented in terms of plague deaths.

However, my initial reaction to that is it is way, way too high no matter how you slice it, there is clearly something wrong with the sample, or their conclusions about the race of the skeletons.

“Infighting just hurts the women we all want to help.”

And yet, there is a group who seem to have continued to perpetuate vilifying women who don’t follow their expectation. This entire thread is about the hypocrisy that keeps going around in cycles.

“Why isn't there grace given for mistakes within the sisterhood?”

That is a great question. Did you ask the OP that question or is it aimed at people responding to the hypocrisy of a group who had not shown one iota of this grace that you have questioned?

Or are we expected to ignore the hypocrisy that had cycled around yet again because of the people involved?

The thing is, the links you posted didn't back up your assertions. Apart from being right wing and a Christian, what are her links with the US Christian right? And why does this matter? They are a legitimate political group. The Republicans (which is who I assume you're referring to) are one of the main political parties in the US. You may not like them or what they stand for, but large numbers of the US population support them.

The links you posted didn't say anything about this anyway, so I don't know why you thought they were backing up your statement.

She was on the board of a controversial that did conversion therapy (actual religious conversion therapy for gay people, not counselling for trans people).

This is from the link you posted about this.

Matthew Drapper told The Tribune he was subjected to a “gay exorcism” at St Thomas Philadelphia Church on Gilpin Street in Sheffield in 2014. He says he was told to renounce his sexual orientation as an “agreement with Satan” and that “demonic forces” would try to stop him.

When he complained to the church they said they could not substantiate his claims and described his ordeal as simply his fellow church members “praying for him”.

When we asked Mrs Cates about her involvement with St Thomas’, she told us that she was “not aware of any such therapy taking place” and that it was “never something raised with me”. She also said she left the church in 2018 due to “family reasons”.

I've no idea what really happened, and neither do you unless you were there. Miriam Cates says she knew nothing about it, because she wasn't there either. It may well have happened, but it's hardly Miriam Cates's fault if she didn't even know about it.

If you disagree, feel free to post some facts that show she's not doing that.

How are we supposed to post proof that something didn't happen? If it didn't happen there's no proof.

I'm asking why you and many others can't accept Sarah's apology for that photo. KJK was wrongly accused of cavorting with right wingers, so when everyone says "some mean feminists won't apologize for treating KJK unfairly" the response to another woman who has apologized is to not accept her apology? How does that track?

It's happened on this thread when ppl asked me about Cates then minimised what I posted. I can't be bothered with the fight but immediately going "nothing to see here, bad faith lefty poster" isn't particularly reassuring about the motivations of Cates fans.

That's not what happened though, is it? You said Cates had links to the Nat Con movement and American right and when I asked if there was evidence of that you posted evidence of stuff that wasn't that. That's not minimising, it's pointing out that evidence of a b c isn't evidence of z.

I object to the suggestion that asking you to evidence what you'd said means there is something suspicious about my motivations - my motivation was to know if what you claimed was true. I did not reference your political allegiances, or say you posted in bad faith (though your later post about how Cates thinks abortion should be banned and creationism taught in UK schools because... you just think so does you no favours on that score). I also object to being characterised as a 'Cates fan', I know little about her as a person and am certainly not a 'fan' of hers.

Edit: ninja'd by Old Crone!

I don't know enough about the subject and the actual report hasn't been published yet. Maybe it'll make more sense then than the BBC report based upon it did?

quote

The report, which has been peer-reviewed, is called Race, Population Affinity, and Mortality Risk during the Second Plague Pandemic in Fourteenth-Century London, England and is due to be published by Bioarchaeology International by the end of the year.
An advance copy of the paper was given to the BBC.

Has she said that all women would choose to be at home if they could? As a working mother that's not what she's chosen. Her husband owns a software company. I'm sure he earns enough to support her if she decided to stay at home.

I want a situation where women can choose whats best for their circumstances, not have it dictated to them. So I want policies that facilitate choice, not one type of parenting or family life.

Do women really have a choice now? The expectation is that they'll go back to work ASAP even if they'd rather be at home. Is she not just advocating for them to have that choice?

I'm not religious so what I know about her is what is online. I actually don't know what you mean by "Philadelphia". Both Cates and Kruger are reported by many sources to be evangelical.

I see lots of damage being done to womens rights by Christian movements in the right and lots of interactions between religious elements and political elements. I don't trust the "national conservatism" movement that straddles the US, UK and Italy at all. It seems populist and extremely Christian in a way I don't think generally features in UK politics.

If I've misunderstood anything it would be better to post alternative sources than just tell me I'm wrong

This just seems like jealousy over KJK’s much bigger social media reach.

Have you requested that nasty page be deleted yet?