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

You're still repeating your claim about her!

What the actual hell?

Oh I apologise.
Because Kemi Badenoch wrote and asked some archaeologists to explain themselves because one of her colleagues said they were doing woke archaeology.

Thank you for this more constructive accuracy!

Sorry, I don't follow.
OldCrones point is there can't possibly have been 8.3% black population in the UK. Your link says nothing about that at all.

My point is one grave site isn't representative of the UK and I trust the archaeologists to know their jobs, and the peer review process to ensure the research is reliable. Badenoch is not a scientist, I have no idea why she waded in but I don't trust politicians undermining scientific rigour because it correlates with populism.

You think I'm a bot .

Not sure what to say so I'll say the same as I did about Cates. You like Badenoch, I don't. No more on this.

Who do you expect her to write to to get an answer for her colleague about the archaeology report if not the archaeologists doing the report? The guy who works down the chip shop and swears he's Elvis perhaps?

You cannot admit you are wrong and grasping at straws merely to smear a black woman and the reason for you smearing her is because she is a Conservative, nothing more nothing less your prejudice against Conservatives and Christians can be seen from outer space.

If you're still here @IamSarah I'd like to go back to this. I think it was only your third post (very early anyway) and it was largely what drew me to the thread because it sounded such a positive and conciliatory statement.

It has certainly made me reflect on how I have approached things.
Are there any reflections that you'd care to share?

There is a lot to learn from other women, especially those I disagree with.
What do you think there is to learn?

I get the sense that you didn't read my post very carefully, because your response makes zero sense to what I actually said.

OldCrones point is there can't possibly have been 8.3% black population in the UK. Your link says nothing about that at all.

Actually it does imply that, and I quoted the relevant part. Anyway, I've found the paper now. I can only see the abstract, but that's enough.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/376465564Race_Population_Affinity_and_Mortality_Risk_during_the_Second_Plague_Pandemic_in_Fourteenth-Century_London_England

We investigate whether hazards of death from plague and physiological stress at a fourteenth-century plague cemetery (Royal Mint, London) differed between populations using N = 49 adults whose affiliation was established using macromorphoscopic traits. Compared to a nonplague cemetery (N = 96), there was a greater proportion of people of estimated African affiliation in the plague burials.

So it's a tiny number (49) from a single plague cemetery in London and only 96 from a non-plague cemetery, (location not given). No conclusions can be drawn about the wider population in the UK, but in these two cemeteries a relatively high proportion of the people buried there were of African descent, assuming they have correctly identified the ethnicity of the people buried there.

Her is the thing - let's say that specific grave site - under 50 graves - is unusual in terms of the ethnicity of those buried there - which is entirely possible. A burial site could easily contain people who were all related, or of a particular religion, and probably they all lived close by.

If that is true, the researchers should never have made the conclusion that the plague killed more black people than anyone else. That would only be a valid conclusion ifthe grave site had a fairly representative group of people compared to the population of London as a whole.

That is precisely the point that makes the whole thing suspect.

As for statistics - I have never seen any that suggest that the black population of England, or even London, was anything like that high in Tudor times. A vague "well, historical things happened maybe there were more then" is not a valid way to do history. The UK almost certainly has a larger black population now than it did at any time in it's history, notwithstanding that humans have always wandered far from home to some extent.

I’m watching this video and the last 2 topics really apply to this discussion, I think:

Should feminists work with the Right?
The marginalisation of mothers in contemporary feminism.

I’ve tried to paste a YouTube link that autostarts the video at the right point but, if it doesn’t work out, these 2 topics start at 1hr 5m

I’ll catch up later this evening on the posts I’ve missed.

The peer review process is not infallible.

Research gets withdrawn frequently for poor analysis/interpretation of data.

It is not possible to generalise from such a small sample.

That is Research Methods 101. Basic stuff.

You say you trust science and facts, yet you uncritically accept poor extrapolation...

If I recall correctly, in the humanities and social sciences, more research turns out to unrepeatable, or is later disproved or withdrawn, than stands.

The numbers in this study are truly low, both in the grave sites for plague victims, and the other one as well. Plus they only represent two sites which means there is a high likelihood they are not going to be representative at all.

It is shocking though to begin to realize how much bad research goes on in universities.

Discussions on feminists working with the right is something I don't think can be easily resolved. Kara Dansky struggles with this question and despite working at times with the right on issues like women's sports, some of us are also doing work to stop the right from more abortion restrictions, so it is a conflict, and, from my take on JCJ's Twitter, being tainted with a "you're found in spaces also filled with racist GC extremists, how can we trust you?" is a legitimate concern when you are trying to get your message out to MSM and editors won't do due diligence into your own background. If Democrats on my country don't toe every line, like Dansky, they get ignored. It's tough enough for a feminist to get MSM attention on a range of issues (eg the Hamas rapes. MSM ignored respected female journalists, like Katha Pollit, on this but listened when Jake Trapper from CNN finally spoke on it).

Sorry this is US focused, but there was blathering on about 17th century plague death rates so I figured I could go a tad off country topic here ;) in order to talk about the issue of feminism and its allies.

I don't really think it's being "found in rght wing spaces" that means the left wing media won't listen to women talking about this. I think that's just an excuse, they wouldn't listen anyway.

So was your decision to use your court case-related user name partly because you thought it would act as a shield against any criticism?

Yup. It’s also pretty gross to use your court case-related user name to attack someone else. Let’s not pretend otherwise.

If Sarah thinks KJK is a bad’n, why then it must be true!

🙄

I’m not sure what you mean by this? Latinos are the 2nd largest voting bloc in the US, it matters plenty what they think.

Greetings, amigos!

Recent surveys from the USA TODAY/Suffolk University Poll and the CNBC All-America Economic Survey show former President Donald Trump has a five-point lead over incumbent President Joe Biden among Latino voters.

Biden now claims the support of just 63% of Black voters, a precipitous decline from the 87% he carried in 2020, according to the Roper Center. He trails among Hispanic voters by 5 percentage points, 39%-34%; in 2020 he had swamped Trump among that demographic group 2 to 1, 65%-32%.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/01/01/biden-trump-poll-odds-black-hispanic-young-voters/72072111007/

@LesbianNana

Mexicans are not US citizens and cannot vote in our elections. They are citizens of the country of Mexico, which is a big country, south of the US border.

Mexicans born in Mexico become US citizens by the millions. Come join me in Texas, mija! Anyway, I won’t derail the thread any further.

Yes, I see women now having to go back to work, often in stressful jobs ( teaching, for example) just months after they've had a baby. I'm sure they get used to it, but can imagine how difficult that must be. I'm glad I didn't have to do that.

I see one woman taking her autistic son to nursery every morning - and every morning he's having a meltdown all the way from the front door to the nursery. It is very distressing. Goodness knows how hard it must be for her to cope ( she does have what seems like a supportive husband/partner too, as well as a daughter).

Hi @Floisme yes I'm still here.

Re your question why I started the thread and what I've reflected on.

I think anyone who is standing up for women and girls is doing it with good intentions. Even if I disagree with their approach, or even their motivation, the intentions are probably sound.

I've been guilty before of thinking some women are in this for money or ego and now I am on the frontline I know the shit that comes with it outweighs any money or ego.

The women on the frontline are human. We all fuck up. We all make stupid mistakes and probably say or do things we regret. Most of us are dealing with trauma.

JCJ is a fellow survivor who was also excluded from the same RC centre as me (she's very open about this) so it is natural I would feel loyalty and alignment to her.

My reflections are just because other women have come to this fight from a different angle, for example trans widows (something I have no experience of) and approach their campaigning differently doesn't mean I have the right to criticise them.

While I think it's okay to question the content of an article, social media post or video if the contents are untrue or if I don't agree with them, I think anyone fighting for women's rights is a shero and I am sorry that in the past I have criticised them.

And yet the sin page is still published by the group that you belong to who seem to not share your beliefs about other women doing this at all. And you wonder why we keep asking the questions and stating the clear hypocrisy that exists.

The thread from JCJ has hypocritical elements. Do you now understand this?

Agree. Not really commenting on the US but here the centre left media is either fully TRA, The Guardian, or more subtle as the BBC is. It’s just a choice which is pro men not women.

That means there’s a vacuum on the topic which at least the DM and others cover

Without that we’d be in more trouble

The women on the frontline are human. We all fuck up. We all make stupid mistakes and probably say or do things we regret. Most of us are dealing with trauma.

So you allow yourself and JCJ this option but not KJK?

I think you might need to think on why this is.