Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

KjK "insane rant" thread 2

1000 replies

AdamRyan · 03/04/2024 18:10

First thread filled up just as it was getting interesting

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5036512-kjks-insane-rant

So let's keep it going. My characterisation if the two basic positions are:

1)KJK is a stone cold legend, haters gonna hate but many women will give her cash to bathe in champagne

  1. KJK is taking right wing positions for clicks and cash, most recently criticising a doctors conference to stay relevant.

Happy to discuss further. There are some particular posts I want to respond to which I will c&p below

KJK’s insane rant | Mumsnet

Kjk’s decision to attack everyone who is not her lapdog is increasingly destructive. It looks like Can-sg put on a great conference. Those doctors who...

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5036512-kjks-insane-rant

OP posts:
Thread gallery
102
AdamRyan · 06/04/2024 10:28

MrsOvertonsWindow · 06/04/2024 10:24

Adam, when you say "If you want to engage with the content with an open mind, in a respectful way please do.", do you ever read back your repeated slurs and attacks on women on here and think "oops"?

What do you think is a "slur"?
A difference of opinion is not a "slur".

Do you ever read back your own posts and go "actually, I can see how that was misunderstood" or "actually, that's not a very mainstream opinion so of course people might disagree?"

OP posts:
NoWordForFluffy · 06/04/2024 10:30

I don't like how we can't criticise her though for what are imo valid points.

Criticising is fine. However, where somebody (I'm not saying you, just generally anybody) has misunderstood what they've heard / read, and are criticising something which isn't accurate, then that's where disagreements come in.

I don't think I've actually said what I think about KJK on this thread. I've been challenging misrepresentation of both her output and posts on here, because I think it's important to understand whether your (generic you) criticism is valid, and if you've misunderstood, then it may not be.

OldCrone · 06/04/2024 10:32

AdamRyan · 06/04/2024 10:23

Quite! Sometimes I am really tempted to out myself completely. People would be like, "eh? This is a totes boring, middle of the road working menopausal mum?"

But because its on line it gets into a projection of "you hate her, you want to stop women speaking" etc

The power of mumsnet was that it was a place where all kinds of women could discuss stuff and think about ideas we couldn't discuss elsewhere. Admittedly we weren't nice to MRAs Blush

Not possible any more. Asking questions is "disingenuous". Summarising your understanding is "misrepresenting". And posting other views means you must be affiliated with the Bad Feminists (whoever they are).

Summarising your understanding is "misrepresenting".

In the case of your summary of your understanding of my posts, you certainly did misrepresent my views.

I'm happy to have a discussion about the actual points I made, and I'm open to being challenged and I will even change my position if there is evidence that I have got something wrong. But when your starting point is insisting that I hold a position that I don't, I can't see how we can have any sort of reasonable discussion.

AdamRyan · 06/04/2024 10:33

OldCrone · 06/04/2024 10:27

My issue here is everyone here appears to believe she isn't trending conservative when her messaging and support shows that she is.

Nobody has talked about her 'trending conservative'. She has been accused of being 'far right' and supporting Tommy Robinson. This is not 'trending conservative', which would be a perfectly respectable political position to hold, and one shared by many people in the UK. We even have a Conservative government.

There is no evidence that she is 'far right'. That's the accusation that people here don't accept.

Who accused her of being "far right"?

She regurgitates some narratives of the far right. The far right turn up at her non-speaking events. She is funded by a very right wing org. Those are just facts.

She may or may not be far right herself. Its not a surprise some people think she's far right based on her actions.

OP posts:
OldCrone · 06/04/2024 10:37

AdamRyan · 06/04/2024 10:28

What do you think is a "slur"?
A difference of opinion is not a "slur".

Do you ever read back your own posts and go "actually, I can see how that was misunderstood" or "actually, that's not a very mainstream opinion so of course people might disagree?"

You have persistently misunderstood my posts and failed to engage with my arguments.

Even though I thought my points were clear, I have assumed a genuine misunderstanding on your part, so I have repeated them, trying to word them more clearly to aid your understanding. You have still failed to understand. I really don't know how I can help you any further.

It really does seem deliberate on your part.

AdamRyan · 06/04/2024 10:40

Enoch Powell wasn't "far right", he was a very mainstream Conservative MP.
Yet few would question that his Rivers of Blood speech played into far right narratives and emboldened the far right at the time and since.

It is perfectly possible to not be "far right" yet still act in ways that enables them.

OP posts:
NoWordForFluffy · 06/04/2024 10:40

OldCrone · 06/04/2024 10:37

You have persistently misunderstood my posts and failed to engage with my arguments.

Even though I thought my points were clear, I have assumed a genuine misunderstanding on your part, so I have repeated them, trying to word them more clearly to aid your understanding. You have still failed to understand. I really don't know how I can help you any further.

It really does seem deliberate on your part.

This has been a pattern throughout. Both for people's posts, as well as articles and videos linked.

That's the source of a lot of frustration as, no matter how many times the actual meaning is explained, it's ignored and the misunderstanding / misrepresentation repeated. Persistently. Which is why I lean more towards bad faith than lack of understanding, as there's no attempt to review and understand what's actually being said.

Datun · 06/04/2024 10:42

AdamRyan · 06/04/2024 10:27

I've tried to be pleasant to you on various threads and you repaid that by saying something extremely offensive to me. I'm a real person and I'm not going to be friendly to people who think I do what you accused me of.

On this thread you've gone to the level of "she's more popular than you" as if we are Heathers 😂

I'm not entirely sure who you think I'm bullying, but thanks for plopping that opinion down.

Adam you started a thread to slag off a woman who you know is banned from here and is therefore unable to respond in any way.

Your attempts to slur her have been effectively refuted from start to finish.

To then try and characterise that exact discourse in the context of pleasantry and friendliness is utterly bizarre!

AdamRyan · 06/04/2024 10:45

OldCrone · 06/04/2024 10:37

You have persistently misunderstood my posts and failed to engage with my arguments.

Even though I thought my points were clear, I have assumed a genuine misunderstanding on your part, so I have repeated them, trying to word them more clearly to aid your understanding. You have still failed to understand. I really don't know how I can help you any further.

It really does seem deliberate on your part.

I wasn't replying to you. I think unfortunately previous engagement ls where you asked me endless questions, then I got accused of derailing and sealioning a thread has put me off wanting to engage in any detail. I don't want further accusations of that kind.

I don't know why you (and others) are repeatedly posting JBs article, if not to make a point about "disproportionately Muslim" and "people being scared of racism".

Whereas what I took from her article was mainly the victims were working class girls, largely ignored (as miss said) and worries about inflating tension.

Two equally valid views. Because Julie wrote a balanced article.

KJK was not balanced in what she said. My view is it is harmful because it resonates with the far right and gives them a sense that their nasty activities are legitimate.

OP posts:
OldCrone · 06/04/2024 10:46

AdamRyan · 06/04/2024 10:33

Who accused her of being "far right"?

She regurgitates some narratives of the far right. The far right turn up at her non-speaking events. She is funded by a very right wing org. Those are just facts.

She may or may not be far right herself. Its not a surprise some people think she's far right based on her actions.

Perhaps you should take your own advice:

Do you ever read back your own posts and go "actually, I can see how that was misunderstood"?

Your posts come over as an accusation that KJK is 'far right'. I don't know whether you've actually said that in so many words as I haven't got the time to go back and read all your posts. But it certainly seems as though you are accusing her of being 'far right'.

If that's not your intent, you should make that clearer.

AdamRyan · 06/04/2024 10:48

Datun · 06/04/2024 10:42

Adam you started a thread to slag off a woman who you know is banned from here and is therefore unable to respond in any way.

Your attempts to slur her have been effectively refuted from start to finish.

To then try and characterise that exact discourse in the context of pleasantry and friendliness is utterly bizarre!

Edited

I started the thread because the last one went the same way they always do. 40 pages of women trying to make valid points being shut down with "Your attempts to slur her have been effectively refuted from start to finish".

She may be banned from here but she's also a public persona launching a political party. Therefore absolutely fair game for a thread. Unless you think we shouldn't make threads about any politician unless they can answer for themselves.

Also, as you've made abundantly clear, you and many other posters are personally in contact with her. So I'm pretty confident her views are being put across, in abundance.

OP posts:
Datun · 06/04/2024 10:48

Adam why is it KJK who you write about, in that case? Why don't you start threads about other people who you think are 'enabling the far right.'

Why pick a woman who, despite what you think of her personally, actively does benefit other women - globally - in a way that no one else is doing

Why her?

AdamRyan · 06/04/2024 10:52

Maybe advanced search me, then you can see if what you are saying is true or just your confirmation bias

OP posts:
AdamRyan · 06/04/2024 10:56

Datun · 06/04/2024 10:48

Adam why is it KJK who you write about, in that case? Why don't you start threads about other people who you think are 'enabling the far right.'

Why pick a woman who, despite what you think of her personally, actively does benefit other women - globally - in a way that no one else is doing

Why her?

Why pick a woman who, despite what you think of her personally, actively does benefit other women - globally - in a way that no one else is doing?

Because spreading far right inaccurate messages about the type of people who are sexual and child abusers, harms women and children far more than giving women a microphone so she can say "no men have penises" helps them. In my opinion.

Living Colour - Cult Of Personality (Official Video)

Official Video for "Cult Of Personality" by Living ColourListen to Living Colour: https://LivingColour.lnk.to/listenYDWatch more Living Colour videos: https:...

https://youtu.be/7xxgRUyzgs0?si=dZkK9dlpCenFMSzk

OP posts:
Datun · 06/04/2024 10:56

AdamRyan · 06/04/2024 10:48

I started the thread because the last one went the same way they always do. 40 pages of women trying to make valid points being shut down with "Your attempts to slur her have been effectively refuted from start to finish".

She may be banned from here but she's also a public persona launching a political party. Therefore absolutely fair game for a thread. Unless you think we shouldn't make threads about any politician unless they can answer for themselves.

Also, as you've made abundantly clear, you and many other posters are personally in contact with her. So I'm pretty confident her views are being put across, in abundance.

I haven't said I'm in personal contact with KJK!

But there you go again. "So I'm pretty confident her views are being put across, in abundance."

Completely baseless.

Obviously what you think I'm 'making abundantly clear', is in your head!

Datun · 06/04/2024 10:57

Because spreading far right inaccurate messages about the type of people who are sexual and child abusers, harms women and children far more than giving women a microphone so she can say "no men have penises" helps them. In my opinion.

i'm just going to leave that there

AdamRyan · 06/04/2024 11:00

Datun · 06/04/2024 10:56

I haven't said I'm in personal contact with KJK!

But there you go again. "So I'm pretty confident her views are being put across, in abundance."

Completely baseless.

Obviously what you think I'm 'making abundantly clear', is in your head!

OK
I misunderstood your references to being in contact with all the banned posters and your "inside info" about JKR/KJK

If you don't know her personally, how are you so adamant that what posters are saying is a slur/incorrect?

OP posts:
Datun · 06/04/2024 11:07

If you don't know her personally, how are you so adamant that what posters are saying is a slur/incorrect?

Because I was there for some of it - speakers corner, etc, and I can read.

I misunderstood your references to being in contact with all the banned posters and your "inside info" about JKR/KJK

There you go again. It's not 'inside info'. It's Twitter. JKR said it on Twitter.

This is all in your head, Adam. I can see how it wasn't that difficult for you to get to the point where you feel personally about KJK.

RufustheFactualReindeer · 06/04/2024 11:11

Admittedly I haven't really used MN as much as I used to recently so apologies if I made 2+2 = 5 over an in joke or thing I don't know about

sometimes when there is a shit stirring MRA (obviously no one on this thread) FWR does go off on a massive derail of cakes before the thread is deleted, which in these cases it always is

i personally don’t see the harm in a few posters getting sidetracked by cheese or big letters, this happens in real life all the time

but if it went on and on then i think its different…but it doesn’t usually go on and on

but you didn’t need to apologise….it can look really random 😀💐

RufustheFactualReindeer · 06/04/2024 11:13

Do you ever read back your own posts and go "actually, I can see how that was misunderstood

all the fucking time 😀

a poster on here was having a little pop at me and i really really couldn’t see why and then i read back and went 😳 and then i hid and Ive not engaged with her since in case she is still annoyed with me

AdamRyan · 06/04/2024 11:15

Datun · 06/04/2024 10:57

Because spreading far right inaccurate messages about the type of people who are sexual and child abusers, harms women and children far more than giving women a microphone so she can say "no men have penises" helps them. In my opinion.

i'm just going to leave that there

Please do.
I don't support women who enable the continued existence of the patriarchy and the harms to women and children.

The biggest threat of child abuse are family members and people children know. The biggest ethnicity involved are white men. By focusing on "Pakistani grooming gangs" people can look like they are "doing something" but actually have minimal impact.

The same with focusing on trans women.

The same with focusing on "the left" and "institutional capture".

Even if all those things were stopped, it would leave the majority of sexual violence and abuse happening.

What women like KJK, Badenoch and Cates are doing is giving the populist government a convenient cover for the fact they are doing nothing to help women and girls. The government can pontificate about grooming gangs, banning stonewall, "a man is a man" and sound like they are taking things seriously. But in reality the abuse carries on. Women are now waiting 7 years to have rape cases heard.

In the meantime this "feminist board" is supporting people who are giving this government that cover, because "they are women".

I think many people are being played. It makes me angry.

Good for KJK and her "microphone tours".

But bad for KJK that she's promoting these narratives that actually prevent abuse being dealt with

OP posts:
OldCrone · 06/04/2024 11:15

AdamRyan · 06/04/2024 10:45

I wasn't replying to you. I think unfortunately previous engagement ls where you asked me endless questions, then I got accused of derailing and sealioning a thread has put me off wanting to engage in any detail. I don't want further accusations of that kind.

I don't know why you (and others) are repeatedly posting JBs article, if not to make a point about "disproportionately Muslim" and "people being scared of racism".

Whereas what I took from her article was mainly the victims were working class girls, largely ignored (as miss said) and worries about inflating tension.

Two equally valid views. Because Julie wrote a balanced article.

KJK was not balanced in what she said. My view is it is harmful because it resonates with the far right and gives them a sense that their nasty activities are legitimate.

I don't know why you (and others) are repeatedly posting JBs article, if not to make a point about "disproportionately Muslim" and "people being scared of racism".

If you genuinely don't know, I'll try to explain (again).

JB said that in the geographical area that her first article in 2007 related to, "many of the members of grooming gangs were of Pakistani origin". You've read her article so you know that.

She also said that she had been trying to get stories about this published for years before her first article was published in 2007. You've read her article so you know that.

She said that editors were unwilling to publish her articles "because some editors feared an accusation of racism". You've read her article so you know that.

She said:
I was concerned that the story would only be told by racists. The British National Party (BNP) had been already been claiming that nasty Muslim “paedophiles” were preying on innocent white girls.

Her fear, as a feminist and a journalist, was that this silence from the mainstream press would leave a gap which would be filled by racists wanting to make this a race issue (even though in many cases the abusers were white men). This is the point she was making and that I have been trying to make to you.

My point, to reiterate, is that silence from the press and a failure of the authorities to tackle the source of the problem (abusive men of all ethnicities), effectively helped the far right by allowing them to step in and be seen by some as the only people willing to protect the young female victims of these abusive men.

It is my belief that KJK was trying to make the same point as JB, but she made it somewhat less eloquently and less clearly, which as we have seen in your interpretation of what she said, was open to misinterpretation.

AdamRyan · 06/04/2024 11:16

RufustheFactualReindeer · 06/04/2024 11:13

Do you ever read back your own posts and go "actually, I can see how that was misunderstood

all the fucking time 😀

a poster on here was having a little pop at me and i really really couldn’t see why and then i read back and went 😳 and then i hid and Ive not engaged with her since in case she is still annoyed with me

I cannot believe anyone would be annoyed with you Flowers

OP posts:
AdamRyan · 06/04/2024 11:20

OldCrone · 06/04/2024 11:15

I don't know why you (and others) are repeatedly posting JBs article, if not to make a point about "disproportionately Muslim" and "people being scared of racism".

If you genuinely don't know, I'll try to explain (again).

JB said that in the geographical area that her first article in 2007 related to, "many of the members of grooming gangs were of Pakistani origin". You've read her article so you know that.

She also said that she had been trying to get stories about this published for years before her first article was published in 2007. You've read her article so you know that.

She said that editors were unwilling to publish her articles "because some editors feared an accusation of racism". You've read her article so you know that.

She said:
I was concerned that the story would only be told by racists. The British National Party (BNP) had been already been claiming that nasty Muslim “paedophiles” were preying on innocent white girls.

Her fear, as a feminist and a journalist, was that this silence from the mainstream press would leave a gap which would be filled by racists wanting to make this a race issue (even though in many cases the abusers were white men). This is the point she was making and that I have been trying to make to you.

My point, to reiterate, is that silence from the press and a failure of the authorities to tackle the source of the problem (abusive men of all ethnicities), effectively helped the far right by allowing them to step in and be seen by some as the only people willing to protect the young female victims of these abusive men.

It is my belief that KJK was trying to make the same point as JB, but she made it somewhat less eloquently and less clearly, which as we have seen in your interpretation of what she said, was open to misinterpretation.

OK. Well my perspective would be I disagree with both of them about that. Racist thugs will be racist thugs. In absence of any evidence they make things up. Remember that poor Iraqi (?) guy in Bristol who got murdered because the racist thugs just decided he was a paedophile?

As soon as someone says about "fears of being racist" it's like honey to the racist far right bees who swarm on it and start talking about "protected castes" and the like. It should not be amplified as 1) a fact - it isn't, it's an opinion and 2) the cause of racist thuggery, it isn't, its an excuse.

OP posts:
AdamRyan · 06/04/2024 11:22

And the difference between KJK and JB is JB does hold the government to account to deal with VAWG. She isn't blaming shadowy child abusing elites.

OP posts:
Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.
Swipe left for the next trending thread