KjK "insane rant" thread 2

[AdamRyan]

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

2. 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

I don’t think KJK should be held accountable for far right thugs. They will thug completely regardless of KJK. I don’t think any of us should be tiptoeing around for fear of our words being used by bigots, any more than the two quoted in newspaper articles upthread should be afraid to speak up.

Also, KJK’s listeners aren’t listening about the other stuff. They are single issue listeners.

The police and the press were worrying about running the story because they didn't want to give the "far right" an excuse by legitimising what they already believed.

The police and press made a complete arse of the grooming gang investigation and reporting. Have you listened to Maggie Oliver speak about what went on? If they are blaming the 'far right' for any of it they are more incompetent than i thought possible.

It wasn't an investigation that was identified and prosecuted quickly. The police distroyed evidence so it couldnt be investigated.

The problem (for me) is the disproportionate amount of conversation about the Rochdale, Rotherham and Telford grooming gangs.

You can't control the conversation. On here or anywhere. You do not know why people are talking about this, you assume racism. But when ive heard people talk about it, its the police who are blamed.

Back again, I've still been lurking just not posting as I don't really want to actively engage and participate in conversation with those who will twist what I say into something far more extreme and put words in my mouth.

But after seeing some of OP's updates I'm genuinely at a point where I have to re-join and ask, have others misunderstood my comments just as badly as OP has?
Am I just that bad at communicating?
This isn't a bait or a goad, I'm genuinely asking at this point because, well...
I'm sorry but it's been quite the shock to come back and read the discussion only to find I've essentially been called "far-right" by OP who has no idea anything about me, my life, my politics, or my voting history - and at this point I have to wonder am I just not being clear?

I feel very much as though I have been, but I cant for the life of me understand where OP's "summaries" of some of what I've said have come from quite frankly.

I've given up reading the OP's posts at this point. But no, I've not read your posts in that way at all.

I'm pleased you are back. I didn't mean for you to think I was saying you are far right.

As a feminist I strongly dislike Jordan Peterson. The "enforced monogamy" thing is rapey. And I've been accused of being cathy newman on here before so that clip pissed me off.

The dismissal of anyone who doesn't share the narrative of x is far right so if you agree with anything x says, you too must be far right, if you don't agree that discussing abuse by groups of people must never mention religion or race, etc etc is both disingenuous and, in my opinion, tedious.
I will just add that the Oldham and Rotherham groups followed patterns very similar to those of the afro Caribbean abusers in close geographical proximity, twenty years previous, the reasons for police inaction were very similar in all cases imo.

I think in the Bristol area they had issues with Afro Caribbean grooming gangs. Basically whoever the ruling criminal gang is, they organise the abuse of women as well.

Which I think is a difference with the ‘home grown’ abuse rings of the 70s and 80s. They weren’t criminals (well apart from the abuse). They were men in positions of power and influence.

I have been quite carefully not responding to the Jorden Peterson stuff. I find him misrepresented more often than not. I feel he should stop speaking about or for women, but that he’s pretty good on men and society as it is. He’s very observational. He doesn’t necessarily like what he describes, but he does observe quite acutely. I’d like to know where the enforced monogamy stuff comes from, because that isn’t what I heard when I was listening.

I’d like to know where the enforced monogamy stuff comes from, because that isn’t what I heard when I was listening.

Probably yet more misrepresentation and twisting...

It's okay, I just felt a bit taken aback is all - but I fully accept I may not have read the situation correctly however.
I feel it's a lot easier for intent to get lost within written text rather than verbally talking to one another though - hence why I felt the need to ask!

I respect your right to hold that opinion and I know full well I'm likely never going to change your mind on even just one thing JP has said (And to clarify I'm not a die hard fan. Like many people who are in the public eye, I agree with some things he says and not with others).

But that being said, Fwiw re; enforced monogamy, (I didn't like the notion of that when I first heard it either, but there's clips out there of him discussing / explaining what he actually means by that which I'll try and find if you want) he never meant anything remotely like force, or any type of rapey notion. That's what he was misconstrued as, because people heard "enforced" and blanked out the rest - But as far as I understood it, he meant it in the sense of socially enforced.
In the same way that when someone gets "cancelled" that's a type of enforcement against the disliked/suboptimal behaviour.

As in, having it be a socially enforced notion (whether that be by showing dislike of, shame, encouragement of monogamy, whatever) that it's better to be monogamous and in a committed singular relationship unit than to have many wives for example, or to have polyamorous "mega units".

What does he mean by "Better" is arguably up for debate, as it depends on the context as not all people will want to have children, but from my understanding it was in relation to raising a family specifically, and objectively what achieves the best results for a child based on a multitude of studies that have been done over time.

Now a person may have their own views on monogamy vs polyamory, but putting those aside, there's absolutely heaps of evidence that the optimal way to raise a child is to have two loving parents, who love each other as well, who are committed in all senses of the word, (of whatever sex & sexuality) sharing the work and caring load and working together as a team.

That's a lot harder to do/have in a family dynamic in which one of the parents is going out doing as they please.

In the case of infidelity, the other partner feels that the trust is gone, becomes self doubtful and like they're not good enough, paranoid, fights inevitably break out (plus a myriad of other things - None of this is a good environment for a child to grow up in.

With polyamory, although it supposedly can work (though I've not seen hard evidence for that myself that isn't in a highly edited TV show or just a person's word - People lie and will merrily omit what goes on behind the scenes just to prove a point) I'd imagine there's still degrees of jealousy, one person having more freedom than another, "rules" that aren't necessarily agreed with by all but are put up with because "what's the alternative?"
And then throw children into that mix and they're left being passed around from pillar to post with no real "stable" sense of family cohesion and unit, plus all the negative emotion that comes with an infidelity environment.

In the case of an Andrew Tate-esque set up 🤢 *shudders🤢 , where a man can do as he pleases and the (many) women all have to be committed to him and only him... Well.. I don't think I even need to really explain why that "family dynamic" if you can even call it that is bad and should probably be "shamed".

Encouraging monogamy is, at least imo, quite a feminist thing to want to do - and if anything is the exact opposite of what MRA's, Incels, Pickup Artists MGToW's, Andrew Tate types etc want.

(Hopefully all that makes sense, it ended up being a far longer reply than I wanted it to be, but it felt necessary to fully explain my PoV on at least that subject specifically)

TLDR for those who cba 😂;
The idea of "enforced monogamy" was intended to be understood as social/societal enforcement similar to the notion of cancel culture rather than physical or coercive control within a specific relationship.
Ie
Cheating = bad
Not cheating = good

I linked the interview upthread pickled. And do read Laura Bates' book

He did a whole interview with the NYT with quotes I read a while back. I've c&p'd the quotes I object to most as a feminist:

So he was radicalized, he says, because the “radical left” wants to eliminate hierarchies, which he says are the natural order of the world. In his book he illustrates this idea with the social behavior of lobsters. He chose lobsters because they have hierarchies and are a very ancient species, and are also invertebrates with serotonin.
It is not possible to gain any reliable evidence about human behaviour by comparing an animal from a different phylum (which means a very different group, so in this case comparing an arthropod with a mammal) . This is pseudoscientific nonsense being used to push an agenda, much like the TRA clownfish post.

The left, he believes, refuses to admit that men might be in charge because they are better at it. “The people who hold that our culture is an oppressive patriarchy, they don’t want to admit that the current hierarchy might be predicated on competence,” he said.
I object to this because I've lost count of the number of men who have told me men are just "naturally" better managers, usually coupled with an "observation" about the sexual attractiveness of female managers, and the role that played in them getting a management position.

Violent attacks are what happens when men do not have partners, Mr. Peterson says, and society needs to work to make sure those men are married.

“He was angry at God because women were rejecting him,” Mr. Peterson says of the Toronto killer. “The cure for that is enforced monogamy. That’s actually why monogamy emerges.”

This is about Incel terrorist Alek Minassian. My reaction to it is the same as my reaction to the TR stuff. Minassian is a violent terrorist. I find it really distasteful that he tries to rationalise what Minassian did. Also as a feminist I don't think male violence is caused by them not getting laid. That's a very patriarchal viewpoint.

“Half the men fail,” he says, meaning that they don’t procreate. “And no one cares about the men who fail.”
This is just nuts.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/18/style/jordan-peterson-12-rules-for-life.html

At the same time I read this there were a lot of peterson anti-feminist memes floating around on YouTube.

I think he has an extremely different world view to me. And I think I've encountered plenty of men like him before (I have a PhD in evolutionary biology ). Therefore I'm not particularly inclined to spend time listening to him.

I find this a far more compelling study of human monogamy:

https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/sex-and-the-female-agenda

Consider the dilemma facing an ovulating cavewoman who has just been fertilized. In many other mammal species, the male would promptly go off in search of another ovulating female. For the cavewoman, though, that would seriously jeopardize her child’s survival. She’s much better off if that man sticks around. But what can she do? Her brilliant solution: remain sexually receptive all the time! Keep him satisfied by copulating whenever he wants! In that way, he’ll hang around, have no need to look for new sex partners, and will even share his daily hunting bag of meat.

That in essence is the theory that was formerly popular among anthropologists--among male anthropologists, anyway. Alas for that theory, there are numerous male animals that require no such sexual bribes to induce them to remain with their mate and offspring. I already mentioned that gibbons, seeming paragons of monogamous devotion, go years without sex. Male songbirds cooperate assiduously with their mates in feeding the nestlings, although sex ceases after fertilization. Even male gorillas with a harem of several females get only a few sexual opportunities each year because their mates are usually nursing or out of estrus. Clearly, these females don’t have to offer the sop of constant sex.

Somehow we evolved concealed ovulation and constant receptivity to make possible our unique combination of marriage, co-parenting, and adulterous temptation. How does that combination work?

It's very complicated but interesting

I haven’t managed to read everything just mentioned- but I don’t agree with your interpretation again!

He isn’t saying that a woman should be forced to marry the incel
He says that young men need to shape up and make themselves into attractive responsible reliable mates, so we don’t get incels. It’s very different, it’s a societal shift that would make men and women happier. He’s talking about the man child and the cocklodger we know only too well here.

The comments under the YouTube interview are interesting.

I'm not sure I follow. I think you are still making the point that the police and the press "ignored it because they were scared of being racist". I still don't think that's proven to be true; I think that's people's opinions.

This is what JB said in her 2017 article in the Independent.

But despite the quality of material I had amassed, it took me until 2007 to get my first piece published because some editors feared an accusation of racism.

What I also discovered was that the police and social services appeared to be scared of intervening in these particular grooming gangs, because a large number of the men involved were of Pakistani Muslim origin. The professionals who were turning a blind eye did not want to be labelled as racist, and did not understand that all they had to do was make it clear that the majority of child sexual abusers and pimps in the UK are white men, and that they were abusing children because they were child abusers, not because they were from a particular ethnicity or religion.

You can, of course, disagree with her, but she has been involved with groups trying to protect these vulnerable girls since the 1990s and has spoken to a lot of people over the years about this. In this particular area I am willing to accept that she knows a lot more than I do about what was going on so I think her opinion carries a lot of weight. I have no idea what your experience is that makes you think you know more than she does.

The police and the press were worrying about running the story because they didn't want to give the "far right" an excuse by legitimising what they already believed. Meanwhile JB could see there was an issue locally with grooming gangs and was caught in a cleft stick of whether and how to report it: how to report it so the girls were protected, without feeding far right narratives.

I think you're misrepresenting JB's position. She wanted the story to be told and says she had been trying to publish articles on this for years before she finally got the opportunity with her article in the Times in 2007.

She says it also took her several years to get her article about Charlene Downes published, and the far right didn't capitalise on it, so the fears of the press were unfounded.

When I approached newspapers to commission an article on Charlene’s case I was told by a number of editors that it was “too sensitive” because the men being investigated by police were illegal asylum seekers. My piece eventually did get published in 2008, and no racist attempted to capitalise from it, as they already had been doing so well before then.

KJK by voicing the narrative is legitimising what they already believe

I think you're overestimating the amount of influence she has. She has no position of authority or political standing. She's not even that well known. She has no authority to 'legitimise' anything. She's just an ordinary woman with strong opinions who posts them on youtube to a few thousand people.

I recommend reading JB's article from 2007. There's a lot in there that I had no idea about.

OK. So I'm not going to reply further because I disagree about the main premise that racism was a factor. I also don't think JB is necessarily sure about the racism point - she says "the police and social services appeared to be scared of intervening" which suggests she had nothing more than anecdotes either.

I think (and this was said in the enquiry) that a far bigger problem was the other factor she mentioned, which was the fear of inflaming far right tension.

Clearly we aren't going to agree so let's stop flogging a dead horse.

I think if it were that simple for these men to "shape up" they would do it. I also think he minimises male violence and the causes of it. Its a lovely vision to have but I don't believe its achievable. Certainly not by focusing on "monogamy" over male violence.

Have you read Lundy Buncroft "why does he do that?" He talks a lot about the impact on violent men of the attitudes towards women that they are surrounded by as they grow up, and how that gives those men a sense of entitlement and a feeling that they should be able to control womens behaviour.

I can't see how we change mens attitudes without a fundamental shift in society. And Peterson's traditionalist, hierarchy view is the problem, not the solution. We have done that through most of human history to the detriment of women.

I missed some words - I disagree it was a big contributing factor. Not i disagree it was a factor at all.

Well again, I don’t agree. I think JP is all too aware of male violence and what influences it. He’s very respectful of women.

I’m blocked from this Twitter account. Have you more screenshots? @MishyJDI @AdamRyan ?

So how do you think we take a boy who would be an incel, and make them a good partner? When does that start and how does it happen?

@Scotcheggz

Sorry, I was trying to do screenshot. Bear with.

The rest