Miriam Cates/National Conservatives conference

[AdamRyan]

Miriam Cates was due to speak at the NatCon conference in Brussels tomorrow, on the topic of "Save The Children!"
The conference has been shut down because the Mayor will not tolerate the far right.

Here is a tweet to GB news discussing why the conference was shut down:

https://twitter.com/implausibleblog/status/1780239986861744280?s=19&t=hHgjMANzaGdj92-GTys1ig

I'm putting this here because I know a lot of GC feminists support Cates - I don't, and this stuff is why. She is awful.

@NoWordForFluffy

Reminder of what you said: 'The trouble is if you are visiting her X timełine (or similar) youʼre boosting her algorithm and ałtering your own algorithm. Ergo, you are helping the Tories. It makes no difference if you don't directly vote for her.'

I don't need a reminder. I also said, in another post, balance. So if you do visit so-and-so, visit a page cross-spectrum. Yes, they are still linked, and still receive the clicks, but the net affect is not as marked.

Of course, I'm a bit of a boffin, so have an interest in these things.

Have you actually read any of her memoirs?

Why would I want to read the memoirs of a fantasist?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=O0QT7KMWERI

Ah, we are back to "x is a man" I see.

1. are you saying men can't post here or have opinions? I suggest you take that up with some of the men posting on this thread/the board?

2. assuming someone's sex based on the way they right is quite gendered and anti feminist

3. feminism doesn't mean "never criticising other women". It is a movement for equality for (or if you prefer, as I do, an end to oppression of) women and girls. Sometimes that's going to mean doing things some women don't like. Such as suggesting that the agenda of an anti-abortion, pro-natalist, far right MP is not feminist.

"But safeguarding" as a way to enforce conservative values is not a get out of jail free card.

Nobody is fangirling anyone. And why do you assume that people here don't know what Cates stands for? Most people on this thread come over as quite well-informed about the people they are discussing.

You, however, dismiss the opinions of people you haven't heard of without even finding out who they are. And then decide that your preconceptions have been confirmed after a 4-minute search.

It's a bit harder to find out who Florence Bergeaud-Blackler is if you don't speak French, but I did find this:

https://www.meforum.org/64605/florence-bergeaud-blackler-on-the-muslim-led

Having researched the issue for three decades, Bergeaud-Blackler does not consider Islam itself to be irretrievably fundamentalist. It was possible to be a Muslim by self-definition without having to wear the hijab or eat halal. It was even acceptable for Muslims to proclaim they were no longer Muslim. That is no longer the case today because a Muslim would have to hide such a sentiment or risk inviting "trouble."

...

The riots are a wake-up call—a warning that unrest is not just caused by social and economic problems. Rather, it is a religious problem that secular people ignore for fear of conflating Islam with Islamism. The solution lies in recognizing the difference between the two and taking a firm stand against the latter. The French mentality is slowly changing because French society has reached a tipping point. Accordingly, the secularists reject being tarred as "extreme right or fascist or Nazi" for saying "no" to Islamism and the MB project of a Sharia-compliant France. The solution is for all political parties to work together as democrats against theocracy.

And yet you dismiss her with "I don't want to know anything about someone giving a speech at that conference with that title. I can predict without looking that she talks fear mongering tosh."

And here you are, doing what she says is the problem and conflating Islam with Islamism.

Of course men can post on here - there are some long standing valued male posters - and a few who use the board to showcase their particular version of misogyny / contempt for women.
I'm not assuming anybody's sex on here - certainly not from "how they right write" . But it is reasonable to point out that the prevalence of certain attitudes towards women occasionally seen on here can be common amongst certain men on twitter (other social media sites are available).
Of course feminists are allowed to criticise other women. There'll be instances where Advanced Search on here will show I have criticised a woman for something.
But I don't start regular threads on here that seek to disparage women I don't like. I don't post repeatedly on certain threads in an attempt to persuade women that their views are wrong. I rarely, if ever, call women fangirls, conspiracy theorists, pearl clutchers, right wing, fascist allies and other insults to try to shame them from exploring ideas and speaking out freely.

"But safeguarding" as a way to enforce conservative values is not a get out of jail free card".

And I never weaponise safeguarding children as a political tool to score points.

Do you?

The riots are a wake-up call—a warning that unrest is not just caused by social and economic problems. Rather, it is a religious problem that secular people ignore for fear of conflating Islam with Islamism. The solution lies in recognizing the difference between the two and taking a firm stand against the latter.

This is what I mean by fear mongering rubbish. As you know.

Academics prioritise which conferences to go to. Actions speak louder than words and the fact she chose to present at a far right conference says more about her than weasel words about "Islam vs Islamism"

@AdamRyan
Can you explain exactly what you think is 'fear mongering rubbish' in the article and video?

You seem to have very little to say about the words of someone who has studied this for 30 years, other than what she says is 'fear mongering rubbish'. This doesn't really lead to a meaningful discussion.

I'm sure you'll dismiss this as it's from the Spectator. The use of the word endogenous is an accurate summing up of this:

If an academic must face a campaign of denunciations and even death threats for investigating Islamism in Europe, then the next academic, or journalist, will never pick up their pen. As we get up to leave and the police officers I never spotted emerge, it’s clear that both science and democratic freedoms can come under threat, long before any hint of a theocracy.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-french-academic-paying-a-heavy-price-for-probing-the-muslim-brotherhood/?utm_source

Adam - why are you so invested in attacking Miriam Cates? She's pretty certain to lose her seat in the next election. It starting to seem you are really attacking women like me who are of the left but don't support Labour any more. You are actually denouncing apostates, we're not allowed to leave.
Seriously, if you want to persuade me to vote Labour, stop denouncing the opposition and treating me like I'm stupid.

I have read all the memoirs of Ayan Hirsi Ali, you clearly haven't; and also as with the case of Yanis Varoufakis - you seem to rely on second hand, inferior information grabbed from social media sources on which to form your judgments. Though these judgements often seem like you have already formed a view, and then look for information to back it up.

Nothing beats first hand knowledege when trying to develop your own critical thinking. For someone who seems to have very strong views, your wider political knowledge and reading seems vary shallow indeed.

I met a young woman, many years ago, who was working as a hotel receptionist in my city. She had been disowned by her family because she was renouncing her religion ( Islam). Ayan Hirsi Ali was her great heroine. She's an admirable woman who has much to teach.

'One Path' is hardly an unbiased platform.

OK, just read the Cates article. Bloody hell it turns out I actually am a frothing right wing bigot.

But as conservatives, we believe that raising children is not just the preserve of the nuclear family. Our communities, our nations, our institutions, our schools, our media — in other words, our culture — all play their part in determining the outcomes of childhood.

That's basically Vygotsky's social theory of childhood.

Neither are any sources (of which there are few) that you've quoted.

I speak with my own words, based on my own years of accumulated understanding and reading. I don't automatically reach for some other, third hand source in order to back up my points. What's the point in posting if you don't know much about the person/subject/or issue you are discussing. Dismissing people who you know little of seems a rather bigoted way to go about things, does it not?

I've read Ayan Hirsi Ali and Yanis Varoufakis...did that many years ago......Adam clearly has not. I did that because I'm interested in politics and culture. I don't rely on you tube videos. If you haven't read something, you cannot critique it.

That's what the danger is. Of course you aren't a "frothing right wing bigot". You get exposed to this kind of stuff, you think "oh she seems sensible, I like her", read more of her stuff and it pushes the Overton window gradually right until before you know the British equivalent of Viktor Orban or Donald Trump seems like a good idea.

How patronising. It is you who gets "exposed to stuff" and then you just parrot it - even if it is falllacious or ill informed. Most women here are capable of independent thought and critique. They are knowledgeable, they read widely.

Says the woman who goes round reprimanding other people's children, providing unsolicited parenting feedback and insisting people read her choice of right wing author, or they are "ill informed".

Well, Adam I'm afraid it's interacting with you that's starting to make Trump look like a good idea.
Come clean is this some sort of infantile post mod research project - my journey down the mumsnet rabbit hole?

Sorry I was intending to quote Adam!!!

I lurk mostly with a bit of heckling from the sidelines - anyone familiar with the board will know and respect that one google is never enough, that multiple sources are needed if your aren’t familiar with someone/something

to not look like a slapdash fucking arse

You seem to think none of us have any capacity to read, analyse, think for ourselves and draw our own conclusions. Why is that?

I've read widely so I know that last year Cates was suggesting that women should recieve less education so they can stay home and make more babies. Probably she has learnt from that and is now more sutble with her language?

Can you post a link?