Jane Clare Jones blog on Tommy Robinson

[CassieMaddox]

Just a really great read
https://janeclarejones.com/2024/07/28/tommy-robinson-far-right-populism-and-gender-criticism/

These are my favourite bits:

The greatest danger to women and girls has always been, and remains, the men inside their own houses. This is the nature, and the devastation, of endemic male sexual violence. It usually happens in the place, and with the people, who are supposed to be most safe. It would perhaps be comforting to imagine that we could easily identify the men who are dangerous – the Muslims, the brown ones, the ones in dresses – and then we could keep ourselves safe by keeping them out. But the argument materialist feminists made throughout the early years of the gender wars applies equally here: men are a statistical danger to women as a class and there is prima facie no way of working out which ones are dangerous and which ones are not.

The argument is no longer ‘guilt by association’ or ‘purity politics,’ it is now a) What even is the far right anyway?, b) The far right doesn’t mean anything because I was called far right for knowing men aren’t women, c) You people think anyone who disagrees with you is far right, and d) He is not far right anyway. That is, it has moved from claiming that association with the far right is either not happening or if it is happening has no impact on the substance of GC discourse, to people openly associating with the far right and recycling far right talking points while denying that the far right is the far right.

But what feminist women have tried, largely unsuccessfully, to get across, is that these kinds of men are not on ‘your side,’ if ‘your side’ is genuinely defending women’s rights. These men are on their side, and their side wants a largely white patriarchal nation, in which ‘their’ women know their place and are ‘protected’ only insofar as ‘protection’ means keeping them guarded from ‘other’ men.

The pictures at the end of the article are very illuminating too.

Brava JCJ 👏

The left has been utterly shite on the right of women/supported self ID and so on. This has driven people to the right - see all the 'I'm not going to vote for a party that doesn't know what a woman is', including the far right aka 'At least Tommy Robinson knows what a woman is' comments over the last few months.

Most people said that about the Tories, not Reform/Tommy Robinson. Like it or not the Conservative Party is one of the two main parties in the country and has been for centuries. It's a misrepresentation to claim that lots of woman on Mumsnet are fans of Tommy Robinson.

I didn't say that lots of women on MN are fans of Tommy Robinson. I said that there have been 'At least Tommy Robinson knows what a woman is' comments over the last few months.

@Likesomemorecash
maybe you could read the thousands of word that JCJ has written about this already? They're all freely available on her blog.

I wasn't aware of this because I don't follow her. Could you recommend any pieces in particular where she covers this?

And actually, I was talking more generally. Twitter has been awash with 'what's the problem with going on a TR march?' comments from both men and women.

Absolutely nailed it. Brava!

I didn't say that lots of women on MN are fans of Tommy Robinson. I said that there have been 'At least Tommy Robinson knows what a woman is' comments over the last few months.

What exactly is the relevance to the gender critical feminists and other women on Mumsnet then? I've seen TRAs make death threats on Mumsnet before. I've been accused of being personally responsible for the Proud Boys action after WiSpa in Los Angeles. I'm not trying to paint it as a widely held position of people I disagree with on Mumsnet.

Have a look at the 'Annuls of the Terf Wars. It's very funny as well as bitingly astute.

janeclarejones.com/2018/11/13/the-annals-of-the-terf-wars/

Dear men on the left (sigh) also good.

janeclarejones.com/2024/06/04/dear-men-on-the-left-reprise-sigh/

OldCrone or maybe you could read the thousands of word that JCJ has written about this already? They're all freely available on her blog.

Life is way way too short.

I don't think right positions are inherently based on racial prejudice at all ( as in based on skin colour). I'd say the motives are more cultural.

Firstly we are talking about far-right, not right. The vast majority of right leaning people don't support the far right.

The far right claim their issues are "cultural" to try to hide that it's about race. It's transparent.

Yes, Unherd is a an on -line political magazine in which different writers look at various contemporary issues, rather than a direct news source.

I cited it on my list because it is a source I have subscribed to in recent times. Though, as a result of reading articles I also do further research on topics. I find it a useful resource for discovering new writers.

Might you respond to my post from yesterday in which I shared my reading and subscription list with you....and asked about yours?

The thread on here was the same.

Nope. I read what the sexual assault survivor posted above it and decided I couldn't be arsed with intellectual purity spiralling

This one

It maybe"transparent" to you..because that is your starting position.

I'd say the issues are more cultural, and linked with uncontrolled immigration and migration.... people with different cultures, religions and practices.

I think it also comes down to the idea of borders, boundaries, the rule of law and the implementation of that law.

People like Tommy Robinson become the voice of working class men who have been brought up in the school of hard knocks and rough justice. But there are also right wing thinkers, philosophers and ideologues too....in which it is all about ideas.

That is why you have to engage with ideas. You have to be able to analyse them, test them out, understand their logic if you want to challenge them

Is Jane working as an academic? I wonder if she writes for a living now, does anyone know.

Just curious.

This is why many people don't trust your posts. If you can't be open about the roots of your thinking.....then people assume you are not sure yourself. And that is what comes across.

Is Jane working as an academic? I wonder if she writes for a living now, does anyone know.

To be honest I'm not aware of what she's ever done for a living.

It seems to me there is a fundamental flaw in her logic. At one point she says: "Even if, as many feminists would argue, the statistical threat posed by men is significantly a product of patriarchal socialisation and the cultural norms of masculinity, we are presently still living in that culture, and so women need spaces away from males."

When she says "as many feminists would argue", I take it as something she herself would argue. And that argument is that men pose a threat to women not because they are innately violent or aggressive, but that they have been socialised to be so.

If you genuinely believe that, then it undermines the argument that all men pose an equal threat to women. Because if it all comes down to socialisation, rather than innate aggression, then surely you have to accept that some societies are more hostile to women than others. And if you have been socialised in one of these extreme anti-women societies, then you are more likely to be hostile towards women than if you've been brought up in a society that treats women broadly as equal with men.

It seems to me there is a fundamental flaw in her logic. At one point she says: "Even if, as many feminists would argue, the statistical threat posed by men is significantly a product of patriarchal socialisation and the cultural norms of masculinity, we are presently still living in that culture, and so women need spaces away from males."

When she says "as many feminists would argue", I take it as something she herself would argue. And that argument is that men pose a threat to women not because they are innately violent or aggressive, but that they have been socialised to be so.

If you genuinely believe that, then it undermines the argument that all men pose an equal threat to women. Because if it all comes down to socialisation, rather than innate aggression, then surely you have to accept that some societies are more hostile to women than others. And if you have been socialised in one of these extreme anti-women societies, then you are more likely to be hostile towards women than if you've been brought up in a society that treats women broadly as equal with men.

Excellent point, @RoyalCorgi - I personally have no truck with the kind of cultural relativism that handwaves away systemic misogyny if it's unpalatable to recognise it.

I remember the Annals of the Terf Wars. I agree it's very funny, but it's not about the issue of what is turning people away from the left and towards the far right, which is happening all over Europe.

Thanks for the other link. I'll have a look at that.

No.

Jane has never been an academic (which is no bad thing). She wouldn't, and I'm sure this will be taken as a personal insult, be competitive given her PhD institution and lack of published papers (and we all know how I managed to put myself out of academic business so I wouldn't be either now). I don't know why she calls herself an "academic" philosopher and states she "chose" not to take a university position when her lack of credentials means she never had a realistic choice in the first place.

And that's clear to me from the quality of her writing.

I think she would come from the same radical feminist school of thought as me. Socialisation and masculinity are "the patriarchy" - the system we all live in that sees maleness as innately superior and rewards strength, lack of emotion and competitiveness in men and tolerates the negative consequences of that - male violence and the subjugation of women.

If one sees "the patriarchy" as the problem then "other cultures" become shades of grey in the overall issue that is the patriarchy, the subjugation of women and the tolerance of male violence.

The fundamental issue really, which we touched on upthread, is some feminists (like me) believe no society treats women as "broadly equal to men". And therefore the "threat" of immigration seems like a distraction from a bigger issue.

Thats also backed up by all the evidence and statistics around male violence in the UK, which demonstrate the biggest issue is white men, and men known to the victim.

And what society is it that treats women as broadly equal to men?