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 👏

As is blaming immigrants for all societies ills.

Who is blaming immigrants for all society’s ills? Women on this thread? Is that what you are suggesting now?

Yeah, probably. I've lost track of whatever chain of logic there might have been in Cassie's train of thought.

I do know that if I expressed myself as slackly as Cassie does when I did my degree, I would have been torn to bloody shreds. We were trained to define our terms at the outset if there was anything remotely vague or contentious about them.

Edited for, um, clarity.

"The longer Labour ‘ums’ and ‘ahhs’ and hedges and handwaves, the more dismissive and downright sneery they are about women’s legitimate interest in their own definition in law, the more they fuel the culture war, and the more ammunition they provide for the resurgent and increasingly scary populist right. And I, for one, will not forgive them for that."

Was this post by a woman on this thread, or was it by the renowned radical feminist thinker Jane Clare Jones?

To me, the left is a very broad term that takes in organisations like the SWP and the WRP, but also parts of the Labour Party and even, at a push, elements of the Liberal Democrats. Historically, it might be difficult to characterise what they all have in common, except perhaps a resistance to unfettered capitalism and a commitment to greater equality.

But the obvious thing that they all now have in common is an insane and deluded commitment to identity politics, specifically the belief that men can be women, and that therefore men should be allowed, without constraint, to enter into spaces hitherto designed for women and engage in activities hitherto designated as women only. Not only that, but anyone who demurs from this view must be attacked as bigoted, prevented from speaking at public meetings, banned from social media, hounded out of their job and subjected to threats of death and rape.

I find Tommy Robinson and his ilk horrifying. But shouldn't we all pause and reflect on how near to fascism the left has become? Banning people from speaking, getting them sacked from their jobs, turning up at peaceful demonstrations wearing black masks and letting off smoke bombs, physically assaulting women for having an opinion: these are all the hallmarks of fascists. It's not simply that women are perversely choosing to leave the left – the left are deliberately driving them away.

@CassieMaddox
This makes no sense to me. The rise of the far right is because of "the left", despite a right wing government. The damage to womens rights is because of "the left" despite the right wing government.
Yeah, I'd agree that the Tories were pretty pathetic on this topic (with some notable exceptions), though they were getting their shit together a bit before they were unceremoniously dumped by the population. They were also not very right-wing on certain issues (immigration being one: the right is traditionally cautious about immigration).

But 'the Left' is wider than who is in government. Much, much wider. Just as 'the Right' is. Who gets to swing the Civil Service one way or the other? Who has influence in the universities? Who is in HR departments thinking it's a smart idea to cosy up to Stonewall? Who is on the boards of influential charities that drive the public discourse about certain topics? Who gets to write the captions in museums and art galleries, which in their turn drive the public discourse?

As I said before, it's a complex and interlocking system.

You cannot have a "good faith" discussion without being transparent regards your terminology and your definition of things. If such things are not clear - meaningful discussion is not possible. You seem to view this board as a place for battles and game play, rather than as a place for good faith, well considered discussion.

I am suspicious based on the tone of her other posts.

🤔

Oh look, here is mine
Ignoring the truth or falsity of a statement, a tone argument instead focuses on the emotion with which it is expressed.

You said "you could have responded with something like 'I'd like to know what you mean by multiculturalism. I very much doubt that I define it in the same way that you do.' You could have added, 'I understand it to mean [blah blah blah] and I do/don't agree with it/believe in it.'"

I.e. the tone of my question was wrong and led people to misunderstand

As opposed to there were different ways to read what I wrote (as there often are) and people chose to continue to misinterpret it even after I clarified.

It isn't that hard to go "oh yes, I misunderstood". I do it pretty often.

Again with the quoting out of context.

Repeated use of biscuits certainly set a tone for your posts….

Apparently even the home office is white supremacist.

The innate racism in UK immigration legislation continues to shape numerous policies. While the racist aims of much of this legislation are not explicitly mentioned in UK law, these immigration policies often rely on racist assumptions and White supremacist ideas.

As we often see just being white is sufficient for words to mean different things when you use them. You are racist and white supremacist innately no matter what you say.

migrantsrights.org.uk/projects/hostile-office/

Organisations are made of individuals with a wide range of political views and opinions. This insinuation that "the left" have captured institutions is not based in reality. Most organisations represent the most common view of their employees (public sector) or their customers (private sector).

The civil service exists to execute the policy of the government of the day. They are politically neutral. It's part of their code of employment. So you'd have no idea if they are mainly "left" or "right".

I find this whole idea that "the left" is a monolithic hive mind that's "captured" everything and is an insidious enemy 1) anti democratic and 2) dangerous. Its also not based in reality. Women being let down by political parties over gender =/= the civil service, schools, universities, the arts etc etc being "captured".

🙄

Oh, also @edithstourton a lot of the reason charities became so influential was the "Big Society" idea of David Cameron.

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/big-society-speech

Blame them for opening the door to the genderist nonsense as a way of cutting costs, not "the left". The adage "you get what you pay for" applies- if we vote in a government that's happy to offload socially important things like education to charities to save money, we can't be too surprised if we get dross back.

The civil service exists to execute the policy of the government of the day. They are politically neutral. It's part of their code of employment.

Are you trying to be funny?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/07/30/ministers-transgender-clinic-probe-led-civil-service-obstruction/

It's an interesting topic, and I've missed a few pages so not sure how it's come up.

I would say that institutions can be left or right leaning, or more generally they can have their own institutional culture that could include a political bias as well as many other non political aspects. (I am guessing you accept the idea of institutional culture in general, as if not you couldn't for example believe in institutional racism which I would presume you do think is a real phenomenon).

I would kind of agree that "our institutions are captured by the left" is too sweeping a statement to be useful or accurate. But to say certain institutions are "captured by gender ideology", while it is dramatically phrased I think it could be quite accurate. There are workplaces where you could quite confidently voice gender critical views, or where you could make policy choices or phrase reports and documents with biological language instead of that of gender. And there are other workplaces where you just wouldn't share your views because you know that workplace culture disapproves of them, and you would fear the consequences of expressing yourself. Where the second type of institution is making decisions or doing work that affects all of us, that can be a problem.

Blame them for opening the door to the genderist nonsense

As I pointed out earlier, the GRA was written and enacted by Labour. In terms of education - the Chiurch of England led the way on that over a centuary ago. But it was Labour who introduced Academies.

I find this whole idea that "the left" is a monolithic hive mind that's "captured" everything and is an insidious enemy 1) anti democratic and 2) dangerous. Its also not based in reality. Women being let down by political parties over gender =/= the civil service, schools, universities, the arts etc etc being "captured".

To deny that ideological capture exists in our institutions, and to say it's in fact wrong to point it out is quite some pivot which as we've seen, is even at odds with Jane Clare Jones.

(I am guessing you accept the idea of institutional culture in general, as if not you couldn't for example believe in institutional racism which I would presume you do think is a real phenomenon).

Yes, exactly.

The civil service exists to execute the policy of the government of the day.

I have also heard this rumour @KielderWater but I have never seen anyone claim to believe it before.

Women aren't just being "let down by political parties over gender", either. It's not just political parties, it's the police, NHS, local authorities, education system, social work, the arts to name a few.

It is perhaps unsurprising that that national institutions are left leaning when the whole concept of national institutions is a left wing one. The Conservative support for many of these institutions, regardless of if you think it goes far enough, shows how much to the left of American politics UK politics sit. Our mainstream right wing party (Conservatives) sits to the left of their mainstream left wing (Democrats).

Yes, I completely agree
The issue of "organisational capture" is real and should be challenged and highlighted. My problem is when this is extrapolated to being symptomatic of a much wider "capture". It all starts to sound a bit illuminati to me, and there are risks from the "them and us" mentality. Stereotyping is never a good idea.

Why not? There were PCS flags amongst the TRA protestors of LWS. PCS being the civil services union. Rainbow bedecked civil servants at Holyrood excluded women for wearing suffragette colours. There is a very active LBGT network at Whitehall who tweet of their influence. And let us not forget Sue Grey’s career trajectory.

Well as usual, if you reread what I've written assuming noble intent you'll probably see I didn't "deny organisational capture happens in our institutions".