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 👏

No, because women are empty headed bimbos to these feminists. We are easily led astray and like children will fall for bad men and their lies. We need to be guided towards the light and the truth by the high priestesses of feminism. Only they can save us and only their political framework will solve women's problems. They have all the answers, we just need to come back in from playing in the mud, clean up and behave ourselves and stop asking so many bloody questions, otherwise we might catch something from the dirt.

I think this is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever read. I don't even know where to start with it- it's pure fiction

This is what I wanted to say but you put it much more eloquently. This, this, 100% this. And that's why we unwashed and gobby women have to hold the line.

Thanks for this. I can't say I agree with your perspective, but it is good to hear it so clearly put.

I thought the essay helped me distil a few things.

I had time for the purity spiral and guilt by association arguments, when the likes of Tommy Robinson was just rocking up at open events. However, I have been getting increasingly uncomfortable with The approach KJK is now taking. The latest stunt with her GP receptionist was beyond the pale for me.

JCJ does a very good job at a) making it crystal clear that men like Tommy Robinson and their ilk are no friend to women and b) the dangers of associating with them. I am now seeing alot of GC content alongside right wing and nut job conspiracy theory content. I view this as an existential threat to the movement.

We were really effectively silenced for years by No Debate. I can see the next tactic will be "Don't listen to them they are all far right but jobs". I suspect that label will be hard to shake. It will suck all the oxygen away from the real issues we are trying to highlight. So I agree with JCJ that this is a real threat.

As others have said she is short on the So What? For those of us who agree with her stance, what is the solution. The good feminist bad feminist position doesn't feel very helpful. Neither does the position of denying that there is a real risk here.

She was summarising the main arguments others make if one raises the far right associations, and this was one of my favourite paragraphs because I've had all of these things said to me on Tommy Robinson threads on here.

It's pretty difficult actually to hold a conversation with people who want to say TR isn't far right. And I agree with her the argument has changed recently.

This. Well said.

I agree with all of this, Snowy, except that genderism is absolutely not socialist!

There’s nothing socialist about scrapping women’s rights in favour of men’s wishes. People who call themselves leftwing but support genderism really need to open their eyes.

I agree with you.

I don't think there is an easy answer. For me personally, it's about being very clear what my own stance is and also about pointing out when others are falling into those far right/conspiracy theory tropes. I'm not going to be all "cool girl" and say it doesn't matter what people do or their politics if they say some things I agree with. But that makes me extremely unpopular on here so comes with a cost.

I think its also helpful to be able to separate the womens sex based rights argument from "there's no such thing as trans". The latter I think is unhelpful and makes people switch off from the argument.

I would be interested in other people's thoughts on it too because I agree with you that the solutions aren't easy.

@CassieMaddox
She was summarising the main arguments others make if one raises the far right associations, and this was one of my favourite paragraphs because I've had all of these things said to me on Tommy Robinson threads on here.
I think she was summarising the worst of the arguments and not the best of them.

What would you say the best of the arguments are?

I've been on a lot of these threads and the arguments as to why GC women being associated with TR do go exactly as she outlined. Before there was incontrovertible photographic evidence, it was "guilt by association", "purity spirals" and "made up". Now, it's "what is far right anyway?" and the rests of JCJ list. I'd add an extra one of "I'm more interested in the argument than the source".

I agree. Genderism is essentially a product of the culture of misogyny - which socialism is unfortunately no more immune to than any other political movement.

heavens that's long. It's 4,800 words. The ideal blog post is apparently 1,500-2,500 words. And I would say that if you can't make your point in 2,500 words, then you may not have one, or your brain may not be as well organised as you think it is.

it's a shame because I know nothing about the far right and suspect that Jane could educate me on the subject. But not if I am to be subjected to leaden prose like 'The inside is safe and the outside is dangerous, and danger enters – or indeed, penetrates – the safety of the inside from outside, thereby destroying it' (oooh, do you see what she did there!).

I do concur with the worries about far right associations, and I increasingly think KJK is unhinged. I bet I could explain why in less than 4,800 words.

Well, that was a lot of words to say not very much. The first few (long) paragraphs telling us how bad TR/the far right are were totally unnecessary. Anyone reading her blog knows that already.

I thought there was one good point towards the end, but having reread it to post here, I think I may have misunderstood what she was saying.

What we did was try to draw attention to what some of these people believed, explain why it was bad for women, and suggest that we shouldn’t just sit on their platforms agreeing with them, attend their events, take any money from them, or make any kind of political common cause with them. And one of the many reasons we suggested that is because it quickly leads to people being marinated in a media and political ecosystem that is feeding them a steady drip of populist talking points, which they are primed to be more open to because these people ‘know what a woman is’ and are apparently taking ‘your side’ rather than calling you a nazi and trying to get you fired.

I initially thought she was saying that women sharing a platform with TR/the far right associates women's rights with the far right in other people's minds. Having reread it, I'm not sure now if she actually thinks that the women sharing the platform with TR will actually become infected with far right thoughts. As I've already said, (without wanting to become as wordy as JCJ), we don't need to have it explained to us that the far right aren't feminists, so her trying to explain this to us is completely redundant (not to mention patronising).

@GenderBlender
I am now seeing alot of GC content alongside right wing and nut job conspiracy theory content. I view this as an existential threat to the movement.

I think this might be what JCJ is saying in the paragraph I've quoted, but I'm really not sure. I agree that this association, although false, is a problem, but presumably comes about because of the way the computer algorithms work.

That. All of that. And what IcantdealwithChristmas said.

I used to be quite the JCJ fangirl way back when but was brought up short after her "on the phone to my mum hyperventilating" fallout from KJK's trip to the US in 2018, I think it was...?

That's when I began to realise that her left wing identity and the protection of it was probably more important to her and others like her than anything else.

The above post sums it up for me.

aside from pontificating on the internet (which granted I am doing right now), has Jane actually done anything?

I mean if you said the following names to me I could tell you real stuff they'd done in the real world:

• Maya Forstater
• Nicola Williams
• Venice Allen
• Helen Joyce
• Kelly Jay Keen

what's Jane's elevator pitch?

Her complete lack of ever taking any practical action just seems to me to be such a weakness in her arguments and her position as some kind of gate keeper. but maybe I just don't know enough about her

👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏

Yes, I think she is saying people can "become infected with thoughts", as you put it.

That's exactly how radicalisation works. One of the things I find strange is this insistence from some posters that being exposed to extremist content and viewpoints won't affect them. It seems quite arrogant. Radicalisation via the Internet is a well known phenomenon and even if it won't affect an individual, amplifying, repeating or lending credibility to the sources means its more likely to reach someone it will radicalise.

Articulating ideas with clarity and logic is an important contribution in itself.

She wrote some great, pretty unarguably logic about sex based rights back in #nodebate days that I used to share all the time. That is a positive contribution. Same as having random people commenting on this forum has been.

I'll give an example of what I have been seeing. I follow a local lifestyle vegan lady. I know her IRL. She started off in the wellness space. Became a vegan mostly for health reasons / doesn't trust big business they are poisoning us all.

Alongside juice recipes, she has always had lots of anti vaccine / COVID conspiracy / vapour trails type stuff on her feeds.

Until the last I reckon 18 months she has never posted anything particularly political or feminist. Then she began re posting content about Muslim VAWAG. Making comments about a local refugee hostel, lots of links to totally un evidenced and plain wrong accusations.
She is now posting lots of content critical of gender ideology. Pronoun bashing. Photos mocking trans women. Mastectomy photos.

I agree with this woman over precisely nothing, except that men can't be women. I am worried that it will be so easy for it to be positioned that anyone who thinks men can't be women also harbours these other views. I think KJK is making it easier for these links to be made.

I don't know how I put clear water between myself and her and others like her, without going down the really divisive cool girl versus gobby woman route.

fair enough. I agree that speaking up under your own name back in the day was no small thing.

based on the written evidence i'm not sure I agree that she articulates ideas with clarity and logic, but I'll give you the speaking up thing.

This is such a strange post. “Nice men and their mates are ok” is the EXACT OPPOSITE of the point of the article

The greatest danger to women and girls has always been, and remains, the men inside their own houses.

This is a bit like saying home is far more dangerous than a building site as far more accidents happen at home. Or that you are less at risk of dying if you are taken to hospital as most deaths take place outside hospital.

Some women are at very very high risk in their home due to the presence of violent men. Most women are at low risk in their home and at much higher risk outside their home.

I am NOT white, I am not British and I think Tommy Robinson is not a fascist and certainly not the biggest problem you have. He is absolutely right about the grooming gang scandals and the establishment gatekeepers. As for his identitarian politics- how is it any worse than the other identitarian shit shows you have had on your streets since since Oct 7?

Her point is women can't make themselves safe by staying away from certain types of men, that's a comforting illusion being peddled by the far right. Being male is the risk factor, not being brown/ trans/ muslim etc etc.

She's right about that.