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 👏

What happened last night was what happens when people amplify far right misinformation online and embolden racists and islamophobes.

What happened last night was what happens when gullible people are persuaded that "the elite" are controlling what we think and so you need to look at information about worrying about the source.

What happened last night is exactly why I'm so concerned about the risk of the far right. Handwaving it away as "just men" and pretending it isn't all our problem doesn't cut it. Unless you want to live in a society where this kind of riot is par for the course.

You know full well they do.

MN regularly ban posters for using them.

And in Leeds? Was that the far right too?

I certainly said nothing like that. I wish you the best with your recovery.

Absolutely no one said it’s ’just men’.

You have a massive tendency to (wilfully?) misinterpret absolutely everyone, it’s baffling how you can be so wrong about everything everyone says.

Yet you are the only person who claims to understand JCJ.

Are you JCJ?

I don't think Cassie is because unlike her, JCJ, for all her shortcomings, agrees that the left have let people down to the extent that it has increased support for right wing populism.

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.

Good point, well made!

Have missed most of the discussion but 'biscuit' does not translate to 'calling someone an arsehole'. It's an old MN usage.

Sure, but it’s used to illustrate contempt, for the post you are responding to, which really isn’t much different to calling someone an arsehole ((perhaps a bit more patronising simply just calling someone an arsehole?)

www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/3174194-The-meaning-of-biscuits

Thank you

No. I use it when I want go acknowledge I've read a post but find it too goady to be able to reply. I think that was it's original intent. As in "OK, have a biscuit".

Once again you have ascribed your own meaning to something.

You are extremely difficult to communicate with due to this habit,

And for those thinking I'm JCJ, it shows how much of a hive mind you are when your default is to assume there could only be one person with that views so I must be her or one of her friends!

Ridiculous. Her views are 1) pretty typical feminism and 2) the same conclusion anyone spending time on TwiX or here might draw.

I've only just read a post on a different thread equating the inability to talk about immigration with GC concerns and using that to imply that rioting was a reasonable response.

Don't bother then. No skin off my nose. I tend to ignore posters I find rude, obnoxious, goady etc. Or maybe give them a biscuit if they are being particularly personal

Do you know what? I think that's because JCJ is too much in "be kind" mode.

I'm more along the lines of adults should own their actions and I don't reward tantrums. If people want to have racist or far right views that's on them and I don't really see why I should be expected to "be kind" and pander to it.

Would have thought GC feminists would appreciate that.

What utter bollocks. Those men will have put women and girls at risk. Rioting does nothing to help keep women and girls safe. It was also completely disrespectful to the girls and their families. Vile behaviour.

@CassieMaddox , the fact the many posters on this board find you difficult to communicate with because you use words to mean what you think they mean (not what they are generally accepted as meaning), and because you misread and misunderstand perfectly lucid posts and therefore don't understand what the poster was saying, and because you leap to conclusions and generalisations not supported by what posters have said, should all be a cause for self-examination.

You might like to consider what you hope to achieve by pissing off a lot of posters. You make them less, rather than more, likely to come round to your way of thinking. I'm already less likely to engage with threads you've started because your responses are so often obtuse. I find it frustrating when communication breaks down so often in the ways I outlined above. I don't think I'm alone.

Maddox is on another thread claiming the other man is more to blame than Huw Edwards.

😮

You're not alone, and you're way more polite than me.

Nice stalking 😮. I really must be a threat. But as you seem determined to smear, here's the article. People can read the context.

E.g. On 2 February 2021, the other man asked whether what he was sending was too young, to which Edwards asked him not to send any underage images, the court heard.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cmj260e54x7o

It's kind of weird that I post all over mumsnet and only ever get this kind of response on FWR and only in the last couple of years.

Leads me to believe it may very well not be a "me" problem.

You've made yourself a memorable poster on FWR, and not for the right reasons. You start a lot of threads, and post prolifically on them.

I saw you on a (the same?) Huw Edwards thread earlier today - not stalking at all, just stumbled across you.

I think you are posting this in good faith and would invite you to consider how easy it is to post clearly when people repeatedly misrepresent, goad and bully just because they recognise your UN. I'm cautious because I get misrepresented (as hewpo just did), I have been called a groomer, a TRA, a child abuser, an apologist for sexual abuse and all sorts. I'm a human being and it is hurtful.

It is not easy to post here in that context. But I know from thanks and pms that other posters appreciate me doing it and I will not be bullied off the board just for having a different perspective.