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 👏

Yes, so you know I've been misrepresented on here. It's cliquey mean girl behaviour to drag stuff across threads, even more so to misrepresent it.

"You are a 'difficult woman', please consider your tone"

FFS play the ball

@CassieMaddox I think you feel that you are 'misrepresented' when you say something that is easily misunderstood. Like when you accused me of 'tone policing' when I said you weren't clear. You had not been clear, and I wasn't tone policing or bullying, I was pointing out why a misunderstanding had arisen.

I've got into barneys on other boards with people, and felt piled on at times, and had posters be extremely rude to me. It doesn't stop me making sure that my posts are as clear and accurate as possible. I don't start whining that they're being mean girls and bullying me, I accept that I hold a minority viewpoint that goes against the vibe of that particular board (and clearly pisses a lot of posters off) and try to express myself as clearly and fairly as I can. People don't tend to misunderstand what I'm saying. They might disagree, they might raise objections (some valid, some not). That is all fine.

As for Yes, so you know I've been misrepresented on here, how the heck did you deduce that from the post you were replying to? It means that when you say, 'I've been called a TRA' I think, 'Probably what happened is that someone told Cassie she was sounding like a TRA.'

Best not to continue commenting on posts on another thread or it risks getting this one reported and deleted as a TAAT (Thread About A Thread) - even though it isn't.

I have seen you post on Mumsnet before, Cassie. Fortunately, I have never before come across such a stream of gaslighting, misrepresentation, evasiveness and insulting, patronising behaviour as you have demonstrated on this thread.

I have persisted with this thread but this will be the last time I waste my time on any thread that you start. Life is just too short.

You were on the Huw Edwards thread, so you know Hewpo's post is disingenuous, out of context and put on here to smear me. Does not appear to be a problem however.

👋

That is a complete misrepresentation of what EdithStourton said.

I've reported the whole thread earlier and asked it to be removed in light of the Southport riots and other posts on here. Providing opportunities to amplify misinformation that leads to the kind of stuff that happened last night is the last thing I want to do.

So it's gonna probably go at some point anyway.

So you aren't saying they are srseholes, but you are calling them twats.

I am sure we will all keep that in mind. Hopefully MN HQ will too.

In your opinion. Maybe that's how I read it. Maybe she should consider how she communicates. Or maybe posters should grow the fuck up, stick to discussing the points they want to & develop the skills to scroll past the ones they don't.

Patience lost.

She can be as difficult as she fucking likes. She can disagree all she wants. That's fine.

The issue is that she often makes no sense. She uses words like 'innate' without having a bloody clue about their actual meaning. She draws ludicrous conclusions from what people have said - she told me I'd be voting Reform then, when I'd said it was worth thinking about what drew people to vote that way.

She accuses people (me, in this instance) of 'tone policing' when I was just pointing out to her that she needs to be clear. She posts claims that are flagrantly inaccurate.

She brings many of her woes on FWR entirely upon herself. People that she might be able to persuade into thinking that she has a point she pisses off.

It is impossible to play the goddamn ball when the person chucking it about has no effing concept of the rules of sensible debate. This is why I don't like engaging on her threads. I end up pissed off to the max.

<goes to make a cup of tea>

🙄

I was replying to another poster claiming I was making up definitions. Those are not my words.

MNHQ supports the biscuit emoji. I think they do it to allow a "safe" way to express frustration. If you have an issue take it up with them.

This is why I don't like engaging on her threads.

Are you angry at your own lack of self-control?

How the fuck do you draw that conclusion? I had a quick look at the thread, spotted your name, don't think I even posted though I might have done, and left.

But you conclude that I read the whole thread and spotted all of its intricacies.

Nope, you're misrepresenting ME.

I think that what JCJ fails to do is recognise that she is the product of the West and that the values here of Christianity/post Christianity have led to an opportuity for feminism to thrive.
Leftists tend to think that our society just appeared and that everywhere is the same, so that you place no value on our culture and if there's nothing to protect then there should be no border.
The men on the extreme right I do not agree with either in that I am pro abortion, women working etc but I think that she is trying to spin a narrative that Tommy Robinson wants racial purity like the ideals of Nazi Grermany, that they want to keep 'brown men' away from 'our women but I think that is an old fasioned and simplistic view of today's right. The days of racial purity thinking are long gone to all but an extremely tiny minority.
She also mentions Douglas Murray and does not mention that he is gay and is influenced by the lack of tolerance in Islam towards gay men.
Violence towards women she claims is the same everywhere and so it is wrong to pick out one group but this is obviously untrue as the levels of domestic violence that are accepted within a society are very different.

According to HRW 2013 report, Afghanistan has one of the highest incidence rates of domestic violence in the world. Domestic violence is so common that 85 per cent of women admit to experiencing it. 60% of all women report being victims of multiple forms of serial violence.[62] Afghanistan is one of the few countries in which the female suicide rate is higher than that of males

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:A_comparison_of_acceptance_of_domestic_violence_in_select_Arab_and_Muslim_majority_countries,_UNICEF_2013.png

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_domestic_violence

Oh GREAT.
So women spend a lot of effort and time discussing an issue, and trying to be clear and work out what they think n'all, and you want it zapped.

If you do that too often, you'll find that no one posts on your threads, and then you'll moan that we're all nasty meanies.

Leftists tend to think that our society just appeared and that everywhere is the same, so that you place no value on our culture and if there's nothing to protect then there should be no border.

What leads you to believe "leftists" think that? It seems very extreme to me, I don't think I've ever seen anyone argue for the abolition of borders.

Yet again you miss the point.

You said a biscuit does not mean calling someone an arsehole. The definition you posted says it does, it simply substitutes out arsehole for twat. It's the same thing. The "not engaging" is because the person is an arsehole/twat/prick/douchebag/etc

It's like you only read half of what anything says.

No. It says people think in their heads someone is a twat and post the biscuit instead of engaging.

That's kind of how human interaction works, no? People think their own private opinions about others and choose the appropriate way to express them?

Here:
Officially it means 'no comment', but it really means 'I think you are being a complete twat & I can't be bothered to engage with you.'

I'd rather you didn't post than you had a go, to be honest

LOL.
No.

We all know the biscuit means the person is thinking the poster is a twat. It's in the definition you posted.

So it is not just in their heads.

If it is contained within the definition, that means when you use it, you are publicly saying they are a twat.

Try and follow the logic.

Like I said, take it up with MNHQ.

Google 'abolition of borders'.
I very much doubt that the Right is pushing it.

I don’t think Mumsnet will remove a thread just because the OP can’t control the direction of the debate but I have seen them remove threads when they turn into a bun fight which I think this tread is at risk of becoming which is a shame because it’s been quite interesting.