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 👏

Everyone else on this thread has been respectful and not jumped in with analysis etc of the tragic events in which young girls were murdered.

It is you with your social justice credentials that is exploiting a tragedy to demonise posters on this thread with classic hint at conspiracies.

You are not on the high ground you think you are.

The timing seems too coincidental now.

Yes. Iirc that was just before the "debate" about immigration and Islam happened too.

What are "social justice credentials" and why are you spending time c&p-ing my posts out of context?

That’ll be because JCJ writes long winded gibberish.

Truly Brighton’s answer to Judith Butler.

The posts are not out of context, they are complete quotes not edited and they relate to the way you have chosen to use Southport.

The intervening posts are nothing to do with that subject. Please stop using this tragedy.

I'm sorry if you don't feel you have any social justice credentials but I must say you always give the impression you think you have more than the rest of us why else have you chosen to put 'debate' in quotations.

But what if i said the same thing in reverse? Imagine if i said there wasn't a relevant connection between those sending rape threats to people like JKR just because they say TWAW like TRA? Where do we draw the line? Personally i'm of the opinion (which is mine and obviously different to yours) that we should be stopping them from trying to align with us on any issue, they should be outcasts for their abhorrent views on not only race but women and so on.

I would assume everyone is against most forms of abhorrent behaviour unless they gave me reason to doubt that. Whether it's sending rape threats, setting fire to mosques, punching an old lady, or beating someone up for being gay - I would expect them to condemn it without question if asked, but just because they think TWAW or voted reform wouldn't mean they are expected to preemptively distance themselves in my book.

but as i said, if they are then trying to attach themselves to a movement should that movement not call them out on it en masse?

silence is deafening and emboldens them. they then believe they are speaking for others.

Now how would you feel if I all I did in response to your post is chuck a biscuit at you?

That is the sort of childish behaviour and dismissive rudeness we have put up with from Cassie repeatedly on this thread and I think people have been remarkably restrained in the circumstances.

As for the many instances of, to paraphrase, "That's not what I mean by that word, I have my own meaning but I'm not going to tell you what it is".

I have made fun of Cassie linking the timing of something she heard on the Radio and things she has seen on Twitter with the timing of posts made on this thread. It is absurd. We are not all in the room with her, listening to the same things on Radio with her, watching Twitter with her, seeing what she sees on Twitter - then reacting to what she imagines we have all heard on the Radio and seen on Twitter by posting on this thread.

My own observation of a pattern emerging is that some new names have suddenly been thrown into the mix for criticism. At the last count: Harry Miller, Glinner and KJK.

A quick search of JCJ's blog post shows zero results for those individuals. Perhaps you could remind your friends to stay on topic?

It’s not that JCJ’s article is ‘too many’ words, it’s that it’s a load of needlessly wanky words that alienate the average reader.

This has all gotten a bit out of hand no?

I don't think JCJ uses 'wanky' words. She uses a lot of words to put across her point of view in detail. I can't see any words in that blog that are jargon/academic tbh and even if there are words people don't understand, we all know how to use a dictionary.

Very few posts on here criticising JCJ engage with her arguments at all (I know - too many words!). Which is a shame because they're interesting.

Eh I disagree but it's subjective. I personally didn't notice any words that would alienate me as a reader but if you're talking about the average Joe with no prior knowledge of gender politics or feminism then maybe you're right . I'm not sure that is the intended audience so I wouldn't expect her to oversimplify her language. It's not clear from your post what you consider to be "needlessly wanky"

Too much guff.

My ‘needlessly wanky’ opinion was formed due to wankiness of JCJ’s ‘The Radical Notion’ magazine.

Terrible layout too.

https://theradicalnotion.org

^ extremely wanky, in my personal opinion (obvs).

You are correct I'd usually use a biscuit but I'll reply as a one off.

My own observation of a pattern emerging is that some new names have suddenly been thrown into the mix for criticism. At the last count: Harry Miller, Glinner and KJK.
You have been posting here for a while, clearly. Therefore you know who these people are and you know why I would raise them in response to a poster saying this: "I'm a GC and I am happy to distance myself from TR and any other racist idiot. What I won't do is accept the lie that he is in any way part of the GC movement, or influencing GC thought." Making out that I and others are randomly chucking names around is a misrepresentation that you are doing to pick an argument.

I have made fun of Cassie linking the timing of something she heard on the Radio and things she has seen on Twitter with the timing of posts made on this thread. It is absurd. We are not all in the room with her, listening to the same things on Radio with her, watching Twitter with her, seeing what she sees on Twitter - then reacting to what she imagines we have all heard on the Radio and seen on Twitter by posting on this thread.
Telling me I reported my thread to cover up the abuse I dished out to other posters is 1) incorrect; 2) a lie - there is no abuse and 3) not "making fun"

This whole post is personalised goading. It is tedious.

Yes. At least people have gone back to the article a bit 😂

They are out of context because you've copied them out of a nearly 30 page thread and ignored the rest if the conversation.

Is your point you asked me to shut up and I didn't? Why not raise that with the other posters who have continued the conversation?

I don't know what a "social justice credential" is.

Back to the article and back to 'too many words'.

Case in point - just looked at twitter to find KJK chose this morning to tweet a short video of herself talking about the far right - they aren't very big, they aren't very powerful and people are overexaggerating their impact. People with concerns about immigration are not far right.

The night after a far right riot.

She turns my stomach. It's outrageous, disrespectful to the families and completely tone deaf.

Oh come now. You are just being an intellectual snob 😂 (sarcasm/joking just in case not clear)

My ‘needlessly wanky’ opinion was formed due to wankiness of JCJ’s ‘The Radical Notion’ magazine.

I second this opinion.

Yep. Other feminists are the problem with their wacky intellectual writing, not the far right, violence inciting wankers who have infiltrated our movement.

Agree totally. It's closing last issue is issue 12.

These 12 issues will have achieved a great deal of what we aimed to do when we set up the project, and have succeeded in laying down a rich groundwork of radical materialist feminist thinking from which a new kind of project can emerge. We plan to step back in 2025 and consider how we can continue to provide our readers and new audiences the same feminist deep-dives into issues and frameworks, and the joy in sharing women’s resistance, creativity, mourning, and joy. If we find a sustainable way forward and a group of women who can continue to give this project the energy and focus it deserves, we will return to publishing on the web sometime in the autumn or winter of 2025.

Can't say I've felt the impact.

I'm staying on topic with discussing JCJ, hope that helps.

Agree totally. It's closing last issue is issue 12.

Oh no say it ain't so!