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 👏

To be fair I’m one of the ‘4000 words is too much’ posters 🤣

It is too much. That’s nearing half a dissertation.

There’s few things which I will read more than 1000 or 2000+. The last one was a one off accounts from a travelling doctor in Gaza. To me that’s worth the read as it’s experience based. I can’t be dealing with reading 4000 for an opinion piece on a random topic.

I would happily listen to it in discussion though. Maybe she should start a podcast.

Don't watch her then.

Cassie and friends seem to be tuned into her channel 24/7 from my perception. I'm sure there are better hobbies.

You're welcome to your opinion but it sounds like something you're feeling that you're projecting on the author as intention. I'm still not totally clear whether you find she uses words that don't understand or not - maybe you could give an example of the words you're referring to and how you think people should use so as not to alienate people?
Again I personally wouldn't expect someone with a PhD to write about feminist theory in an oversimplified way and I wouldn't expect their magazine or blog to do that often either as surely the audience is people who have an understanding of basic feminist theory and they wouldn't get anything out of reading it otherwise. What you might see as "needlessly wanky" might have been a deliberately precise choice of word but I don't know because "needlessly wanky" has a very subjective meaning unlike some of the words you might be describing.

She definitely watches it more than I do.

And me.

There are far, far too many needlessly wanky words to copy and paste into a MN post.

Read this if you truly want to see my personal definition of utter guff:

theradicalnotion.org/gender-critical-disputes/

Here’s a PDF version, should you find it easier to navigate:

drive.google.com/file/d/1SB9p3bIpc2wWf3wD2wV9LKE6a-iv2jZE/view?pli=1

We were talking about her blog in the OP i think.

Maybe you could give an example from there.

I'm sure if people wait long enough KJK will bring out a picture book.

Why, will you be first in the queue?

She'd probably do you a signed copy if you asked.

Central to this fantasy is the opposition between ‘inside’ and ‘outside’ the nation, and between ‘our country’ or ‘the homeland’ and ‘the stranger’ or ‘the foreigner.’ 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. This is the profound emotional power of the ‘strong border.’ It promises a fantasy of complete safety as long as the border is secured. It promises that we can know, with certainty, where and who the danger is coming from, and that we can, if we will it, keep them out and in so doing, ensure our absolute safety. Within this imaginary structure, rape, as the supreme example of the violent penetration of the outside into the inside, holds a particular emotional and symbolic power. And its emotional and symbolic power also resides in the fact that, in the mind of patriarchal nationalists, the border marks the difference between women who belong to the men of the nation – ‘our women’ – and the women who belong to the foreigner – ‘their women.’

Common or garden sub Freudian psycho babble which has been done 1000 times before. It illuminates nothing.

It impresses the easily impressed, in the same way Judith Butler does.

😂

Oooh, sorry miss!

We’re 600 odd posts deep at this point, so I assumed the conversation had widened beyond the guff in the op.

Don’t worry though, I don’t hold it against you if you can’t be arsed to read the needlessly wanky guff that is JCJ’s overall output.

There are threads and threads discussing it already - let me know if you want some more links!

Now THAT would deffo be more interesting than anything JCJs has published!

JCJ is too "be kind" according to Cassie.

She wasn't very kind that time she wrote a million word rant about me on Twitter.

Wanky guff on page 1

We are committed to the materialist analysis of sex-based oppression, and to challenging the material and symbolic structures of male dominance. This moment is a historic opportunity to deepen and widen the analysis of all aspects of women’s political condition, and its foundational role in all systems of extraction and domination.

Wut?

I think that was the launch guff. So are we all deepened and widened or are we still just being spammed with Tommy blinking Robinson threads?

Mmm.

She wasn't very kind that time she wrote a million word rant about me on Twitter.

No, I can imagine.

How is your political condition after 12 issues?

Has it been extracted and dominated? Foundationally of course?

Hepwo

Historic.

symbolic structures of male dominance

Yah, definitely yah we are no longer male dominated by a horrid brown man, Rishi, now we have a lovely white man, Keir.
Yah, historic.