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 👏

There's a song? She has listened to a song and written a blog about it? So much dedication. Shame hardly anyone gives a shit.

I have no clue how the rally was billed before the event. But what is more likely?
That a black lesbian gender critical woman who has first hand experience of poor police behaviour attends a rally because...
A) She wants to protest 2 tier policing
B) She has become racist.

I'm not commenting on Aja here, but do you really think hatred of Islam is an exclusively white concern?

Aja et al. can do what they like. I don't care. I think people who go to far right rallies and amplify the messages of Tommy Robinson are divisive idiots and I hold them partially responsible for the kinds of rioting we are now seeing, because the support makes racists feel they have a point.

The days of "be kind"; "she's entitled to her opinions"; "I don't judge the source" are over for me. Women who support Tommy Robinson are as scummy as men who support him and I will call their damaging nonsense out.

Aja et al. can do what they like. I don't care

This clearly isn't true, is it?

Can you even see how prejudiced you are?

Prejudiced against fascists?

Don't care, but will 'call them out' and post endless threads about them.

I mean, doesn't everyone post relentlessly about things they don't care about? I'm never off the golf forums like.

Careful you don’t topple over with that stretch.

This is a thread about Tommy Robinson, therefore it's relevant. And MNHQ have clearly decided it should stay.

People who march with TR, retweet his content and downplay the "far right" are scum.

All the fash are scum, mate.

To avoid any confusion, Tommy Robinson is no more Gender Critical than Owen Jones. TR believes that your sex defines your gender and Owen Jones believes that your gender defines your sex. People who are gender critical know that gender is a social construct that actively disadvantages women.

Any attempt to align GC women with Tommy Robinson is false teaming.

Yes, precisely. Individual women who believe in the reality of sex have a wide range of political opinions and beliefs, some of them palatable to me and some of them not. It's quite obvious why right wing men and women don't buy into modern gender nonsense, because it's a cause celebre of a particular type of pomo-addled leftist, whose whole package of beliefs they reject entirely.

However as JanesLittleGirl says, most right wing people take a more traditional view of "gender" meaning that men and women have clearly defined sex roles.

Right wing women have just as much right to expect single sex spaces and fair treatment as any other woman.

Post deleted now so people are just going to have to decide for themselves whether I've quoted accurately and you describing it as "a stretch" is fair, or whether you also can't see your own prejudice.

Fucks sake. One cannot describe a religion as "fascist" and expect to be taken seriously. Its gross.

Anyway, I see we've now reverted to "there's no issue with the far right in the GC movement" and a nice bit of virtue signalling.

Of course right wing women deserve single sex spaces. That doesn't mean they are above criticism for shitty far right views.

And I'm with JCJ about the damage its causing which is why I linked the article in the first place.

Apart from the ones you like. Then it's "understandable"

Do women who cheerlead for TRAs deserve single-sex spaces?

Of course they do, but we can’t make them use them if they’d rather share with men.

hence third spaces being suggested.

I don’t like any fash tho 🤷‍♀️

Maybe you have a fave you’d like to recommend?

I ❤️ you @CryptoFascistMadameCholet

Lots of people believe that there is a Christian far right, don’t you?

Do women who cheerlead for TRAs deserve single-sex spaces?

Yes, obviously what an odd question. Not sure what point you imagine you're making.

Unlike what some people here appear to think, I believe all women, including any that I think are politically misguided, of any stripe, deserve basic rights to privacy, dignity, safety, fair competition etc.

It's not about right wing women not being entitled single sex spaces - what an absurd thing to say. However, posters are either ignorant to or playing ignorant to the harm of right wing political groups, figures and parties being promoted for their commitment to "GC" causes as though there is no risk to women's rights that would come along with that. It doesn't mean no right wing woman can be in the GC movement, but if other right wing politics in GC spaces isn't robustly challenged and debated you end up with people celebrating and encouraging voting for religious MPs who continuously lobby to ban or restrict abortion for example just because "they know what a woman is". You'd think on a feminist board this would be common sense but I'm sure the usual gang will be along to argue how women in the UK are "lucky enough" with our current abortion laws and we're being paranoid to worry about their erosion. God forbid the same logic is used to say women in the UK should be happy enough with our conditions compared to the Middle East and so we should shut up about single sex spaces.