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 👏

So you deny that there is any far right involvement to try and influence women's rights movements? You are either lying or very deluded or don't see those people as far right,

Please enlighten me how you explain away any of the examples in this thread? It's a very weird defensive position to take. Like every movement )no matter how good it is will always have those who try to co-opt it for their own gains. Why do you feel this is the only one that isn't?

I'll pay attention when there is rioting on our streets caused by that movement and loads of prominent women tweeting and retweeting it, when we have MPs elected to represent that movement in the HoC and its moving into mainstream discourse so that I'm being repeatedly told I have to "take the concerns seriously" and "listen to their reasonable views." When the UK have caused themselves serious economic and reputational harm because they've been hijacked by that agenda.

You were contrasting "fascism" with "Christian Fascism" there.

So you are saying that, "we have MPs elected to represent that movement (Fascism) in the HoC".

This seems a very close to "Everything to the right if me is Hitler" and dangerously downplays the horrors of actual fascism.

To do this I would actually have to consider your opinion to be of any value and I don't.

This is the thing.
I think Miriam Cates is awful. She says things that are damaging to women. She was trustee of a church that practised homosexual conversion therapy. She has very strong ties to the evangelical American Christian right, I dislike her very much and I'm glad she's gone.

I don't talk about her as an example of "the rise of Christo fascism" and how that means there are "reasonable concerns" that "need to be discussed" about faith schools. I don't go round saying we should send all Americans home or that the evangelists are a problem because they "aren't integrating" and are "practicing things against our culture".

When that happns, I'll be 100% behind evangelical christians, as I am behind muslims.

Until that happens, your arguments are basically false equivalence as a logical gotcha as opposed to a real equivalence.

Feminist writes 4000 words of detailed analysis about why the far right is a problem, with evidence and footnotes. Focuses on named men and named far right men's movements.

Other Internet randomer under cover of anonymity dismisses it as "all about clout" and feminist infighting.

None so blind as those that cannot see I guess

Considering the number of times I've been called a conspiracy theorists, prejudiced and "bad faith" for pointing out the links between the American Christian Right, Tufton Street and the Conservatives this is a bit rich.

"my opinion" that TR and his ilk have no love for women and their rights? And them trying to use that movement is disgusting?

Just say you have no argument rather than being petty and rude.

Taken out of context. And I'm pretty sure you read the thread.

For clarity, there is a whole heap of GC sources I would now not refer people to, for fear they would also get exposed to a load of far right nonsense if they for example followed that person on twitter, or read about them on MN.

Why on earth should I take the risk with my own reputation of looking like I agree with this nonsense?

If other women are going to say things like "I'll share information I agree with, regardless of the source" then I'm not going to recommend them ad a result.

Online misinformation and radicalisation is dangerous and I reserve the right to choose where I send people depending on what they say.

I honestly don't see the difference between that and boycotting John Lewis because of their pride display, for example.

😂👍

Good point Alwaystired94.

This thread is another enactment of 'it isn't happening, if it is happening, it's not a big deal' lines that get trotted out every time someone mentions that far right views and groups are harmful to women and society in general, and that they have no place in women's rights movements.

Gosh. It's the far right equivalent of "women do it too". How novel.

I actually was going to post this but the thread moved too fast and I lost it:

That didn't happen.
And if it did, it wasn't that bad.
And if it was, that's not a big deal.
And if it is, that's not my fault.
And if it was, I didn't mean it.
And if I did, you deserved it.

The Narcissist's Prayer (by Dayna Craig)

That didn't happen. And if it did, it wasn't that bad. And if it was, that's not a big deal. And if it is, that's not my fault. And if it was, I didn't mean it. And if I did, you deserved it.

OR
It obviously does happen.
Racism is a big deal.
But most people and most GC people aren't racist.
Following someone on twitter,
who went to an event with a person,
who criticised a religion's attitude to women,
is not the same as wanting to deport every brown person.

(Obviously I'm not much of a poet)

I was replying to a comment about "islamist fascism" which is nonsense.

Nigel Farage has been vocally supportive of the "concerns" of rioters. My opinion is he is bordering on fascist and carefully stays on the acceptable side of the line, but as close as he can be. His party got a huge share of the vote.

There is no "far left" equivalent. There are no organised "far left" riots. Until there are, it's logical posturing to "win". Yes very clever. In theory the far left is as bad as the far right. In practice only one of those is currently a demonstrable issue in the UK so that's what I'm concerned about.

Fucks sake. And then the "soc fems" are the ones getting accused of "intellectual snobbery".

Why would you want to follow a poster on twitter who prolifically retweets far right and anti Muslim content, is more my point?

Whatever points they make about GC are not insightful enough usually to counter the tidal wave of prejudiced nonsense that goes along with it.

You can get the GC stuff without the rest of it.

I was at the meeting.

I've met these people.

I've seen this play out in real life.

I've been on the receiving end of it.

You are the internet randomer in this story.

Of course you were 😎

Other Internet randomer under cover of anonymity dismisses it as "all about clout" and feminist infighting.

You're as much an "internet randomer under cover of anonymity" as anyone here, Cassie

And I doubt you speak to people IRL the way you do here.

I'm off twitter now but when I was I didn't follow anyone like that. I don't think anyone I already followed started being completely crazy, racist, or whatever to put me in that position. I think I did follow Aja, and if I was still on Twitter I wouldn't have unfollowed her after the TR event. I would have disagreed with her if she was generally posting stuff supportive of TR, but I think I would have been in the back of the queue on that, and I doubt she'd have noticed.

Your opinion of posters here that aren't bothered that JCJ has little clout and aren't buying the tired old cover story for their Posie Parker envy.

What a very silly woman you are. Really.

Damn right if they were telling me how great some of these GC people are I would and I have.

Unfortunately I have seen the pathway from gender critical to buys into far right tropes happen in real life as well as on line.

I also challenge misogyny and sexism.

Does this mean you are no longer critical of gender then?

No. It means I'm critical of gender as well as far right racism and fascism

It's really not hard. Like whether or not you'd stay friends with someone if they said something racist.

Taken out of context. And I'm pretty sure you read the thread.

Really? You a mind-reader now as well? Or maybe you just have a better memory than me because I don't recall reading anything about this before 🤷‍♀️

EDIT to add;

So you put your reputation, such as it is, before ensuring that traumatised women have access to appropriate support?

I have no idea who you are but your petty, childish behaviour on this thread does not lead me to suppose that you have a reputation as a serious or compassionate person.

You are completely on a par with Mridul Wadhwa in your despicable, politicised, ideologically-driven behaviour towards women in need of support. Some feminist!