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 👏

Oh agreed, i avoid Facebook groups like the plague nowadays after one i was a part of becoming ridiculous. And yes the Mods on reddit can be very ridiculous agreed. I think Twitter allows more opportunity to challenge because it seems to want these interactions almost. And the way you can hide replies you don't agree with now doesn't sit right with me considering people can reply to that without being able to see the original reply.

Such as the algorithm for X for if i started liking Andrew Tate tweets more of his stuff will be pushed to me and more accounts like him.

I find the algorithm pushes stuff that I'm clearly not going to like, as much as anything.

I think Twitter allows more opportunity to challenge because it seems to want these interactions almost. And the way you can hide replies you don't agree with now doesn't sit right with me considering people can reply to that without being able to see the original reply.

Fully agree!

Oh really? Interesting. Are you interacting with stuff you do like though? I'd say mine shows a lot of what i like and when it does show what i wouldn't, it's more i'm seeing it because someone i interact with has replied.

i did an experiment a few months ago to prove something to my partner about that platform where i made a new account and interacted with one account and liked a couple of things and yeah, the downward spiral from there was pretty intense.

I also don't think people should be able to broadcast a statement without allowing replies. I don't care who is doing it, it's wrong. It's a discussion platform.

Oh really? Interesting. Are you interacting with stuff you do like though? I'd say mine shows a lot of what i like and when it does show what i wouldn't, it's more i'm seeing it because someone i interact with has replied.

Sometimes, but other times I think it's just trying to wind me up your experiment is great, you should write something, like a medium piece on it.

oh god no i'd be horrendous trying to condense my ADHD thoughts into coherent sentences.

it probably is trying to wind you up, that would be a very Elon thing to do.

I was asking a question. Women who cheerlead for TRAs deserve single-sex spaces, but we can still call them out, criticise their positions & question the alliances they make. Ditto right-wing women. Even far right women, which is what we are talking about, despite the sleight of hand.

It's astounding thought that there are posters on FWR who are far more comfortable criticising women who associate with the Labour Party but feel criticising women who associate with the far right is a step too far, or purity politics, or terrible in-fighting.

was asking a question. Women who cheerlead for TRAs deserve single-sex spaces, but we can still call them out, criticise their positions & question the alliances they make.

I'm calling those women out entirely because they support gender identity ideology, obviously I'm going to do that as a woman campaigning against its overreach and the erasure of women as a group with sex based rights. I'm not calling them out for their other political opinions, which I'm not so interested in

It's a daft gotcha that doesn't make any sense. But I'm sure it did in your head.

Also, don't presume to force team me or other women. You do as you see fit, and so will I. There's no "we".

it probably is trying to wind you up, that would be a very Elon thing to do.

Elon is a trolling dick but I support much of what he's done with Twitter. Obviously opinions vary.

It's astounding thought that there are posters on FWR who are far more comfortable criticising women who associate with the Labour Party

I know lots of women who "associate with the Labour Party". I agree with many of them on some things and not others. I'll criticise anyone I want to, particularly if they write endless screeds of boring, elitist scolding and I find them both pointless and unhelpful.

I think that thread was deleted. I've given my recollection upthread.

But as you say, I'm a random Internet poster. Also female. So do you really think calling me "on a par with Mridhul Rhadwa" is in any way appropriate?

Agreed

"Scolding" 🙄🙄🙄

JCJ very carefully wrote an article that was general enough not to talk about people, but to talk about patterns. And we still can't manage it. That says something about what's happening.

Oh come off it! She does not need to name anyone when in her first sentence she references the "event in Brighton" and repeats the reference at least twice more in the article (Search says there are four references but declines to highlight the fourth).

At least she does not claim that TR was invited to speak at Brighton, or even that he turned up at Brighton, which is how this narrative has spun out of control as it has been repeated across social media.

However, if you know anything about Essay construction you will know that the opening and closing paragraphs are key to communicating and discerning purpose - and they are what people remember when they have forgotten everything in between.

Just under two years ago, in September 2022, the online British ‘gender critical’ community descended into a many-week conflagration following the presence of two people from a far-right organisation called Hearts of Oak, who turned up and livestreamed an event in Brighton. . . .

. . . But last night, when I watched the video Robinson had livestreamed from the front of the march, this is what I saw.

(Screenshots of photos of crowds of stern and angry-looking men with TR prominent in several of them).

And there we have the carefully constructed "patterns" you referred to:

KJK (not named but "Peep! Peep!" - "Brighton event, Sept 2022" - a Dog Whistle if ever there was one) --> TR

LWS --> Two Tier Policing Rally (TR)

Which promotes another myth put about by women who hate KJK: that LWS is "run by men".

Interestingly, this video supports your contention that the Rally was to do with much more than Two Tier Policing.

It also shows that JCJ has carefully selected her screenshots to suit an unexpected twist in the tail of her narrative, ie. that the Rally was really all a bunch of stern-faced and angry white men - with not a GC Feminist in sight. I didn't see that coming!

"How is being British Racist?” #TRRally Short Film

"Scolding"

Yes. HTH. You can write all the emojis you like 🤷‍♀️

You might like this
https://x.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1750849189834022932?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1750849189834022932%7Ctwgr%5E8fa4452f2185cbd06a1b402eee1892358a7356e9%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.buzzfeed.com%2Fmeganeliscomb%2Fparents-guide-to-the-manosphere

I'm not surprised by the US/UK trends but am on the S Korea as what i've been reading online seems to be very much they have an extremely deep rooted misogyny problem also.

But as you say, I'm a random Internet poster. Also female. So do you really think calling me "on a par with Mridhul Rhadwa" is in any way appropriate?

I wouldn't know if it's an appropriate comparison. I didn't see your post and this is an 850 odd post thread so feel free to reprise it or quote yourself.

@BackToLurk
It's astounding thought that there are posters on FWR who are far more comfortable criticising women who associate with the Labour Party but feel criticising women who associate with the far right is a step too far, or purity politics, or terrible in-fighting.

You can criticise women who associate with the far right.

I don't think you should ostracise them based on association.

I'm pretty sure no one has been ostracised for associating with the Labour party.

And I doubt many here would even criticise anyone for associating with Labour. Otherwise we'd have to criticise most of the most prominent GC voices: JKR, Kathleen Stock, KJK etc, etc etc.

And arguing against voting Labour in the last GE (common) is a vastly different thing to criticising someone for association with them.(rare)

The title of her essay is "Tommy Robinson, Far Right Populism and 'Gender Criticism'

So of course she's going to tie those things together. It would be a shit essay if she didn't give examples.

Denying these things happened because KJK is part of "your gang" is not helpful.

I really wish she'd spend less time on KJK. I also wish she'd spend less time telling women what to do. At this point it's difficult for me to consider her any kind of feminist. Unless feminist means getting on your high horse to tell women what to do, what to think, who to speak to. .

How about spending less time obsessing about the wrong kind of woman, and focusing on the men who harm women.

Also her ridiculous rhetoric is what isolates women. Do right wing women not need rights? Does she think a right wing woman is more likely to show up at a LWS event or to subscribe to her blog?

Gosh. Intelligent women really are threatening aren't they?

I agree.

You think that someone saying they agree with TR on something means that person is radicalised?
How absolutely ridiculous!
No matter how little you agree with someone, there will always be common areas we can agree on. For example, most people love their own children, regardless of political beliefs.

It's exactly this attitude which leads to people turning to extremes. Look up what led to the MAGA movement. Regular people, of all races voted for Trump. It's very much the same with TR. To act as though every single supporter is a radical is not only completely ignorant, but seriously shows a lack of nuance, critical thinking, and empathy for your fellow human.

Some people just can't help getting on their high horses to tell the little ignorant people off. Honestly come off it!