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 do you really think calling me "on a par with Mridhul Rhadwa" is in any way appropriate?

Based on what you said upthread, Yes.

Why not? You said that you would deny a traumatised women knowledge of where she could get support because you had a difference of opinion on ideological/political grounds with Tinsel in order to "protect your reputation".

You were not explicit about exactly what aspect of your reputation you were protecting but, by implication, it was that your left-wing credentials might be contaminated by association with Tinsel.

Is that part of a "Purity Spiral"? Definitely fear of "Guilt by Association" and that being a barrier to enabling another woman to access needed support.

Now you seem to be saying that what you said has to be taken in the context of a Thread that you think has been deleted 🤷‍♀️

How would being aware of Trans Widows Voices lead to anyone getting “exposed to a lot of far right nonsense”, just because I said I supported Aja and Lippy’s right to go to a legal protest without being shunned (on said deleted thread).

How exactly have I, and TWV, caught these right wing cooties that would spoil your reputation, Cassie?

I've read quite a lot of JCJ's work and never read anything she's said about right-women not needing rights.

I think the perpetual misrepresentation of her views is one of the reasons she writes so much. I don't think it reaches those who think taking the piss and making personal attacks are more important than actually engaging her arguments, but may reach the more open minded.

Yes, obviously we are just threatened by JCJ and your towering intellect 🙄

How would being aware of Trans Widows Voices lead to anyone getting “exposed to a lot of far right nonsense”, just because I said I supported Aja and Lippy’s right to go to a legal protest without being shunned (on said deleted thread).

Good question. Thanks for supplying Cassie's post.

The we is general, related to the wider world of FWR. It's not all about you, neither is everything a 'gotcha' (too much time online?)

You did however make the rather large leap that appeared to equate 'criticising GC women who support the far right' with 'denying right-wing women access to single sex spaces'. Criticising the ideological position of any woman - including critiquing the long-term implications of short-term alliances - does not imply their exclusion from single-sex spaces.

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

Denying what things happened??

I'd be interested to know where this sudden narrative has come from that claims that any woman who questions the value of cosying up to the far right is saying that right-wing women shouldn't have rights, such as access to single-sex spaces.

You deserve a whole pack of biscuits for that egregious insult! 🙄

🙄
People need to take responsibility for their own choices and not go round blaming others for their own behaviours

Seriously Cassie? You sling accusations about and that is your response? Women have been banned from here for that.

I think its a sign the old lines have stopped working

It's interesting to watch for sure

It is a very strange narrative - it's not one I've seen evidence of.

Personally i'm perfectly able to disagree with someone's opinions and call them out for damaging mindsets and spreading misinformation as 'fact' while also wanting them to have rights, It's not an either or situation surely?

You seemed to be much more willing to engage in good faith today but are again resorting to this childish biscuit-throwing behaviour. Grow up, FFS if you want anyone to take you seriously.

Do you think it's appropriate to equate me to Mridhul Wadhwa? I think its really fucking offensive so yes, biscuit required.

Honestly the double standards are something else. I'm allowed to give whatever advice I choose to my own friends and its ridiculous stirring for you to bring it up as some kind of egregious insult. What you type on the Internet has consequences; what you said changed my view of you. Thems the breaks.

Like I said. It's like choosing to boycott John Lewis over their pride campaign and I don't see you up in arms about that.

If people want to amuse themselves by posting twee little biscuit emojis, that's up to them, it takes all sorts. But yes, it's silly and immature. That's why biscuits are a bit 2015.

I didn't see the original comment/trail but from what i can see in the last few, i'd assume its more based on you'd rather provide your friends with information from set places that you are sure don't have far right connections? Sorry i don't know where to look for the original trail so unsure of who you said you wouldn't direct them to

Remembering what you’ve said about me is “ridiculous stirring”? False allegations really are projections.

I don’t know how anybody would have previously had the idea that I think women should be shunned for going to legal protests so I don’t know why me saying the contrary was such an opinion changing shock.

I didn't think you could sink lower in my estimation of your compassion than Mridul Wadhwah but this really does take the biscuit!

Equating "choosing to boycott John Lewis over their pride campaign" with denying a traumatised woman access to support because of an ideological/political difference.

Step away from the keyboard and go for a walk or something and come back when you have got your head in order. I can't believe that you actually mean these things. I sincerely hope that you don't mean these things!

I think my position is quite clear. I think far right ideology is insidious and dangerous. I'm not going to direct people to places that are "captured". I'm entitled to do that.

I have been here a very long time and am deeply concerned by how much posters are waving away the far right. I said that on another thread and I'm not going to apologise for it. Certainly not while others stand by and justify equating me with one of the most high profile TRAs on the basis of nothing.

I was reporting stuff but some posters decided to complain that I was bad faith, so MNHQ told me to challenge on the thread. So I am.

You did however make the rather large leap that appeared to equate 'criticising GC women who support the far right' with 'denying right-wing women access to single sex spaces'.

You're really quite unable to follow arguments, aren't you? I was saying why I will work together on campaigning against gender identity ideology with women, right, left or neither. Because right wing women are women and have the same need for women's rights. I'm not going to try to persuade them that they're wrong on other issues. All my attention is on challenging gender identity ideology.

There are places to get support that aren't "captured". Straw man position but you enjoy yourself

Trans Widows Voices is “captured by the far right”? WT actual Fuck?