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 👏

Maybe you should go back and read as you clearly haven't been following. Having the full picture might help you. Or not.

am i a part of your gang?

More of this type of thing please.

😂
"Purity spirals"
I don't know JCJ. Paranoia much 😂

According to eresh. But don't worry, they don't buy into "guilt by association" so I'm sure you'll be fine 😂

how else can i take it but that they are willing to swap my and every other female's rights to access to healthcare for the 'single sex spaces'? We can and should have both.

Yes, I quite agree. Perhaps you should take it up with left wing parties who have told gender critical women our input isn't wanted or required. I'm not responsible for any of them.

Sorry but that's such a non answer "like it does for many people on a single issue campaign" how is that though? You've told us what you won't do, but how do you do it? It certainly seems on this board lately there's a lot of posters who apparently disagree with restriction to abortion or contraception when asked about it but when there's a discussion about MPs lobbying for that or other posters stating their support for restrictions there's very little debate about it as though people don't want to upset the applecart by declaring their opposition. Only a brief search of your history you've stated your support for Miriam cates as excellent several times yet she consistently lobbied for restrictions on abortion access so I'm curious how you compartmentalise that in your mind. For me, whether I agree with her on trans issues is irrelevant, I couldn't support the political career of someone who I saw as a risk to women's rights in other aspects.

Sorry but that's such a non answer

Oh well.

Well, none of your criteria apply to me apart from “knowing Lang” which I hadn’t been notified was now a bad thing. Unfortunately I can’t go to every RL
event because I’m a working class, full time working single parent so can’t afford the money or the time. Additionally it would be a threat to my anonymity which is made ever more necessary when nobheads start calling me right wing.

The intransigence of some posters in not understanding that not everyone approaches life in the same way is really quite something. But don't be surprised if the purity spiralling does alienate people.

Keep trying though, maybe one day 🤞🏻

Tinsel

If you say you can't see the problem with people going on Tommy Robinson rallies and imply that others expressing concerns are "purity spiralling" and "shunning" it gives a certain impression.

If you are hostile to women you don't know, even when they say they've used your services before, can you blame them for thinking certain trans widows wouldn't be safe if they had "the wrong" political views?

Actions have consequences. You don't know the experience of the women you are rude to and because of what you are doing it's important.

No, not really interested. I have more than enough on my plate as a single working mother of 3 #flex

Exactly. Although if I say that it's a smear,an insult and means I deserve to be told I'm on a par with Mridhul Wadwha

Miriam Cates is great on this issue. She's also been treated pretty atrociously by TRAs and their fans. She is Christian and doesn't believe in abortion, which is something I disagree with politically. I don't have to support her other views to agree with her on gender identity ideology.

This is really fucking basic stuff. Have a word with yourselves if you think other women are accountable to you for their wrongthink in approving of people you disapprove of, and that you deserve some sort of explanation from us and perhaps some sort of recanting and apology for our sins. We aren't and you don't.

Perfectly happy to be obstinate about women's access to healthcare 👍🏻

Perhaps instead of preaching that everyone else isn't as flexible as you are you could actually explain for the class how you reconcile your contradictions. You seem quite keen to insert yourself and badger the OP to explain herself regarding exchanges she is having with other posters or the words she uses but you don't apply the same standard to yourself and explain yourself when you are talking nonsense. Not that you have to but your inability to do speaks.for itself otherwise.

1. I never mentioned “purity spirals”, again false allegations are projections.
2. Yes you are advocating shunning.
3. I presume you’re talking about yourself using my service? Me providing support to trans widows doesn’t mean I have to be nice to everyone who cherry picks my resources all the time.
4. Trans Widows Voices is explicitly welcoming to all trans widows whatever their political persuasion. I’ve published the stories of women whose politics are very difficult to mine.
5. Stop tone policing me.

Perhaps instead of preaching that everyone else isn't as flexible as you are you could actually explain for the class

Perhaps you can get over yourself?

You manage to be on here constantly tho

I thought I recalled you saying you didn't have children of your own; but did have step children?

How do you manage to post so much when you have such a demanding life?

This goes back to the same question no one answered at the beginning of this thread which is why do you have to support and agree with her on gender issues considering how she otherwise uses her political powers. There's GC women who support women's rights overall that deserve to be amplified more than someone who has actively tried to hinder women's rights. Furthermore, if you want to support or agree with her why does it have to be blanket support with no added critique on her other behaviour?

Hmm. I have both. 5 altogether.

Stepped down into a less demanding job

What 'behaviour' is Miriam Cates guilty of?

Same to you 😂