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 👏

which is why do you have to support and agree with her on gender issues

I don't "have to". I just do. It's not up to you or anyone else how I choose to compartmentalise or live my life.

It must be emotionally exhausting for you to engage in the way you do on here on such a regular basis? What is it that drives you, I wonder? What is it that you are fighting for that makes you so determined to keep going on in this way?

I don't think it's an either or situation in that case. So because certain left wing parties said GC input isn't wanted, does that mean you have to then turn to the right wing? (not you obviously).

While i understand what you're saying i don't personally see how we can push for the political careers of women who while may be talking well about single sex spaces but also want to restrict access to abortion.

1. 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.

Exactly.

So you know you were be hostile to me, because you "dont have to be nice" and we don't share political views. Why would you take it as a huge insult that I wouldn't recommend you? Why on earth would I recommend you in those circumstances? And you are holding a grudge enough to store it up, drag it across threads and use it to kick off a fight?

And yet I have to "grow up"

Of course not but since you were snidely accusing OP of ignoring Christian fundamentalism earlier it does make you sound quite silly and hypocritical when you fan-girl over a politician who lobbies for bills because of her Christian fundamentalist beliefs...

As a survivor of coercive control, you can be damn sure that I resist being controlled by anyone. I don't care whether a group of people who I don't particularly respect agree with me on Mumsnet. At the beginning, hardly anyone agreed with GC women. Many of those women are not easily swayed by people's disapproval or purity tests, and so you're fighting a losing battle. I'm sure it's nice to scold people for wrongthink, but it's counterproductive.

The right for women to be gender critical and fight for womens rights without automatically being thought of as fascists and far right, so that people continue to engage with our arguments and we continue to progress.

As opposed to seeing gender critical feminism disappear under a sea of suffragette hearted far right prejudice.

We made so much progress and it's all at risk due to the far right influences.

If people think feminists talking about the importance of not amplifying anti abortion voices as "scolding for wrong think" doesn't make them sound slightly radicalised then I don't know what they think would...

Oh. You still manage to pop up on every thread I'm on though. Which actually isn't that many.

I've wondered this before and I came up with a complete guess at the answer.

I used to post on the Guardian all the time, and the more I felt the group I was a part of* was moving away from my position on many issues (especially gender) the more I wanted to post in order to persuade them. Leaving a group that has been part of your identity is hard, trying to bring them around to your way of thinking often seems preferable.

So I feel like it's as simple as that Cassie still considers herself GC and is trying to steer the consensus of other GCs to be closer to something she finds acceptable in order that she can remain a part of the group.

*lefty, remainer, progressive, sandal wearing tofu munchers

Same. Which is why I'm baffled by the constant need to have a pop at me on here.

Just don't comment on my threads if you are bothered. Certainly no need to say I'm "scolding" for having a different opinion.

She is a fairly mainstream Christian, not a fundamentalist. Nobody is "fan girling" - simply picking up and taking issue with the relentless campaigns conducted on here by certain posters.

When someone is so determined and intransigent and yet so opaque in their motives - it tends to elicit a strong response. But i imagine a strong response is what is being sought.

I think that is very charitable interpretation. That's nice.

Exactly right
I posted far less when my marriage fell apart, for various reasons. One being my ex knew I was on here and I didn't want him reading. When I started again, expecting to be able to reengage, people were horrendous to me because they didn't recognise my UN.

I'm also over being bullied so I'm not slinking off or changing my name. Fuck that.

Also, when people stop being shitty it is still possible to have good conversations that I appreciate. MN is still just about a good place to get a wide range of viewpoints, which I like.

Just don't comment on my threads if you are bothered. Certainly no need to say I'm "scolding" for having a different opinion.

I'll say what I like thanks @CassieMaddox as you do.

Anyone who is trustee of a church that practices homosexual conversion therapy isn't a "mainstream Christian"

Most here have come to value freedom of thought and conscience as being a very important things. That's why they support a woman who in her own way is admirable, regardless of whether or not they agree with her on every issue in life. Valuing mothrhood and women's role as mothers is not essentially anti woman, is it? It is just a different perspective on female value and worth.

I've got no need to "admit" anything thanks!

As a man do you ever stop and think for just a second about whether or not a group of women debating the protection of women's single sex rights while preserving women's other rights for healthcare really needs your input especially if it's to minimise Cassie's genuine concerns about the amplified anti abortion voices as her being scared of being left out of the group?

It's okay I've already realised you're either deluded or actually just radicalised enough to not see the issue. So i have no 'need' of anything from you.

"Admit", "explain" "challenge" all very presumptuous and demanding, isn't it, Hepwo?

I've seen it countless times, it's 'LET WOMEN SPEAK' until it's a women they don't agree with then it's ok for men to speak instead.

Which women haven't been allowed to speak? Apart from TRAs, who are of course free to set up their own genderist event?

i ASK, i don't demand thanks. I ask questions to hear other viewpoints to potentially learn something, obviously in that user's case i wasn't going to learn anything.

Have a nice life.