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 👏

Exactly this.

No, that is not the reason why women are abused in their own homes.
The reason is too many men think they are owed sex (and loyalty) from women and if you live with a guy like that he will abuse you regardless.
It is difficult to tell in advance, hence too many women find out what it is like to be abused in their own homes. Very simplistic, but that’s the gist.

Thank you also Malvarossa, add large areas of Africa and The Middle East (++) to that. Women and children are not safe indoors or outdoors, it is heartbreaking.

It's hard to see where people who want to draw what they see as a clear line, would draw that line?
Especially while avenues that would normally be open for left wing gender critical feminists remain limited or closed (eg Universities, the Guardian)

For example- JCJ mentions, with criticism, Unherd in this article. Some of the most informative amd thoughtful arguments I've read over the years have been from Unherd- with regular, excellent contributions from both Julie Bindel and Kathleen Stock. I would think JCJ would sit in a similar position to KS say, but is JCJ suggesting women like KS and JB shouldn't be writing for Unherd?

A lot of arguments seem to boil down to associating or sharing ideas with the wrong males (mra tra far right antifa etc etc)

Which is all a bit 👆👈👇👉”SQUIRREL!”

Males do not give a flying fuck which ideaology they use to abuse other human beings of either sex

So it won’t actually matter what political ideology females subscribe to - none of them will work to stop males abusing us (or other males for that matter)

The very best we can do is a bit like a post I just made on a relationship thread - we work on our relationship with ourselves

All the commonalities of our lived experiences as female human beings exist beyond left-wing, right-wing, moderate

All the attempts to manipulate, control and abuse us exist beyond the methods employed

A universal female movement is going to encompass so many opposing ideologies but if it remained steadfast in excluding all males then at least we could get on with cleaning our own house without crowding at the windows distracted by demands by males to clean theirs or look at the cute squirrel

Collectively we are in an abusive relationship with males - blaming each other for fraternizing with ‘the wrong ones’ or how we talk ‘maybe if you weren’t so quiet/loud they’d listen’, or what we wear, ‘cover up so they can’t see/free the nipple’ or what we do, ‘show them how we care/hit them back so they get the idea’

It is all bollocks

And I am well aware of sounding like ‘can’t we all just get along’ but ffs all the in-fighting and fire-fighting only leads to more fighting

We need to accept that we can’t control everything so what can we control? What are the practical things we can get on with without needing to name-call or criticise each other about?

Retaining and maintaining female only spaces is absolutely No1 on my list - and surely to god we are of a number to be able to achieve that without including males of any ilk?

There’s no need for party politics to say ‘99% of sexual violence is committed by males, 89% of victims are females, ergo we need exclusively female spaces, services etc’

That’s as simple as it gets - we need no other argument about which males to exclude, or which females to include

We exclude all males and include all females.

We don’t need to be partisan about who to lobby for this - we lobby every fucker we can

And when we have female only spaces we can work on supporting each other or having all out barneys while we work out what we need to do next

But No1is getting that female only sorority house to have those female only discussions all the way away from male opinion, manipulation, control, abuse or squirrels

That's so pithy! You're absolutely right!

JCJ should become better friends with brevity, or just a good editor.

I don't have the patience to read any of her articles.
She must have been a real pain in the arse when she was a kid.

I just imagine her parents: Yes, Jane...🥱 You're very clever girl, now, go and play.

Very well said @Bosky

Luckily we have AI now.
Here's chatGPTs summary:

In the article, Jane Clare Jones explores the intersection of far-right populism and gender criticism, particularly focusing on figures like Tommy Robinson. Jones argues that far-right populists have increasingly co-opted gender-critical arguments, often weaponizing them against transgender rights and broader feminist movements. She highlights how this appropriation serves dual purposes: bolstering their own reactionary agendas while simultaneously sowing division within progressive circles. This strategic alignment is seen as a means to exploit societal anxieties about gender and identity, redirecting them towards more extreme political ends.

Jones also critiques the gender-critical movement itself, noting its susceptibility to being co-opted by far-right figures. She emphasizes the need for genuine feminist critique to distance itself from reactionary politics, arguing that aligning with such ideologies undermines the movement's integrity and goals. By drawing these connections, Jones calls for a more nuanced and vigilant approach to gender criticism, one that remains firmly rooted in progressive and inclusive values, resisting manipulation by far-right agendas (Jane Clare Jones) (Jane Clare Jones).

There you are!

That's much better. Straight to the point, without the need for as many 4 syllable words as she can find.

She's like Joey in Friends when he finds the thesaurus.

It's not. Radicalisation happens across lots of ideologies. Religious radicalisation. Terrorist radicalisation. Radicalisation into cults.

Radicalisation of all kinds is damaging; its isolating and harmful to the person being radicalised as well as society. Being persuaded to distrust the mainstream and only listen to the "true believers" is one of the mechanisms by which radicalisation works.

I find it very interesting that posters on here can see the risks of "capture" by gender ideology yet simultaneously think the far right don't pose such a risk or they are somehow immune to them. It must be triggering some serious cognitive dissonance.

PPs have made a very good point about some vulnerable groups of women (prostitutes, homeless women, women in some Latin American countries) being more likely to be assaulted by men outside the home than inside. I think we can really see that in the grooming gangs scandal, where the abusers targeted girls in care because they didn't have parents looking out for them. I also think of countries like India where the poorest families don't have indoor toilets, and women and girls who are forced to go outside to urinate and defecate are at risk of sexual assault from strangers.

I also think that, even for those demographics more likely to be assaulted inside the home, it's absolutely no consolation for those women who are then assaulted by strangers. Does Sarah Everard's family feel better for knowing that what happened to her was very rare? Those of us who have been harassed in the street by strange men don't tend to think "Oh well, I'm not going to worry about it, I'm more likely to be killed by my husband or father."

I also think that JCJ's ire is directed at the wrong people. There is no doubt that Tommy Robinson is a fascist, and it is really worrying to see women drawn to these rallies because they see Robinson as a sex-realist. But surely our anger should be directed at the complete failure of men on the left to stand up to the harms to women and girls perpetrated by trans activism?

I've mentioned this many times before, but in the 1970s, when the Paedophile Information Exchange was at its height, the only people to stand up against it were concerned women (not necessarily feminists) and the National Front, the main fascist party at the time.

When we look back on that, do we think: "Those terrible women, they shouldn't have protested alongside fascists?" Or do we think "Where the fuck were the left when they should have been fighting against child sexual abuse?" Because when I look back, I see a bunch of brave women standing up for what was right, and a complete dereliction of duty by left-wing men. (Let's not forget that PIE even had support in some left-ish quarters, including the National Council of Civil Liberties.)

I think one day we'll look back on what's happening now and think exactly the same.

I'm not sure why the JCJ's of the world are so determined to insist that women outside their privileged little bubble are "right wing, pearl clutching bigots". Let alone OP why you spend so much time on here trying to insist the same.

Noone has said this. You are projecting.

This is my thread. I keep being told to start threads to discuss this stuff, so I have. If you don't want to discuss it, no skin off my nose. But there is no need to stereotype feminists just because you don't share their politics.

And I keep saying it but "scolding" is misogynistic and it really speaks volumes to me that some posters on FWR repeatedly use it as a cliquey term to shut other women down.

Is this a NAMALT/"not my nigel"?

Feminists can usually spot those a mile off.

There is no way to tell if a man is violent. Refusing to associate with muslims/brown men/ trans people is not going to keep you safe from male violence. Neither is fooling yourself that you have a better ability to spot wrong uns than other women.

😂😂
Is "pearl clutching" also misogynistic? Asking for a friend

No. Because its not a term arising from a stereotype of women that led to them being tortured and killed in the past.

Fair point, thank you for sharing.

If women don't want to be accused of scolding other women, is to stop scolding them, especially when the scold is so long winded and waffley that nobody knows what the scold is, just that it is indeed another scold. To add to all the others. A bundle of scolds.

I’m not reading 4000 words but I am interested that this is the second thread about Tommy Robinson in a day on FWR.

Not saying there’s some agenda. It is topical news. But what exactly is the connection with us which makes this relevant to feminism? That we must make sure we don’t have racism in feminism?

I will say if the writer is wishing me to denounce all men are the problem, and not specific classes, ‘gender’, races, cultures, or whatever other intersectionality. Then no I’m not going to do that. Not because it’s true or not - How would I know? But because what is the purpose. To get progressive brownie points?

My risk assessment on a daily basis is an internal monologue inside my head. It probably does lean on an accusatory/ biased profiling nature. Profiling probably many more men as a potential problem than is true but it’s better to be safe than sorry. It isn’t an external monologue affecting anyone else so I don’t see why it’s anyone else business. And it’s got nothing to do with Tommy Robinson.

That makes no sense. You might as well just say "I don't like you, go away".

If you feel "scolded" but you don't know why, then actually you are probably feeling shame. That's often a you problem, and it's not emotionally healthy to expect the world to not do or say things that make you feel ashamed.

Might be worth looking into what it is about the Tommy Robinson implications that makes you feel ashamed.

I hadn't seen the other one. Maybe just a duplicate.

Can't find one? Can you link it?

Lol. Trying to get people to respond to your utter nonsensery just to get their comments deleted to make you look like the victim is quite amusing.