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 👏

People are capable of making their own mind up about issues, and in recognising nuance. Nobody here is susceptible to the " amplification" of anything. You must think we're just empty vessels waiting to be filled with higher knowledge and a moral righteousness we've yet to register.

People can like and admire others without agreeing with them on everything you know.

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

Yes, it's always good to give the benefit of the doubt, where any such doubt exists.

What about Cassie makes you think TRA?

To me, TRA would not be wanting and advocating for single sex spaces. Which Cassie consistently does. So it does come across very much that there is a level of 'purity' to be GC and if you're not that golden standard you must be a TRA.

Only 22 more posts, threadsters!

"why do you HAVE to support and agree with her on gender issues considering how she otherwise uses her political powers."

There are few enough women speaking out in Parliament on our side on "gender issues" and plenty in Parliament, including in their own parties, working against them.

Supporting and agreeing with Cates on gender issues does not imply wider support and no MP would presume otherwise. What they would be is reassured that they are reflecting public opinion on that particular issue.

It might also give them pause for thought that the women supporting them on this issue do not support them on other issues where they might look to women for support.

"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."

There appear to be few GC women in Parliament and, as far as I am aware, most of them are "closet GC". Is there someone in particular who you feel should be amplified more?

"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?"

This seems at odds with your first question, where you acknowledge that support for Cates from GC women is specific to her stance on "gender issues", ie. it is not "blanket support".

I presume by, "other behaviour" you mean voting record, questions and interventions in the House, etc.?

What about Cassie makes you think TRA?

What? It was you who said LWS didn't allow women to speak. It's literally an open mic event. I'm not talking about Cassie 🙄

For me, I'd say it is coming onto a forum for women that provides a space to discuss issues that had been villified or banned elsewhere - and coming, not in a spirit of sisterhood and common cause - but with a provocative and relenetless attitude; along with an unwilligness to be open and honest about motives, sources and so on. That creates a lack of trust.

I often feel this poster is out of her depth, but persists. I'm not sure why.

Wtf is “suffragette hearted far right prejudice” when it’s at home?

Nobody is learning anything from you, this is just a string of predictable clichés that appear time and time again with no discernable merit or value other than to keep on finger wagging.

my point is they want exposure to other movements to recruit.

As an example.

@Shortshriftandlethal

For some reason that poster meant Cassie when they were talking about some women not being allowed to speak at LWS, and so thought I meant Cassie when I said only TRAs weren't permitted to speak at LWS. Has Cassie ever attempted to speak at LWS and been prevented? If not she's completely irrelevant to the point.

Does Cassie support Labour’s plans to make it easier for men to become legally women or am I thinking of another poster?

Nobody is learning anything from you, this is just a string of predictable clichés that appear time and time again with no discernable merit or value other than to keep on finger wagging.

Beautifully, succinctly put.

But at least it's relatively short posts in this case. Unlike JCJ.

I think she would melt if she was in the same park as KJK

What? It was you who said LWS didn't allow women to speak. It's literally an open mic event. I'm not talking about Cassie 🙄

i never said it about LWS the event, i said it's always let women speak as in that's what people SAY. So again, how can i be a TRA when i advocate for single sex spaces? which is kind of opposite to TRA.

It's almost like you don't see the chorus of posters including you piling on accuse any woman you don't agree with as scolding as of your hope is that eventually posters will stop bothering here. The cognitive dissonance is strong with you isn't it!

i'm not expecting anyone on here to 'learn' from me as a given, it's not finger pointing to call people out on their bullshit.
Having debates and discussions is an OPPORTUNITY to potentially hear new experiences and so on, it seems that free debate and discussion is lost on you.

I'm squeamish about the word " amplify". It makes me think of Owen Jones, and that is not an enjoyable experience.

What? It was you who said LWS didn't allow women to speak. It's literally an open mic event. I'm not talking about Cassie

Yes, TRA women to spout gender nonsense, because it's not for bigging up gender identity ideology. It was you that jumped to the conclusion that I meant Cassie.

Nope. i never said anything about a LWS event, you assumed that.

because i was replying to a comment from a poster explaining how maybe a man talking over women in this field isn't letting women speak.

This forum has really been about finding a home for women cast out elsewhere. Cassie herself requested it be sectioned off - because she didn't want GC chat on every thread. She wanted intersectionalist feminist discussions. So why come here? Intersectionalism is not the flavour of the day here, and never will be.

it's not finger pointing to call people out on their bullshit.

Sure, that's what you're doing, totally

And yes it is finger pointing, as you seem unable to understand that the world doesn't revolve around how you personally approach politics.

This is not the be all and end of all feminism. I've been told many times all feminism should be posted here, not just GC views.

But again, if you don't want opposing views how is that any different than what you're accusing others of?

i'm aware it doesn't - which is the whole point about listening and potentially earning about others viewpoints.

That would be the swathes of GC accounts cheering on under far right tweets