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 👏

I've said this elsewhere; "scolding" is not misogynistic. Schoolmasters scold children, it is not a sexed insult.

Calling a woman 'a scold' is a misogynistic insult, similar to calling a woman a 'nag'.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/5129642-5129642-why-has-tommy-robinson-been-arrested-under-anti-terrorism-laws?page=1

Here it is. It has actually been moved now to chat but was on FWR initially.

As I said I’m not accusing you or anyone of an agenda but I am aware it’s easier to fool someone than convince someone they have been fooled. And whilst Tommy is a gutter rat in many respects; he has exposed things of relevance previously way before anyone else (ie. Rochdale).

So it does heighten my sceptic-dar when I’m seeing numerous threads attempting to create a ‘denouncement’, particularly from FWR who has nothing to do with Tommy or the far right.

The reason we have done so well in the U.K. with the feminism and trans rights conflict is precisely because we haven’t made it a left or right issue. So I’m not being be dragged into that from a feminist perspective.

Do you think it is misogynistic to use the term "hysterical"?

The etymology of "scolding" is from a scold - a woman who wouldn't shut up. Often punished by a scolds bridle, a particularly barbaric device that used spikes in and around a woman's mouth to shut her up. The ducking stool was also a punishment.

The term "scolding" is still disproportionately used about women than men today.

Therefore my conclusion is it is a misogynistic term used to shut down womens opinions.

Your view may be different but there is no reason to suppose your bald statement "I've said this elsewhere: scolding is not misogynistic" is particularly expert.

Plus "schoolmasters" are not really a thing. We have "teachers" these days, and it's a very female dominated profession.

There are less misogynistic words to use to make the point than "scolding". I guess the problem is they don't demonstrate being in the "in group" as well.

Dictionary definition of "scolding"

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/scolding

Interesting to contrast it with their definition of "pearl clutching":

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/pearl-clutching

😂

I think you have used the term "pearl clutching" and "bigot" more often than me. In fact you are the only person to mention on this thread. It's a bit if a tedious derail so I'll be ignoring from now

JCJ and others might like to consider that the main - probably only - reason that I read/ listen to such shocking outlets as Unherd, the Spectator, Triggernometry etc is BECAUSE of tin-earred Lefties, and others, telling me what to think or distorting the facts to justify their opinions.

I have a considerable expertise in a very small academic field, so I know that there are academics out there who are either incredibly slipshod and lazy, or who are willing to distort the facts. The most notable case of this that I came across was a Leftie. That was Strike #1 on my path to disillusionment.

I also have an interest in animal behaviour. I am married to a scientist and the mother of scientists. I can usually judge when I read a peer-reviewed paper whether it is reasonably sound or a pile of bullshit. And if in doubt, I can check. I have read a lot of bullshit dressed up as serious science. A lot of it is produced to influence legislation. Strike #2 on my path to disillusionment.

Then we have trans, a matter of direct and personal interest to me as to many women. And we found the Left and the centre, where most of us found our political home, closed to us on this topic. They wouldn't listen. The wouldn't discuss. They wouldn't answer sensible questions. So women on the Left like Julie Bindel and Hadley Freeman ended up writing for much more right-wing outlets. Strike #3.

Edith is now a deeply disillusioned, suspicious, sceptical and pissed-off woman. (I went through the menopause during all this, probs didn't help.)

So no, nobody is going to tell me what to think. Not JCJ, not anyone. I can look at Tommy Robinson and detest his politics, but note that he is right about certain things. Ditto Farage. Strange to relate, I can draw my own conclusions with my fluffy little female brain. And, given the level of fucked-off disillusionment with academia and politics with which I live, I WILL draw my own conclusions.

Sorry, that was long. Rant over.

And whilst Tommy is a gutter rat in many respects; he has exposed things of relevance previously way before anyone else (ie. Rochdale).

This is far right propaganda spread by TR fans and is also bollocks.

See my previous comment about twats and bandwagons.

I see the other thread is at risk of being deleted, I'd rather that didn't happen to this one so I won't be responding to any more propaganda points like that.

Scolding is misogynistic, that is why PP used it. To describe those with who come on here to tell women off - to scold them - as a way to shut them down. Particularly women who support other women like KJK.

Is it? As I said it’s easier to fool someone than convince someone they have been fooled. So maybe I have been fooled?

Anyway I will leave you to it.

I think you misunderstand my purpose. My sole purpose is to put another opinion into the debate. I don't particularly care if it persuades you. And if you find someone posting a different view "annoying" that says more about you than me.

Was that really the purpose? Having read this thread it seems as if you really do care if posters are not persuaded by JCJ's opinion, disagree with it, pushback against it. You only want agreement with it and praise for it and will brook no opposition to it. You seem to find it very annoying that people are not just toeing the line with your and JCJ's viewpoint.

And whilst Tommy is a gutter rat in many respects; he has exposed things of relevance previously way before anyone else (ie. Rochdale).

I think it was Julie Bindel who first brought this to people's attention in 2007.

https://juliebindel.substack.com/p/racists-did-not-expose-the-grooming

Thank you

Noone has told anyone else off. I started the thread. A discussion is not "scolding" and if people feel like a difference of opinion is them being told off, that's their issue.

Meanwhile constantly being told I'm "scolding" for posting my own opinions feels very much like the term is being used misogynistically (as in- you are a scold, shut up).

😂

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/5129642-5129642-why-has-tommy-robinson-been-arrested-under-anti-terrorism-laws?page=1

Fuck all to do with Feminism so MNHQ moved it. I will never understand people who think feminism needs to protect grown ass, criminal men who exploit women's experiences for their own skanky ends.

Intelligent response. Proves the point that you are not interested in any form of discussion or debate you want and expect 100% agreement with you, sounds a tad authoritarian don't you think?

Shall we agree an acceptable term for pointing out the problems of subjecting others to this unedifying experience of being interacted with?

A whole heap of far right talking points have got tangled up with GC politics and people are so in the depths of it they can't see it's happened to them.

I don't think I have ever embraced any 'far right talking points', but if you have evidence to the contrary I'd like to see it.

Thinking Tommy Robinson has any kind of "good point" is a sign someone's starting to be radicalised IMO.

If he says 'women don't have penises' I'm going to agree with him. Does that mean I've started to be radicalised?

Unfortunately "done their own research" is exactly how people start off on conspiracy theories.

I was thinking more of us being critical thinkers, thinking for ourselves, not being taken in by propaganda.

"Had enough of experts" and "can't trust the elite" are necessary precursors to radicalisation as it takes people to extreme viewpoints.

When we get politicians and doctors saying that people can change sex, and the BBC repeatedly reporting male criminals as female, then I think it's their fault if people are drawn to more extreme viewpoints, because you obviously can't trust those people to tell the truth. If they all stop lying and telling us that men are women if they say they are then it might stop people being drawn to extremism.

plenty of posters were saying vote Reform/Conservative because they know what a woman is. Go and look on the GE board if you need reminding.

I didn't read those threads, only the GE threads on FWR, where most of the women posting are feminists and many of them left wing. Perhaps the people on the other threads on the GE board were more of a mix with more right-wingers.

It's like on AIBU when a poster starts a thread, posters challenge what they say and the OP starts hurling around biscuits and claiming victimhood. It's an odd way of behaving, but there's always the spin off. In this case, so many articulate women pointing out the flaws in the OP with political, intellectual and emotional insight (hence all the )

I found JCJ's piece totally baffling, as others have said she does need an editor very badly. Not only is her point not clear, but she writes in a very rambling, loose way.

For example:
"However, because much of the gender critical case concerned preserving single-sex space – that is, keeping men out – it always bore a certain structural resemblance to the type of sovereignty-thinking that, as we saw above, animates far-right populism."

I had to read that four times before I understood that her "concerned" meant "dealt with", rather than "mentioned before", and even then her sentence felt like the rhythms were off for the short point she seemed to want to make.

It makes much more sense if she's just anti-KJK - reading the whole thing I could never quite follow if she was supportive of GC women or anti-GC, as her points went back and forth depending on how closely she wanted to tie their arguments to Tommy Robinson.

I'm always hungry for great feminist writers, but honestly this one could do with some tough reading friends to give her work a bit of red pen.

Nah, just another bog standard pile-on from half a dozen or so Mnetters who don't like it when their sacred cows are criticised.

I can't tell from that if she thinks women have the right to self organise or gatekeep groups and single sex spaces or not.

In an amusing update, TR has fucked off abroad.
www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/5130308-tommy-robinson-has-legged-it

Yes. People spend the most time overall in their homes or workplaces, so...

But I'd also say, not everyone's home is the same. It is true that DV can happen in any type of home, with regard to social class, education, race, religion, whatever. Part of the myth is that all households are equal, so there are no visible risk factors.

However, there are certain things that make it far far more likely there will be DV. Or to put it another way, there are certain types of households where there is a very significant likelihood that the women will be victims of DV.

All the men, and for that matter women, who are living a criminal lifestyle, who are drug addicts, involved low level in the drug trade, the people who have a high crossover with the prison population, who may be involved with prostitution, even if in a very casual way - these homes are not the more typically safe places that a lot of MN posters are thinking when they say that it's more likely you will be a victim of sexualized violence in the home.

Yes, in a nice middle class home with a man who is an accountant for the civil service you may have DV, you could be living with a narcissist, an abuser, an alcoholic, whatever. It absolutely happens.

But if you are living with a petty drug dealer, an addict, a petty criminal (much less a gang member etc) there is a very significant chance you will be involved in DV. Especially given that it's pretty common that women in these households will have unstable relationships, so the man this year might not be the man next year - upping the chances she will eventually met an abuser.

The stats from this second group, if they are considered with all households, will push the stats up for the whole.

I don't think the refusal to look at these risk factors does anyone any favours. It's a narrative, and I always wonder who it's benefiting. Women like JCJ, maybe? I don't know.

Nah, just another bog standard pile-on from half a dozen or so Mnetters who don't like it when their sacred cows are criticised.

The only person on this thread getting testy and dishing out biscuits is the OP, they don't seem able to cope with the writings of their sacred cow being criticised or questioned.

Don't you worry you've been radicalised by the identarian left?