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 👏

Go tell that to JD Vance

signalbox I apologise if you weren't referring to all Muslims. Do me a favour and use the actual countries in future - unfortunately the likes of Lee Anderson using "Islamist" to refer to Sadiq Khan/London has made me sceptical of the term.

Where in my post did I say I didn't care? Nowhere. Because I didn't say it. Malaga made it up,a.k.a creating a strawman.

It's boring now.

Considering you don't know much about him or care you always hop on to argue against anyone critiquing him don't you?

You wrote a long list of things you cared about and said it wasn't on that.

Did I. Please quote me saying that. Or maybe reread it and admit you misrepresented me.

@CassieMaddox I suspect I agree with you on quite a bit, but your posting style is quite trenchant and I find it really off putting.

There has been some incredibly interesting posts on this thread, that have been helping me pick through this really troubling issue.

Your dismissal of @TheColourOutOfSpace post as pure fantasy is an example. Her post was very well written, and made me stop and think, and clearly resonated with alot of people on here. I don't agree with much of what she has written, but I can acknowledge her view is a reasonable one (as opposed to thinking men can become women).

You may not care one jot for how you come across, fair dos, but you are at risk of alienating people from your also reasonable position by being a bit of an arse.

I didn't say I didn't care did I?

IBut I do care about the ridiculous perpetual attempts to associate GC femimism with any one 'right wing' and use this to denounce or prove they are bad.

I care about that because I am right wing and gender realist, and I know a lot of GC feminsists.

I'm not here because I think TR is great but because I think JCJ and the ongoing attempts from left wing women to discredit anyone who agrees with anyone on the right is foolish.
Observing the thinking and its resistance interests me.

Why do you care?
What do you agree with TR on?

You did.
I can't be arsed.

Anyone can read it.

Well, they can't because it's not what I said 😂

Actually here you go ^^ the whole post and list of things you care about and things you don't.

Immigrant Muslim men is very very very low down my list of feminist issues.

To be fair to you, maybe it would have to be very very very very far down your list to qualify for actaully not caring?

Just to be very clear (in case it wasn’t already) I will never be referring to all muslims in any post that I make, ever. When I refer to Islamist regimes I am referring to those countries where state and religion are intertwined. Those countries ruled by Islamic clerics where women and girls are not permitted to work or go to school or go out without male chaperones or show their hair or their faces in public or choose who to marry or choose not to marry or have any agency about what they want from life. Those states where women are treated as sub-human, where it is lawful for men to marry children and beat their wives or rape them within marriage.

If there are any Christian or Jewish states in the world that treat women in this way I will be equally critical of those states.

Hope that’s clear now.

You want to ignore the fact that they are Islamist and their laws reflect Islam by just referring to the name of the country?

Tell me the name of an Islamic country that treats women as equals?

Yes, exactly. It's not practical to differentiate toilets by religion, sex is pretty easy. And there are any number of reasons to exclude men from places like women's change rooms (and vice versa), and they are not about safety. They do however require an acceptance that sexed bodies have relevance beyond just sexualized violence, and that is ok.

I think it's been a tactical error to only talk about safety rather than other things, but I suspect that it's been an area where different people agree, so it's been a focus. The kind of feminism JCJ tends to represent has never been very willing to accept that there are other good reasons to have boundaries around things like nudity in mixed sex environment.

There are other contexts where you can break things down further. Whether immigration from places where there are very different views on women, or family violence, for example, should in some way be treated differently. Or when young women are being told about how to choose a partner to reduce risks of getting into a bad relationship, which might be quite a different set of categories to look out for. But it's clearly bollocks that you can't profile risk at all.

Literally nothing! Couldn't care less what we both happen to know to be factually true such as the sky is blue, I don't hold an ounce of agreement with fascist misogynistic hooligans such as TR.

Everything I've seen you post on this topic isn't a concern for any GC person being discredited for associating with the far right though, it's just critique of the far right you latch on to.

A lot of posters finally coming out of the woodwork, gosh knows why they were so confused about anything right wing before when they sound like they've consumed most of their talking points.

list of things you care about and things you don't.
Not what I said.

Tell us the name of a catholic one? Or a Christian one? Do you really hold the UK as a great example of women's rights for example?

No.
I believe there are very few countries in the world where women are treated equally. The only one that comes close I think is Iceland.

That's because men are the problem, not religions.

Actually thinking about it, humans just aren't great as a species.

All my posts on these topics are about the illogic conflation of Gc and right wing to discredit people.

You're type of resposne: so you love TR then do you?? is the predictable response.
I've said nothing about TR I don't know that muhyc about him.

It's nice that you are tracking my relatively sporadic posting so carefully though...not creepy at all..

How can we be both always be posting and coming out of the woodwork...?

Unless you don't mean me?

It would be helpful if you specified who you meant.

Stop being ridiculous - talk about privilege.

Did You Know...Muslim Constitutions
uscirf.gov | April 26, 2024 03:59 PM
...that half of majority-Muslim countries make Islam the state religion?

Of the 46 countries in the world with majority Muslim populations, 23 declare Islam to be the state religion in their constitutions. The rest either proclaim the state to be secular or make no pronouncement concerning an official religion. The 23 countries where Islam is declared the state religion are: Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Brunei, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Tunisia, the United Arab Emirates, and Yemen.

Under international standards, a state may declare an official religion, provided that basic rights including the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion or belief are respected for all without discrimination. This means that the existence of a state religion cannot be a basis for discriminating against or impairing any rights of adherents of other religions or non-believers or their communities. Unfortunately, in practice many states with official state religions do not meet this test.

For more information, see USCIRF's recent study, The Religion-State Relationship and the Right to Freedom of Religion or Belief: A Comparative Textual Analysis of the Constitutions of Majority Muslim and other OIC Countries.

FGM in EgyptFemale genital mutilation (FGM) is still widespread – but increasingly condemned – throughout much of North and East Africa. However, the recent history of the practice in Egypt presents special challenges for those trying to end it. According to the Egyptian Family Health Survey (EFHS) 2021, 86 percent of Egyptian married women between the ages of 15 and 49 have undergone FGM, 74 percent of whom by doctors. Although a positive change in women’s attitudes about circumcision has occurred, there is still widespread support for the continuation of FGM in Egypt. The percentage of mothers who intend to circumcise their daughters in the future has declined to only 13% (EFHS 2021) compared to about 35% (DHS 2014). FGM is part of the social fabric of the Egyptian community and is in some cases upheld by beliefs associated with religion. In June of 2008, the Egyptian Parliament agreed to criminalize FGM/C in the Penal Code, establishing a minimum custodial sentence of three months and a maximum of two years, or an alternative minimum penalty of 1,000 Egyptian pounds (LE) and a maximum of 5,000 LE. As of yet no one has been convicted according to this law.Also, the new Child Law included the formation of Child Protection Committees (CPC) at different national levels with duties to identify, support and monitor children at risk of neglect and abuse, including girls at risk of circumcision.

You actually won't even say that women have more rights and better tretament in most western christian countries tham most Islamic countries?

You really do not realise the extreme radical that you are.

And your denial of reality for self agrandisment helps nobody, least of all women.

Are you seriously comparing the rights of women in the UK with places like Iran or Afghanistan?

And fyi the UK is a secular state.

Yes you wedge that in but who is being discredited? No one. The only person being critiqued is TR and you come in to talk about what you agree with him on when admittedly you don't have to agree with him on anything. And then you keep posting as it's apparent you agree with him on the issue where he is definitely racist when even again you admit you don't have to agree with him.

Sorry to burst your bubble that some of us can search and read in minutes. I note there were posters who found this a "very long" article though so maybe that's rare on here 😂

I really hope to fuck I am wrong, but I have a horrible feeling that some of your posts are going to age very badly, very quickly @CassieMaddox