Cassie'S thread about the JCJ blog - part 2

[CassieMaddox]

Other thread filled up with waffle
Still live in hope we could discuss the article.

https://janeclarejones.com/2024/07/28/tommy-robinson-far-right-populism-and-gender-criticism

Been thinking of the responses to Southport in respect of this line in particular

in the mind of patriarchal nationalists, the border marks the difference between women who belong to the men of the nation – ‘our women’ – and the women who belong to the foreigner – ‘their women.’

I think part of the issue this week has been the outrage from the far right about "our children". Last night there were reported chants of "save our children" alongside "stop the boats".

To me this resonates with the increasingly hyperbolic online discourse around safeguarding and "groomers" and highlights the need for a balanced view.

Please could I ask for good natured engagement only; if you aren't interested just scroll by. TY

Hasnt everything been said ad nauseum?

Maybe. In which case it'll be an empty thread that I just post on occasionally

Today's JCJ update is so good I want to share:x.com/janeclarejones/status/1818975492940173382

'The left’s policy on immigration is what made us all need to run around calling all immigrants medieval barbarians and terrorists and setting fire to shit. We just have legitimate concerns.’

‘The left’s policy on trans rights is what made us need to run around calling all trans identified people groomers and perverts and pedophiles. We just have legitimate concerns.’

Look. There are a lot of people in this country who don’t like whole other groups of people being demonised.

You can call this ‘political correctness’ is you like. We call it ‘not dehumanising whole groups of people.’

I don’t know if you really think you can win this culture war by throwing bricks and burning down police vans but believe me, you can’t. I don’t know if you think you can win this culture war by ‘going round the left’ but they’re the government now so good luck with that. I’m terribly sorry that left wing people just stop listening when they think other people are being flagrantly hateful and bigoted. In fact, I’m not, because it is an instinctive recoiling from the kind of rhetoric that justifies extreme violence against other human beings and I completely share it.

What we tried to do was to extremely carefully point out all the ways in which women had ‘legitimate concerns’ about the trans issues that were not, in fact, grounded in bigotry and hatred. Because that is the only way you have a hope in hell of getting the people who believe this nonsense to listen to you.

Apparently the strategy now is ‘we’re just going to run about shouting whatever bigoted-sounding stuff we want and if we don’t get our way we’ll just set fire to shit.’

Fucking genius

I find zero problem with men chanting ' save our children'

You missed out the bits where they set fire to things and trash the place

I don't agree with that. But, what I see is some rather angry and frustrated men expressing themselves. I don't agree with that, I don't agree with the way they are doing it. Like I don't agree with the way 'just stop oil' do in it, nor how the TRA's do it.

what I find super ugly is that young girls were brutally murdered, in a horrific event that really needs to make us look at society and what is going wrong, and some people such as JKJ & Jeremy Corbyn are making the focus about the men rioting...

Setting bins on fire is nothing compared to what happened to those girls and their families.Give it a fucking WEEK before you make it political.

Here is a thought experiment. You are in town, it's really busy, you think your little girl is close by but actually she has wandered away. You see someone you know and are excited and chat to them, not realising she has wandered quite far away. A predatory man walks to her, holds her wrist and starts to walk her firmly away, he looks a bit shifty, and your little girl is starting to try to pull away but not screaming out, just looking scared.

You can choose only one person who is watching this unfold; a Tommy Robinson follower, or a university educated leftie man

Which do you choose?

Don't change the thought experiment, just choose which one you would prefer to witness, and more likely to intervene

I know which of those demographic I would choose to be the witness, and that would be the first man, the one who doesn't give a shit about making a faux-pas.

Just a little thought experiment

Err no thanks 🤮

Genius? It's low level shit.

JCJ's main problem is she straw mans like crazy. She says what she thinks people are saying, except it's some figment from her own imagination.

Do you not find it weird you just made up your own fantasy thought experiment to make a racist thug a hero? No thanks 🤮 how about who would you rather your adult daughter going home to at the end of the day? Based on their actual real world behaviour, not your fantasy. I know who I'd choose and it wouldn't be the thug who's been drinking, setting fires, and rioting against the police all day.

Thanks. Insightful analysis @TempestTost

This is interesting.

https://www.thetimes.com/article/792380c2-44f5-45ce-8d5b-192b0e5ad739?shareToken=f83c06f41366e22c0fcdc76f444f19fe

"The blame for the riots rests with what experts call the “network” or “post-organisational” hard-right. Instead of old-style movements like the National Front, British National Party and English Defence League (EDL), these are individuals who respond provocatively on social media to events in the news. Their messages, which may stop short of breaking speech laws, act as dog whistles to disgruntled followers who take the law into their own hands."

Seen some of this from the Suffragette Heart posters

Personally I find the "our children" and "our daughters" of these thugs and the "feminists" who attended the grossest part and is exactly what JCJ original article was talking about - presumed ownership of white women and girls by angry white men. We know that they mean by "our children" and it's certainly not all the children in the UK.

The people who those precious children belonged to were not rioting in the streets they were devastated and grieving. Their loss being co-opted by racist thugs is despicable.

Yes. Women and children are not possessions. Violent far right thugs can get in the bin with the "our children"

My eldest son is a university educated lefty man. He’d intervene. He’s done so in the past. HTH

‘The left’s policy on trans rights is what made us need to run around calling all trans identified people groomers and perverts and pedophiles. We just have legitimate concerns.'

I've never heard anyone say this. Even glinner, who is quite free with epithets such as "groomer", doesn't accuse all trans-identified men of being groomers or perverts.

I think most of us with concerns about gender ideology feel particular compassion for young girls who are identifying as trans, because we believe that most of these girls are vulnerable, often lesbian, often autistic, often from troubled backgrounds. None of us, as JCJ knows, would describe these girls as perverts or groomers, so she is being careless with language here.

When we look at trans-identified men, it's become very clear that the large-scale adoption of gender self-ID into policy has led to trans identity becoming a magnet for men who are sexual predators. That includes voyeurs, exhibitionists, rapists and child abusers. JCJ knows this perfectly well. Does that mean that all, or even most, of trans-identified men are sexual predators? Well, no, but if you don't have a clear definition of trans, and instead accord trans status to anyone who wants it, then it's obvious that it's going to be particularly appealing to men with harmful intentions. Indeed, JCJ has herself pointed this out many times.

If you go on twitter you certainly will see people being called "groomer" with very little provocation by the Suffragette Heart posters.

On here too, the word "grooming" has been used outside its original meaning to describe any behaviour posters feel could potentially put children at risk.

I was a victim of childhood SA and grooming was a feature of it - finding out there was a word for that behaviour was extremely helpful for me and my family to come to terms with how it happened. This proliferation of the term concerns me as it means actual grooming can go under the radar as "everyone gets called groomer these days".

It's a similar pattern with "far right" - "oh it just means someone you don't like".

Also, she's cartooning the constant hyperbole about why "the left" are to blame for far right nonsense. I completely agree with her.

It's interesting the critique. If she writes carefully using analysis and data she's called "wordy" and an "intellectual snob". If she writes simply and cartoons the pattern, she's picked up for being unrealistic.

It's almost like people are looking for reasons to dismiss what she says out of hand and I'm unsure of the motivation.

It's a really bizarre two options to pick, especially considering it's not exactly worded properly.

Really it should be:

A man proven to be susceptible to far right propaganda led by a man with extremely problematic views of women?

or a left wing man who went to university?

What potential faux-pas would the 'lefty' man be trying to avoid making @BlessedKali ?

I mean if you wanted some kind of thought experiment how about "Who would you rather your son turned out to be? A university educated lefty man or a man whose response to the murder of children is to throw bricks at a mosque?"

There is a happy medium though - she could write clearly and plainly without using either complex language or hyperbolic language. Other people manage to do this.

I'm a fan of JCJ. I love her writing, and I agree with her about most stuff. Like her, I worry about the rise of the far right and I'm not thrilled to see people who call themselves gender-critical allying themselves with the vile Tommy Robinson.

On the other hand, I do think the left has to take some responsibility for what has happened. The "left" (in which I'd include the major political parties such as Labour, Liberal Democrats, SNP, Plaid Cymru, Greens, even the SWP) are all peddling gender ideology to an alarming degree. None of them has stood up for women, or expressed concern at the threats to free speech or the violent attacks on women's meetings. Some have expelled feminists from their parties, while others have stopped feminists even having a stall at party conference. So it's not at all surprising that some gender-critical women have looked to the right, however disturbing some of us find that.

I have read the article twice and I genuinely don't see what language people are describing as overly complex or as per the last thread "wanky". It would help if people gave an example maybe but it all just feels a bit "she thinks she's clever with her big words" which is a strange complaint to make about someone with a PhD particularly the jokes as though she is putting her articles through a thesaurus to use bigger words than necessary as though she doesn't actually understand the words she is using. I don't like the implication that women should play down their intellect to make other people comfortable when we don't ask any men to do that.

This is interesting about the risks of the far right online:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cl4y0453nv5o

But its core ideas [EDL] - in particular an opposition to illegal immigration, mixed with indiscriminate and racist claims about Muslims - are very much alive, and loudly and widely spread among sympathisers online.....

....Thrown into this mix are tropes from conspiracy theories that “elites” are somehow covering up the truth - including the abuse of British children.....

.....“That reflects the nature of the contemporary far-right. There are large numbers of people engaging in activity online but there’s no membership structure or badge - there are not even formalised leaders, but they are directed by social media influencers. It’s like a school of fish rather than traditional organisation.”...

.....“The language is coming from far-right individuals but the organisation is much more organic,” says Mr Mulhall from Hope Not Hate. “There are local Facebook groups emerging. They take the lead from the influencers and pass the information about locally. The weather is made on Twitter, but the organising happens elsewhere.”.....

This is why GC women posting far right content on twitter are a problem. It's not about "purity of source". It's about whipping up outrage that contribute to this kind of thing.

This is the left.