Statement on the gender critical movement and the far right

[hellotowel]

https://x.com/GCAntiFarRight/status/1823790909462602205

"We, the undersigned, are deeply disturbed that populist messages particularly targeting Muslims have gained traction among significant numbers of social media accounts associated with the gender critical movement."
Read and sign our statement below.
https://gcantifarright.wordpress.com/2024/08/13/statement-on-gc-movement-and-the-far-right/

Unfortunately, I suspect this will simply stoke further divisions between the "right-thinking" left wing signatories and moderate conservative allies who don't want to become the next targets of sanctimony.

However, if I were a 'moderate conservative ally" I would resent the implication that I do not care about far-right racism.

And my general view is that it's perfectly fine to be a "left-wing signatory" without being called a "head girl." Feminist activism is a very broad church, and each feminist does what she can, in the best way she can.

Those of us who work and write in this field (and I don't mean ranting on MN!) do what we can, in the same way the Kellie-Jay Keene does what she can. There's lots of space in the women's movement.

KJK retweeted Birdy - Birdy's tweet said:

"My favourite thing about that silly GC “antifascist” letter from yesterday is all it’s done is make a public list of terminally online authoritarians. Amazing."

What's interesting about this is the letter and its signatories are primarily distancing themselves from racism and fascist tendencies - but Birdy interprets this as "authoritarian"?

Sign it or don't sign it. If you are on the right, that's fine, own it. We've seen so many threads of late, including this one, of posters dancing around the issue. We've seen so many KJK defensive threads. Yes, of course it's about her. Why pretend it isn't? She's becoming a caricature of herself, bankrolled by and modelled on the US right-wing.

Hmmm, Yes and No, @MessinaBloom I totally agree about "Sign it or don't sign it." When I signed it, I realised that if it was about individuals, K-JK was probably in the sightlines - but I don't think the letter is just about specific individuals.

I think K-JK does great work in getting a lot of ordinary women active and making them aware of the incursion into the rights they've taken for granted for the last 30 years or so.

But she's also pretty hardline on some things that I find distasteful, to say the least. And there's no really systematic feminist critique in her work, or in that of a lot of her followers.

But OTOH, I guess her response would be - and it's the response of many on this thread - is to call women like me "head girls." I'm not sure why there is such a dismissing of women like Julie Bindel et al. who've done a heck of a lot in both writing, thinking, and activism - rather more than posting on MN, frankly.

@YellowAsteroid

I think K-JK does great work in getting a lot of ordinary women active and making them aware of the incursion into the rights they've taken for granted for the last 30 years or so.

But she's also pretty hardline on some things that I find distasteful, to say the least. And there's no really systematic feminist critique in her work, or in that of a lot of her followers.

But OTOH, I guess her response would be - and it's the response of many on this thread - is to call women like me "head girls." I'm not sure why there is such a dismissing of women like Julie Bindel et al. who've done a heck of a lot in both writing, thinking, and activism - rather more than posting on MN, frankly.

I agree KJK has done a great deal of wonderful work to give women a voice where there felt they had none. I do admire her ability to keep going through the noise.

She has said she isn't a feminist. I'm not certain what this means against the work she does, but it may make sense of her more radical statements and actions. She is quite centric too and has stated that the success of the women's movement is because of her, and her only. (I'll have to find that link.)

She is quite centric too and has stated that the success of the women's movement is because of her, and her only. (I'll have to find that link.)

Yes, I've heard her say that on videos. It's rubbish, & it's a pity because it makes it easier for some feminists to dismiss her.

I've also heard her speak (back in 2018 before she was famous and before she was a bleached blonde!, and just recently at a radfem conference) - she's charismatic & compelling, and very charming. She came across as quite kind as a person.

Still, the women's movement has always had these charismatic larger than life characters - eg. Germaine Greer.

I think Kathleen Stock really hit the nail on the head at an online meeting she spoke at - women are not very goods at disagreeing with other women, or being disagreed with. It's a part of our socialisation which keeps us back, frankly.

And we can see it on this thread, and other debates about The Letter. However, we need to remember that there's room for multiple points of view.

Do we?

Maybe 'we' need to stop signing letters that put a target onto other women's backs, eh? And maybe let other women make their own decisions about what events they do or do not attend.

The fucking brass neck.

Maybe 'we' need to stop signing letters that put a target onto other women's backs, eh? And maybe let other women make their own decisions about what events they do or do not attend.

So, let me try to work out your logic here @AlisonDonut

You want women to be free to make decisions about attending/not attending events

but ...

You want women not to be free to sign letters.

And you disagree with the statement that we should make space for multiple points of view.

Is that right?

I sense a wee bit of a double standard here. I mean, I know using the words "should" or "need to remember" might sound a bit like a head girl, but really? You disagree with there being multiple points of view in the women's movement?

That's interesting.

When you know that 'letters' puts a target onto the backs of other women, who are at risk from extremely violent activist men, and then bang on about 'we' needing to remember that there are multiple points of view...yes you do have double standards.

How does the letter put a target on the backs of women that wasn't already there from their own doing? For example, someone tweets something racist. That's their decision. It may cause some others to focus on them, though.

This letter is a caution about exactly this type of thing. Do you see the difference?

Are you fucking kidding?

What are you so angry about @AlisonDonut ?

Your ire might be better directed at the racist men and the self-styled “progressive “ antifa - both groups which seem to enjoy monstering women, white or brown.

But you’ve also said it’s a pointless letter. But it puts women at risk?

Youre obviously very angry but please use that amazing energy you have for something more productive than being silly in an anonymous forum.

Remove the log from your eye first.

@YellowAsteroid you are placing ‘being cross about the letter’ as being on the same level of telling other people what to think as ‘writing the letter that tells other people what they aren’t allowed to say’.

You are defending the letter which outlines acceptable opinions on the basis that disagreeing with it is outlining acceptable opinions.

It’s like an Alice in wonderland mirror.

Do something authoritarian (and aggressive and inflammatory)
Accuse people who don’t like it of being authoritarian.

That’s just perverse.

It’s as though you’ve sent KJK to Coventry and want to constantly remind everyone they aren’t allowed to talk to her.
That’s despicable behaviour, and you are falling for the TRA’s manipulation. ‘Don’t look at me, look at that nasty woman over there.’

No, it is definitely pointed.

Get you and your 'oh you are obviously very angry' bullshit. You sign a letter and then lecture 'us' on how 'we' need to remember there are multiple points of view?

You should read my actual posts and the actual letter. No-one has told anyone to sign

I have said repeatedly on this thread that there is room for multiple points of view in the women’s movement.

I don’t mind being disagreed with. And I haven’t castigated anyone for not signing or disagreeing with the letter.

But not going to debate with posters who simply hurl angry ad hominem (or should that be feminam?) and untrue abuse.

Where have I criticised people for not signing or for disagreeing with the letter?

Please don’t be inaccurate or abusive.

If you can’t see what the letter says, then we can’t help you understand the problem.

I understand what you’re all so frothing angry about; I just don’t agree with you.

Of course you don't, your virtue signalling is more important than other womens safety. That's clear as day.

@AlisonDonut

Are you fucking kidding?

I'll try again.

• Person tweets something inflammatory (let's just agree for the sake of argument that it it was)
• Some people agree with it, others disagree, some become angry, others tweet back insults/threats
• Repeat
• Others in the same ideology wish to distance from this person, so send out an open letter saying they do not agree with person's tweets

Now, if any target is placed on this person, it would be in the first few points, not the last. Is this clearer for you?

Person A tweets something not everyone agrees with.

• Some people agree with it, others disagree, some become angry, others tweet back insults/threats

• Some people write a letter saying how appalling it is that someone tweeted something absolutely appalling and they’d never do anything so awful and honestly tweeting like that is how dumpster fires start…

And soon some people believe that person A is Hitler adjacent and would have held his hat, given the opportunity. Person A is assumed to have said all sorts of awful things when they haven’t actually.