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/

Who do we think went to the "Tommy Robinson " rally to learn more about his views? Who do we think was there as a counter protest? Was it the musician from Yorkshire, who is viewed as a strong voice in LWS who took to the stage with him, or maybe it was the women who were handing out LWS leaflets?

Another one here who isn’t part of anything in particular, and will be steering clear of most things as they seem determined to steer people on to the one true path, to police who your friends are etc.

I value the opportunity to talk to all sorts of people and hear what they think, and generally seek middle ground. I’m not at all keen on being told what to think or who to listen to.

Interestingly, despite all the accusations, I’ve not seen that kind of attempt to control the narrative at LWS events- though of course I’m not part of anything so could be missing it.

I’m a bit surprised at how oblivious some posters are to the tone of the letter and its various supporters.

Yes, I do! I find it offensive, and I think a lot of other people do too. It suggests that women should be shielded from the public gaze, that it might be acceptable for them to be present in public but with no face. It goes against all contemporary values around equality and the dignity of women.

I think some educated, westernised Muslim women have taken to wearing the burkha - as a radical Islamist statement. Taking advantage of the broadly tolerant society we have and imposing a very alien and antiquated perspective on women's role in society......after women have struggled for decades for a voice and face; and have also been imprisoned for demanding these things.

A public open plan church being mixed sex is obviously different from a mixed sex changing room.

When you say, “Who gets to choose?”, are you suggesting that a Mosque requiring segregation should be entitled to forbid transwomen on the women’s side, because that’s their religion and their prerogative?
(Asking out of interest, not a sarcastic question.)

Surely the wearing, or not, of whatever any woman chooses is what a lot of the campaigning was about. Why is a woman choosing to cover herself offensive, if she is making her own choices?

Yes, I would sort of like the discussion to get back to the far right and its influence on feminism. If you call that 'setting the agenda', fill your boots.

As I've said before, the stand out part of that meeting for me was Pragna Patel saying something along the lines of unless feminism/women's rights movement or whatever you want to call it, is open to discussing the influence of the right (I seem to remember there was some discussion about the US Christian right from the panel), then it would gradually seep in so that feminists/women's rights were repeating its talking points.

And that's exactly what happened.

Interesting. I think this is an example of the far right / anti-Muslim influence and shows how far we’ve come from a feminist analysis. A feminist analysis would clarify that women are oppressed by men in society, and are in fact oppressed in all patriarchal societies.

Veiling can be seen as a tool of that oppression, in the same way that high heels and skimpy clothing can be seen as a tool of women’s oppression in western cultures, in that they promote and enforce gender roles. These are two sides of the same coin (women’s primary role in society is to please men sexually).

A feminist analysis is helpful as we can see that the root of oppression isn’t an item of clothing, it is the power relations between the sexes, and actually we have common cause with women from other cultures.

Getting caught up in policing women’s choice to wear certain items of clothing is counter productive and a waste of time. It certainly shouldn’t be seen as an offence for women to wear heels or a hijab, or both!

And crucially, women aren’t to blame for their oppression by wearing heels or the hijab. Neither of these can be said to cause men’s violence or men’s dominance over women.

Well seems it's all about pronouns. Sorry about this wall of text but using loads of words makes you right.

https://x.com/janeclarejones/status/1758204431332479461?t=f2OAIYQAbDGflHjn_ot5FQ&s=19

Okay, so there is something that is bothering me and so I'm going to do one of those annoying explaining things things.

There's a lot of people saying that the ultra-position is what it is because they are radical feminists and radical feminist hate men.

This is an oversimplification.

The ultra-position is a combination of several strands of stuff.

1. A particular strand of radical feminism from the end of the second wave associated with a particular form of lesbian separatism. This analysis puts the oppression of women down to an innate drive in men to sexually dominate women, and has a heavy focus/obsession with the male tendency towards fetishism/perversion (hence the florid language, and the extreme interest in running around expressing disgust and accusing people of whatever perversion takes their fancy that day). Historically it also often considers penetrative heterosexual sex to be necessarily harmful to women (frauenkultur.co.uk/wp-content/upl…) and has been known to call heterosexual women 'collaborators' (these days more often 'handmaidens' or 'dickpanderers'). It also thinks left wing women are left wing because they are 'carrying water for left wing men' (this is also where the 'socfem' accusation comes from, even though many of the women called 'socfems' by ultras are actually also radical feminists, just not this type).

1. This account of the cause of male dominance is actually a form of gender essentialism. Radical feminists who think male dominance is a social or historical phenomenon do not agree with this strand of radical feminism. Many of the radical feminist women who formed part of the kernel of the original gender critical movement are these types of materialist radical feminists, but were then dismissed as 'socfems' when they are not, in fact, socialist feminists.

1. Because this form of radical feminism really doesn't GAF about heterosexual women's need for reproductive rights, has a rather narrow focus of a certain set of issues (porn, prostitution, surrogacy, the trans issue), and is in many ways motivated by a kind of puritan moral disgust, it tends to blend quite easily into right wing perspectives that have the same views on these issues, and also deals readily in puritan moral disgust. Reaction against this vibe - and it is, as you are seeing, a not particularly good vibey kind of vibe - is part of what fuelled third wave feminism's reaction against what came to be known as 'sex negativity' and which then fed directly into libertarian and queer feminist positions. So, let's not make them think they were right about that eh?

1. As well as the ultras containing some radical feminists of this type it can also then easily accommodate gender conservatives, because of the essentialism and the moral disgust feels. The third strand it has absorbed from the general cultural zeitgeist is right wing populism. It readily uses arguments about elites and latte-sipping privileged women looking down on and sacrificing the interests of 'ordinary women,' because 'elite' women are not really affected by any of these issues and are just interested in self-advancement. Like most populism, it can then energise women's often justified resentments about not being given the opportunities they deserve, and also like more general populism, redirects that justified resentment at whatever target populist discourse makers choose to unleash it on.

1. All of this makes the ultra position a type of tribalism in which anyone who disagrees or refuses to toe the line can be dismissed as

a. a man
b. a pervert of some type
c. a dickpanderer, handmaiden or traitor
d. a socfem or left-wing feminist
or e. an elitist, headgirl, privileged etc.

Just like the TRAs, the position entirely insulates itself against any form of critique and attempts to make people who won't comply with it fall in line by placing them in the 'bad tribe' and then dismissing them, or marking them as the enemy and turning them into a righteous target.

Just like the TRAs, it issues in a form of generalised toxic bullying, name calling, and authoritarianism. What we are seeing now is the result of that position being empowered inside the GC movement and being unleashed all over the place.

It's not pretty. I did try to warn people and as a result I was turned into a hate-figure and they spent many many months trying to burn me alive. I'm trying very hard not to get all 'I told you so.' I'm probably failing.

Stand up to it.

This shouldn't be who we are, and it runs the risks of swallowing up what is good and true and just in what we are fighting for.

Peace out.

Duncan asks But what exactly is the Ultras position

Answer

Always call trans identified men 'men' and use sex based pronouns in all an any circumstances. Any failure to do this is evidence of 'pandering to men' 'capitulating to the enemy' 'giving away our language' etc and can be dealt with by implying that the person doing it is a traitor, or any number of the above means of placing them in the camp of the enemy. Also, trash their work, imply they have never done anything useful, imply they are an active harm to the effort, subject them to intense and ongoing bullying and efforts to destroy their livelihood.

Also, something something 'infested with pet troons' something 'check you harddrive' something 'pedophile apologist' something something 'trutrans' something something.

The thing is Duncan. I don't have a problem with your commitment to sex based language. I use sex based language in most circumstances and I support every single person's right to use it without coercion. That is not the problem here. The problem is trying to place pressure on everyone to use it at all times and all places, and the the rhetorical tropes, lying and straight up bullying being used to enforce that. And my problem with you in particular is that I think you yourself are in good faith, but you are being wilfully and deliberately blind about the bullying tactics being used by the people who share your basic position on sex based language and the righteousness of the effort to enforce that.

Frostie P responds.

You only had to write the first sentence and everything else is excuse excuse excuse.

I know I'm not always concise but...

Glinner used to have a blog called "Why That's Delightful!" Sometimes I think JCJ should have a blog called "Jesus That's Verbose!"

I can't for the life of me think why RN flopped.

Also, JCJ's claim that she tried to warn us all against bullying, name calling and authoritarianism... really stands out in her Bart Simpson book report of feminist intellectual history.

Seriously, I think someone needs to take the keyboard away from her.

x.com/janeclarejones/status/1825145380213768607?t=PaRMndJCqR13S3yIYr7YKg&s=19

She's driven by pure narcissism at this point.

And this why a lot of women pay no attention to JCJ: TL, DR.
Also, T Impenetrable, DR.

I have a high tolerance for academic writing, and regularly plough though journal articles in my fields of interest, but I haven't the patience to wade through that.

Women with a low tolerance for academic writing will just, say WTF? and turn on KJK. Whatever you think of her (and as I think I've said before on this thread, I don't agree with everything she says), she makes it snappy, and interesting, and relevant.

And totally unreadable.

I couldn't even manage to read all of JCJ's million word diatribe when it was about me.

Thick. As. Mince.

I have had one user name since I registered on this site. I actually find this veiled "troll hunting" offensive and designed to halt debate

So it was entirely intended to shut up a person you didn't agree with by pretending you believed they were someone else?

I think a hell of a lot of posts on this thread are intended to halt debate.

It's very telling how much keener people are to engage in personal attacks on JCJ and so on than engage with the impact that far right discourse and ideas is having on some elements of 'GC'.

And totally unreadable.

You can only get away with this in academia. In no other job would it be possible.

She certainly isn’t driven by brevity