The latest fallouts in GC world

[Pluvia]

My terfing energy has been focussed elsewhere in recent months and I haven't been here or on TwiX or social media much. Now I've taken responsibility for tweeting/ comms on behalf of a small but potentially significant LGB group and I discover that there seems to be something going on — another schism — in GC world. Jane Clare Jones's name seems to be coming up a lot. Something seems to have gone on but I can't work out what.

If it was my own account I'd just ignore, but the followers of this account are bringing it up and seem to expect an opinion to be expressed or a side to be taken. Also I'm seeing a lot about 'ultras' and 'lites', which is new to me. Can anyone enlighten me? I need to tread carefully.

I was a feminist when at age 13, I opted for metalwork, woodwork and technical drawing in the first week of a new school, because I could already cook and sew. We had to apply in the first week or we were stuck in the options for the rest of our school days. I was frogmarched across the school after being taken with great drama out of the 'home economics' class and with great delight announced to all the boys that I had chosen to do 'their' subjects, and then I had 3 years of a fucking nightmare just doing what I loved doing.

I went on to work in construction my whole life, and my reports and results have been read out in No 10, and on the news, and I've been on Sky News regarding women in construction, and although I took a while out to teach, I went back into construction before I retired.

Those of us that 'do' feminism in the real world find it really fucking offensive that these women who have self appointed themselves as the guardians of 'feminism', call us whatever derogatory name they have shared in their sourdough whatsapp groups and ha ha ha about it as if they think we want to be in their nasty little cliques. I'd rather be with a group of my male friends at a gig to be honest. They are not all that.

What I will say in JCJ's favour is that she stuck her head above the parapet and talked about this when it was much riskier to do so than it is now. I've never enjoyed her writing style and she's lost a lot of my goodwill over the years but I still credit her for that.

Yes, I agree there.

If 'feminism' doesn't cover all women, then it cannot by definition call itself 'feminism'. It isn't something that higher classes do in university to lower classes. That's a different thing entirely.

KJK once posted "right-wing women are women" for this very reason.

Yep. FondOfBeetles uses her science training and clear writing style to explain stuff in a way that everyone can understand and debunks the "sex is a spectrum" crap.

Yes that was a whole bunch of made up nonsense.

Claiming that KJK was privately educated in Hong Kong paid for by her rich grandparents. To me, it's filed under the same objections to 'big house, blonde hair, selling T-shirts'. Even though it was completely fictitious!

I concur Floisme. Despite the disagreements on strategy and tactics that have arisen over the years, I’ve been very glad to see so many women (and men) standing up for women’s (and children’s) rights and providing analyses of myriad modern issues that affect women.

By recommending self-ID to Govt, Maria Miller inadvertently reenergised the feminist movement in the UK (and elsewhere) to include women who hadn’t considered themselves women’s rights campaigners before. She woke the sleeping dragon 🤔

Because it's fundamentally about the power differential and the direction that takes. Thats where the erotic charge comes from for fetishists, thats where the risk comes from for women, thats where the opprsssion comes from. Same with the class issues. Power and privilege.

There are fundamental tensions between equality and equity in fact.

Not trying to teach anyone to suck eggs, trying to work it out in my own head!

Also thinking out loud ... maybe the evolutionary pressures that make men more powerful and aggressive than women also make them more prone to paraphilias.

Holy fuck, we have a new range of possible reactions!

It's like Mumsnet just updated to circa 2016.

Are they visible to everyone? Or just the person who posted it?

I just thanked Arabella's previous post. Can you see it?

Oh, I guess not as it looks the same as before.

They should have used MN emojis. Needs a

No. And I put a funny emoji on it. Can you see that?

I cannot. So the only change is the wider range of reactions, and they are all positive still.

If British, all 4 can be weaponised / sarcastic.

( SLOW ) CLAP

LOVE ( THAT YOU'RE TRYING SO HARD )

THUMBS UP ( IT'S DEFINITELY A DIGIT I'M HOLDING UP, BUT MORE TOWARDS THE CENTRE OF THE PACK IYKWIM )

LAUGHING (AT YOU)

That's the spirit!

One of my offspring told me that the thumbs up sign is totally sarcastic with the youth.

Maybe I’m weird but I quite like the fact that ‘thanks’ (now known as reactions) are only seen by the poster being thanked. It seems less likely that the system will be overused in performative public thanking etc, if you know what I mean. It’ll help to ensure the vipers of FWR maintain their viperish manner and acuity.

I do quite like the new range of reactions though, I’m not on Facebook or any other social media so this feels fresh and new to me 🤣

Yes - women on the Relationships board regularly suggest that as a passive aggressive response to an abusive male.
Personally I reckon we can have great fun with the 😄emoji - especially in response to the odd delusional post 😂.

How long did it take for them to be put through the Mumsnetifier of cynical passive aggressive shading?!

As soon as I was made aware, I made it my business, nay my top priority!

To be fair. They need to be positive. MN is sufficiently, um, robust as it is.

I completely agree with this. Visible reactions would have the same negative impact on discussion and debate here that I've seen it have on other forums.