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.

From what i see, she doesn't stop any women speaking at her events. She hasn't the power to stop other women organising their own events.

Im not sure who exactly has been bullied to not speaking?

This post absolutely nails it. KJK is a voice for women who don’t work in academia, who are powerless in their day-to-day life but are much more likely to bear the brunt of the realities of these “debates”.

KJK and her supporters have been quite clever in framing this as, on the one hand, the superior, head girl academic types vs the humble ordinary folk like KJK. But KJK isn't poor and humble, is she? She and her husband (who runs a business events company) are comfortably off, and she has a degree from Leeds University. It's not that there's anything wrong with these things but it doesn't quite square with this narrative of poor ordinary KJK vs the powerful elitist head girls.

I wouldn't put it exactly like that. KJK is in one of those odd positions you get in English society, where her income and education might say she's middle class, but she doesn't have the cultural accoutrements of being middle class.

I'm sort of in a similar position, though slightly different because I'm not English. I sometimes find myself in places where people hear my accent and look like they're afraid I might glass them. In that situation it doesn't matter how many degrees I have.

But I think it's clear there are elite feminists who regard KJK as being awfully common.

I'd say the thing about KJK is that even if she's not working class she's grassroots, and that's worse. She keeps her ear to the ground, and if she's raising an issue it's because she's heard ordinary women raising it.

The trouble with the socfems is that they are elitist and quite openly so. They don't believe they have anything to learn from people lower on the social ladder than they are. They have the answers and their job is to educate us, or to patiently explain in Leninist jargon.

As I've often said, there is value in many approaches - you need to have your well networked policy experts etc - but there's only one side saying "ours is the only legitimate way of working" and it's not KJK.

Its not about wealth, its about who thinks they are qualified to talk about feminism.

There has always been tension between academic writing, party politicical feminism and the practicalities of life for women. Reading feminist theory, or knowing the left have fought for workers rights is not much use when you've been made redundant while pregnant, and its not worth the costs to fight it.

And that is, in part, whats going on here. The theories are good but dont always working real life.

@Twotribesgonna She lets some women speak , but my god, she silences lots of women with her bully tactics

Are you talking about 'silencing' on X, or is there some other sort of silencing that you are referring to?

KJK is open about her background and how she's become comfortable. Like @SionnachRuadh points out, some will always, perhaps not even consciously, look down on you for a working class background. Mine involved bouncing around foster care until I studied my way out and I've often come up against a wall within academia because it is predominantly expensively educated Oxbridge types who gatekeep, and likewise with many "feminist" names.

JCJ has never had a job and has never had to worry about the roof over her head because her parents' pay for it. I'm aware of others who are trust funded and / or multi - millionaires. That's just their background and I don't begrudge it, rather, what I begrudge is the common people act and a failure to acknowledge their relative privilege.

JCJ phoned a friend of mine to say I was "impolitical" which is nice speak for "a bit too common." I don't know what the purpose of such a call was other than to cause upset. Another asked if I could remove "philosopher" from my bio since it was embarrassing them by association. I have the qualifications but my background and not speaking their language and not conforming to unspoken norms led to trashing just as it has with other women who don't "belong."

The poster who said that JCJ lies is spot on. I'm aware of, shall we say, difficulties with at least three students on her course that were she answerable to any regulatory body would see her fired. I'm aware of financial irregularities around the Radical Notion. And on a personal level, she posted an especially distressing lie that I had invented claims of sexual inappropriateness from her Professor friend as "revenge" for a rejection. Some of us are accused of "holding grudges" which trivialises some very abusive behaviour.

I regard that crowd as upholding the very patriarchal dynamics they claim to be fighting.

You won't win with them and it's not even about that. Just do your own thing. KJK has done so and reached the public. I find the soc-fem lot irrelevant to my goals and that, I suspect, is the source of some resentment. The expectation of recognition which KJK has received.

That's very interesting - could you point me towards any good books on Distributionism?

Absolutely right that KJK has reached all sorts. I was absolutely dumbfounded yet also delighted when a male relative of mine recently mentioned KJK to me. He absolutely would not be someone I'd expect to a) find or b) watch her videos or c) be particularly feminist (he has no girl children, and no female partner) but he absolutely agreed with much of what she says.

However, he is someone who is incredibly honest with a lot of integrity. He sees quite a lot of ridiculous and counter-productive EDI in his job so I think the straight talking honesty must have hit home. He told me many of the things she's campaigning for and had gone away and done his own homework. I nodded along and just said 'you're absolutely right' then interjected more things I know about the ridiculous anti-safeguarding groups going into schools, for example. It was so refreshing and positive.

He also noted how KJK lets anyone speak and how rare that is - true grassroots activism. Pretty much any other public speaking event has gatekeeping and working classes are usually kept out. The difficulty of the grooming gang survivors to get their voices heard is an example - but the LWS event where people who'd lived in grooming gang areas talked about what went on, e.g. former social workers who told how they were threatened they'd lose their jobs if they spoke up and how guilty they felt. Absolutely shocking but refreshing too. Not some political soundbites, not some carefully curated media piece or talking heads. Normal, not rich, people speaking from the heart about their own experiences.

One thing I particularly love about KJK events is the equality of being able to speak but also the way KJK lets people make up their own minds. Pretty clear that some of the more religious speakers she doesn't really agree with but they are allowed to speak and there's no 'I don't agree with this but' afterwards.

Makes a change from politicians who think we're all too thick to know our own minds.

I agree with you.

I’m a child who grew up in poverty, to teen parents in Rotherham, was luckily clever enough to work my way out through academia.

It’s not about KJK being poor, we know she’s not, it’s about KJK not telling women they’re wrong about feminism because they haven’t read the right literature and theories about feminism.

Simply, KJK wants change. JCJ wants to sell theories. KJK wants better outcomes for all women. JCJ wants better outcomes for herself (financially, socially). KJK listens to all women. JCJ only thinks you’re worth listening to if you’re part of the “elite”. KJK argues her points. JCJ lies.

I know we often say this, but it's worth repeating: the academic feminists are, socially and politically, very very similar to the TRAs. You might even say they only differ on the single issue of TWAW.

Now I can respect people who've been willing to insist that TWANW at the expense of work and friendships, but I also know the incentive they respond to. What hurts them most is being cast out of their social circle. And the main thing they want is to be allowed back into their social circle, and allowed to disagree on this one point.

That's not a position most of us are in. But for those in that position, it's very convenient that they can point to KJK and say "but I'm a reasonable person, not like that ghastly woman."

Fwiw, I think the reason the whole KJK v JCJ debate makes me uncomfortable is that I prefer it when people can conduct an argument on its own merits, rather than on the basis of the perceived personal qualities of the other side, eg too stuck up, too privileged, too whatever. And I think both sides have been guilty of that, though probably KJK has been more successful in putting her narrative across. KJK has always struck me as pretty clever, and I'm sure she's capable of arguing with JCJ without striking low blows about her never having had a proper job.

It’s not a low blow.

It’s a pertinent point about how far detached JCJ is from the real life consequences of the feminism she pontificates about.

It’s also the thing she denied ever having written in her blog after she deleted it.

She’s a liar with very little experience outside her very privileged bubble. Of course that’s an important point.

Agree, it’s just personal, nasty, and a distraction. JCJ is hardly the aristocracy either her parents were public sector types, teacher nurse type thing. Not everyone who went to Cambridge has a trust fund! Anyway it shouldn’t matter really there are different types of feminism and different ways into caring about women’s rights or taking action, and you don’t have to annihilate one to care about the other. It’s not a winner takes all competition.

It all started because some thought she shouldn't speak out Islamic practices, and lots couldnt cope with who she was talking to when she went to the States.

Its based on principles that have nothing to do with gender ideology, but everything to do with her critics political stance.

As SionnachRuadh said, its comes from a place where KJK and JCJ have only GC in common, and where JCJ only clash with TRA on trans.

I used to like Helen Brunswell - Evans years ago at the beginning of the fight back on gender. But her stance on the usual left's usual obsessions has made her slightly unhinged.

https://x.com/brunskellevans/status/1943784339126587592?t=aGDzSshgo4bJOhWlUZGIQQ&s=09

It's quite a long rant, here's a taste;

Second, Julie Bindel, you say I malign and misrepresent high-profile gender critical feminists. To malign and to misrepresent is to speak harmful untruths. I don't.

About you, for example, not only do you support Israel, but you claim that this is a stand for civilisation, using the chilling language that justified the attempted genocide of Jews. https://x.com/bindelj/status/1716208081955115421….

Along with most gender critical feminists, you were the first to sign the October Declaration, declaring yourself a Friend of Israel. https://britishfriendsofisrael.org.

i think it’s healthy for people to have their own views. My issue with kjk is that she has a huge platform and is constantly playing the victim on it, whining about how the “Soc fems” were mean to her. But then she’s spiteful to them. Classic darvo.
One moment she is bragging about how rich she is and the next she’s whining about how she isn’t making enough money.
Then she gets a huge ego boost from patronising women who find it difficult to speak up and they fangirl her in return.
Excruciating. I’m glad she has lost so much popularity. One day her platform won’t be so big and her whining will get much worse. Her PoW was an embarrassing disaster.

I asked you a question upthread. Did you miss it, maybe?

Yes I did @WithSilverBells , can you repeat it?

You said: She lets some women speak , but my god, she silences lots of women with her bully tactics

My question was:
Are you talking about 'silencing' on X, or is there some other sort of silencing that you are referring to?

Oh I see your question now. I mean silencing online. KJK is an online bully.
Her LWS events are just a group of fans now , they don’t have anything left to say. They’ve been speaking for years now while everyone else has moved on.

Her LWS events include the women in the opening post. Women who feel oppressed by the sartorial choices of the men in their communities.

It's the opposite of 'nothing left to say'.

And as for silencing, well I'm not on Twitter, I don't know how you'd silence somebody. You certainly can't do it on here. You can't stop people commenting or posting. How do you do that on Twitter?

Presumably if you can silence people, women would stop getting rape and death threats from TRAs.

You have used the following words to describe KJK, all on one thread:

megalomaniac
in it for the glory
slaggs off everyone
rancid behaviour
divisive
spiteful
self-absorbed
bully
horrible person
whining
bragging

Can you see why it might be difficult for some of us to see much difference between your behaviour and the behaviour you accuse KJK of?

This from Keep Prisons Single Sex seems to be something to do with the fallouts as well, and I wish I understood why. I think I remember them pointing out that Sex Matters hadn't included them in some Parliamentary briefing event they were organising, but I imagine there is more to it than that?

I haven't been able to keep track of a lot of the fallouts, because as well as the obvious soc fems v KJK dispute there seem to be a number of others. The most recent one, as alluded to by a PP, is the very bitter disagreements over Israel/Palestine, which makes me very sad because the movement has split even further. A lot of soc/rad fems who would normally regard themselves as supporters of Bindel are now very angry with her for her pro-Israeli stance.

Back in the 1980s there were so many splits that the women's movement fell apart, and I wonder if the same will happen again.

It seems extremely difficult for feminist to separate causes leading to many refusing to work with others because of a total unrelated issue.

I get that priorities change - ive notice lots of people i follow on twitter talk of nothing else but Palestine. But just because they've pivoted and changed focus, its bonkers to think others have to too.

There's also a weird double standard. They refuse to work with women because they disagree about Palestine, but are willing to work with LOJ even though he actively promoting the removal of women only spaces and is in favour of children transitioning. Why dont they stay mad at the men?