Jane Clare Jones, her friends and their impact

[catspyjamas1]

Following the JKR (JK Rowing) fallout about pronouns, JCJ (Jane Clare Jones) is all over X / Twitter and she has thoughts on everything... That includes taking multiple aims at Kelly-Jay Keen (KJK) and her methods like this: https://x.com/janeclarejones/status/2049176034373739007?s=20

JCJ has also taken aim at the Pronouns are Rohypnol
https://fairplayforwomen.com/pronouns/ essay from Fair Play for Women.

Anyway! The point of my post is to get a gauge of womens thoughts about JCJ and her friends / colleagues / "comrades" on the current discourse after the JKR fallout. How many women actually pay attention to JCJ? She contributed to one thing in parliment once (?) - what else has she done that has reached the culture at large (in the way that KJK has)?

Nonsense.

URL: https://x.com/janeclarejones/status/2054624048840114278?s=20

I do think the influence of KJK’s politics are a worry and that does go beyond personality clash nonsense.

Why did you have to spoil it, I was almost agreeing with you, I used to enjoy her writing. Now she's heading into Judith Butler territory, a kind of tedious self righteousness. She's making the same arguments Owen Jones does.

I read the Telegraph articles. The quote from JCJ gave me a WTF moment so i'm glad to learn she's trying to be more nuanced than Lambert's article implies. I don't blame her for being upset and i hope the Telegraph amend the article. I don't really think there's any need for nuance though. Hamas are monsters, for doing what they did on October 7th and for what they knew this would bring down on the heads of the Palestinians. Any Israeli who rapes, condones or ignores rapes is no better than Hamas imo.

Quite. Jane is replying to the 'some men are worse than others' post.

Which bit of my suggesting that Nicola Lampert (among others) are so desperate to find some feminists who supported Hamas' atrocities on 7 October that they're making it up is nonsense, btw?

Sorry no one is rising to your bait. Maybe you could engage with the actual topic if it’s something you care about instead of trying to turn it into a soap opera. I’m sick of political discussions being about trying to besmirch anyone you disagree with rather than being actual discussion of actual serious complicated topics. Like, I don’t actually even know who I agree with in that thread. But this game of whipped up outrage about quotes out of context and misrepresentations of people’s actual views just drives away anyone who doesn’t love the feeding frenzy away from the debate.

We will have to agree to disagree.

I do not think there is some conspiratorial plot to take down feminists. That is, in my view, nonsense.

I also believe that for JCJ to be shouting "CONTEXT!!!" in relation to the article and her tweet, the same principle of context should be applied to the entire, original, two tweet post which specifically refers to the report. She may have elected to reply to tweet #2, but she certainly read tweet #1 before replying. Her consistent inability to be clear in what she says is precisely why her tweet, to her and others, was taken 'out of context'.

Jane is clear that she's not excusing rape. She's said that unambiguously on multiple channels the last few days.

I think that’s Clare Page.

Not sure if you are addressing me but think you have missed the point.

Why are women in main stream media attacking feminists - of which there are many types - to make their own political points.

This thread was started about JCJ as an virtual commentator.

I was pointing out this bizarre situation.

Having some sort of virtual disagreement with other feminists is as I have already said of no interest to me.

But in the grand scheme of political interaction in the UK where does feminism within that fit? Why would randomly mentioning what a feminist may or may not have said figure in a broad sheet article.

And even if she did say what the newspaper article implied why would that be important enough to make it the basis of a whole article to trash feminists.

I am not trying to suggest no feminist should post online, or that other feminists should ignore them for doing this.

But for me it is just another example of when the main stream, both media and politicians, cherry pick feminism or feminists to suit themselves.

No respectable journalist would say the because a party member of a particular party said something that this was then the policy of the party.

For me it is about the fact that the mainstream media and politicians have no respect or real interest in feminism.

When convenient they will find a lone voice to justify what they want to do.

I'm just sick of it.

No.

What Jane is quite clear on is that there are consequences because reasons that might include rape as she shared today (attached).

She's also clear that Hamas = all Palestinian men and Muslims, neither of which are part of the original Twitter post and she decided was.

To be clear: this thread was nearly dormant.

I woke up this morning to see a notification that someone posted. That's you. You decided to resurrect this thread, and decided to share the ENDLESS trials and tribulations of Jane Clare Jones. I responded to share the thread from X and screenshots of the thread in case people aren't on it.

You're sick of the mainstream, politics, journalists etc. We all are.

You resurrected this thread to champion a woman that you apparently don't follow, don't care about and don't know. This is not the first time you've interjected on this board and created a "debate" so please, stop with the "woe is me" and "I'm just asking questions" - it's boring.

Well said. Wish I'd seen your post before I replied, took the bait and entertained the "I'm just so confused / just asking questions!" person.

Oh, no I have somehow been misinterpreted sorry. This thread bitching about JCJ is the bait. The whole turning everything into a stupid tribal loyalty thing.

This thread isn't about "bitching" about JCJ. Its about trying to understand women like JCJ and UK feminists from the Left, their tactics and ideology, and their contribution to societal and cultural change.

Although you seem to be using the thread to air your interpretation of what JCJ has said, primarily by twisting her words to fit what would appear to be your preconceived agenda.

What are you talking about?!

I did what is quite common on FWR added a link about an issue a thread had already been created with a further development.

The initial part was about online interaction between feminist commentators commenting on each other.

I point out that for some unknown reason because as I say, I have no idea who JCJ is, that now a female journalist was also joining in this online critique of other women, but was more serious because it seemed to be a false accusation published in a national newspaper.

It may not bother you, but even though I dont know JCJ I think it disgusting that feminism in the national media is so constantly misrepresented.

If you dont think it is, or dont care, you dont have to pay any attention.

Let alone make up some fantasy in your mind about why I wrote what I wrote.

Just bizarre.

Lets hope you get a better nights sleep tonight.

What change has JCJ brought about ? Can anyone tell me ?

I wonder too.

On being asked why she, and some other prominent British feminists, had failed to even tweet about the report, Dr Jane Clare Jones wrote: “We think it’s flagrant racism and dehumanisation being used in order to justify war crimes

This is the only quote relating to JCJ. It is accurate
The whole article is about the reaction to Oct 7 by Palestine supporting feminists.
I agree entirely with what is written, these feminists disgust me.
Why do you think it should not be in a newspaper? Is feminism not a political movement seeking to change society and the status quo? Should it not be scutinised publicly?
As usual you haven't laid out your reasoning. What do you object to exactly?
It is true that there has been silence about the new report from these feminists. Perhaps you could suggest a feminist reason for this silence.

It's not accurate though. Jane didn't make that reply to that question.

Spreading disinformation in a national newspaper is lazy, potentially slanderous journalism (which has probably had a high click through rate, so make that also self-serving journalism).

Was a JCJ fan. Was disappointed when I heard her speak (didn't finish thoughts or always make sense), and was very bored by the magazine. She's a valuable part of feminism but not the best all and end all.

This is the article.
https://archive.is/dPEV4

What answer did JCJ give when asked why she hadn't tweeted or comment about the new report.?

catspyjamas1 has linked to the Twitter thread above. Those are Jane's words but that is not the question, comment or Tweet she was responding to.

Susan says
Likewise. the feminists who draw any kind of moral equivalence between rape in war (everyone knows it happens, stop straw manning), and rape as war should be forced to read the Commission's report. Hamas are evil & choose women's bodies as their battlezone: it is that simple.

If l live to be 100. I'II never understand why intelligent women leap through psychological hoops to avoid acknowledging the bleeding obvious: some men are worse than others. Is it actual blindness. or fear of social consequences? Come on! Surely you are better than this

JCJ responds
We think it’s flagrant racism and dehumanisation being used in order to justify war crimes.

I don't know what she's whining about.
Hamas are not a race for a start they are a terrorist/political entity. They have committed war crimes against Israel.
The Telegraph article is fair comment. You're admitting that JCJ has made no direct acknowledgment of the new report and it's content.