Help protect children from gaming harms.

Take our survey

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Why are some gender critical feminists praising Rod Liddle?

264 replies

Mouldemort · 03/08/2026 16:38

Can anyone give any insight into why gender critical stalwarts such as Kathleen Stock, Julie Bindel and Rosie Duffield are praising Rod Liddle? He was a wife-beating misogynist who argued that it shouldn't be a crime to look at images of child abuse.

It could be they are excusing his behaviour because he was personally nice to them, but honestly I am not sure.

https://x.com/Docstockk/status/2084268019270684830

Kathleen Stock (@Docstockk) on X

Gutted about Rod Liddle, he was a great man. I take huge pride in having been regular contributor to his show, and I appreciated his support for my writing very much. I know full well what the online sisterhood think about this but I don't care in the...

https://x.com/Docstockk/status/2084268019270684830

OP posts:
Thread gallery
11
GinaandGin · 03/08/2026 18:35

WallaceinAnderland · 03/08/2026 17:05

Never speak ill of the dead. Talk of dancing and pissing on people's graves is beyond the pale. At the end of the day, no one's opinion really matters, we'll all be gone when our time comes.

Nonsense
Old fashioned out dated piffle
So we shouldn't speak ill of Jimmy Saville then
Or episten
Maybe we should ban history on schools because it talks ill of dead people

AstonUniversityPotholeDepartment · 03/08/2026 18:36

Speaking of reddit, I think we've got two redditors here, judging by those two consecutive posts that just appeared about JS.

RogueFemale · 03/08/2026 18:37

nicepotoftea · 03/08/2026 17:08

They aren't excusing his behaviour.

They are saying something nice about somebody they know who has died.

Human beings have complicated relationships with other people, particularly off line.

Yes.

TwinklyRoseJoker · 03/08/2026 18:38

There is nothing remotely misogynistic about the username: Mouldemort.

Seriously people, just give your heads a wobble, eh?

BackToLurk · 03/08/2026 18:39

Mouldemort · 03/08/2026 18:19

Why are you putting evidence in inverted commas? He literally wrote a non-humorous article advocating the legalisation of child pornography. Your working class relatives are very different to mine.

"How absurd the law is. But at least it is an appropriate reflection of our collective neurosis and confusion about paedophilia generally. The one laudable and necessary aim - to protect children from abuse - has become warped by our consuming, obsessive hatred for those who find children sexually attractive. There is no causal link between viewing child porn and abusing children. And even if there were, it would not be sufficient, within the philosophy of our judicial system, to simply assume that an unpleasant penchant for the former presupposes guilt of the latter."

Why do you think the Guardian published this?

AstonUniversityPotholeDepartment · 03/08/2026 18:40

TwinklyRoseJoker · 03/08/2026 18:38

There is nothing remotely misogynistic about the username: Mouldemort.

Seriously people, just give your heads a wobble, eh?

Elucidate, s'il vous plaît.

Shloopie · 03/08/2026 18:42

I think I'd maintain a polite silence than think up some lovely words to say about a man who'd assaulted his pregnant partner.

TwinklyRoseJoker · 03/08/2026 18:43

AstonUniversityPotholeDepartment · 03/08/2026 18:40

Elucidate, s'il vous plaît.

i would rather those saying it IS misogynistic set out their reasoning. So we can all see how flimsy it is.

i mean, we all know what’s going on here, but it’s not for me to explain their thinking is it?

SodThisHeadache · 03/08/2026 18:43

I am still not going to refer to men as 'she'

Weeellokthen · 03/08/2026 18:44

AstonUniversityPotholeDepartment · 03/08/2026 18:09

Did you mean to say "nobody should find an adult [...] fucking funny"?

I don't know what kind of charmed life you'd have to live to literally believe that nobody in the world could find that funny. At a bare minimum, have you stopped to consider that lots of people are out there downloading child abuse imagery, and abusing children for real? Do you genuinely think they get offended by jokes concerning sexual activity with children?

While problems exist in all parts of the world, the United States emerges as a particularly high-risk area. Childlight’s new global index, Into the Light, found high levels of CSAM (child sexual abuse material) hosted there as well as the Netherlands.

Meanwhile, one in nine men in the States (10.9%, equating to almost 14 million men) admitted online sexual offending against children at some point in their lives. Representative surveys found the same said by 7% of men in the UK – equating to 1.8 million offenders – and by 7.5% of men in Australia (nearly 700,000).

Many more across the three countries said they would also seek to commit contact sexual offences against children if they thought it would be kept secret.

https://www.childlight.org/newsroom/over-300-million-children-a-year-are-victims-of-online-sexual-exploitation-and-abuse

🙄you know exactly what I fucking meant!!!!
Just to clarify I am v aware that there are many, many, many, many paedophles, globally!!
You know nothing about me having a "charmed life" and being oblivious to the evils of our world.
You really should think before you lecture

Lins77 · 03/08/2026 18:46

He was pretty awful, according to my limited knowledge.

But to coin a cliché, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

lechiffre55 · 03/08/2026 18:47

AstonUniversityPotholeDepartment · 03/08/2026 18:32

I mean that we have multiple people in this thread posting absurd claims that no-one can find Rod Liddle columns funny.

To post such a thing and believe it means that one is ignorant of the existence of child abusers, the reddits devoted to jokes about sexual abuse, and Frankie Boyle's entire comedy career. No-one that ignorant of humanity and popular culture has anything of value to contribute.

The alternative is that they're lying and assuming that no-one will challenge them on their absurdities. By definition, liars don't have anything of value to contribute either.

TY for explaining, you had me proper scratching my head there.
In my opinion I think it was definitely some self depreciating humour on Liddle's part. It was vaguely funny, but not greatly.
While it was a joke I would not be amused at all if he really had done what he said in the joke. It's odd that some people can't tell the difference between a joke and reality. Not keen on the piece arguing for being allowed to look at child porn. I think that's pretty bad, and I refuse to read it. Not sure why it would get published in a national paper.

AstonUniversityPotholeDepartment · 03/08/2026 18:53

Weeellokthen · 03/08/2026 18:44

🙄you know exactly what I fucking meant!!!!
Just to clarify I am v aware that there are many, many, many, many paedophles, globally!!
You know nothing about me having a "charmed life" and being oblivious to the evils of our world.
You really should think before you lecture

If this is your way of saying, "yes, I forgot to put should in", then I'm glad to read it. Thanks for explaining.

SodThisHeadache · 03/08/2026 18:53

I still don't want a smear done by a man who pretends to be a woman.

Mouldemort · 03/08/2026 18:57

BackToLurk · 03/08/2026 18:39

Why do you think the Guardian published this?

I have no idea. Click bait? It's absolutely repellent. Why do you think the Guardian posted it?

OP posts:
AstonUniversityPotholeDepartment · 03/08/2026 18:57

I still don't want to use mixed-sex changing rooms. I don't see why Rod Liddle's oeuvre is relevant to that. Take his past articles up with the newpaper editors that approved them and paid him for them.

Dadalus · 03/08/2026 18:58

I've only read his Times columns for that last few years (after switching from the Guardian when they banned me) I thought they were funny and well written. I also wouldn't assume every word written represented his genuine opinion.

BackToLurk · 03/08/2026 18:58

lechiffre55 · 03/08/2026 18:47

TY for explaining, you had me proper scratching my head there.
In my opinion I think it was definitely some self depreciating humour on Liddle's part. It was vaguely funny, but not greatly.
While it was a joke I would not be amused at all if he really had done what he said in the joke. It's odd that some people can't tell the difference between a joke and reality. Not keen on the piece arguing for being allowed to look at child porn. I think that's pretty bad, and I refuse to read it. Not sure why it would get published in a national paper.

He’s following a philosophical thread. I don’t agree with his conclusion, because I think he ignores the damage done on the production of sexual images of children. However, he’s using the example of Pete Townshend, who at that stage I think was trying to argue that as he had reported a child porn site he visited to the police he shouldn’t be prosecuted. Liddle concocts a rather bizarre scenario in which if he viewed child porn images for ‘journalistic purposes’ he may avoid prosecution.

He extends this to mention those professionals who may view those images as part of their jobs. Police etc. Hence, his argument is, the viewing in itself is clearly not a problem. It’s the motivation that is being prosecuted.

BackToLurk · 03/08/2026 18:59

Mouldemort · 03/08/2026 18:57

I have no idea. Click bait? It's absolutely repellent. Why do you think the Guardian posted it?

Read the article.

likelysuspect · 03/08/2026 19:00

SoBoredOfSelfDoubtHowToGetOut · 03/08/2026 17:24

I mean it’s ok to be honest about people, dead or alive.

I really don’t agree with the don’t speak ill of the dead sentiment. It’s bollocks and bizarre, frankly.

What are your views on Jimmy Savile? Peter Sutcliffe? Or because they’re dead you don’t have a views?

Yes me too, Ive never really understood the sentiment either.

Hitler? What about him in the aftermath?
Saddam Hussein?
Harold Shipman?

Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g · 03/08/2026 19:01

LizzieSiddal · 03/08/2026 18:15

FFS it was not a joke! Have you read the extract of him posted upthread, where he writes about shagging Y10s- they are 14/15 years old.

He was great at supporting women against the trans nonesense. We can also say he beat women up and fantasised about shagging teenage girls. In my world that makes him pretty awful person. Others will disagree but don’t fob off his awfulness.

Did he beat women up? The only evidence I've seen is what's quoted upthread. Here's the link. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/oh-dear-the-telephone-puts-poor-rod-on-the-hook-again-489914.html

The broadcaster and writer Rod Liddle has become embroiled in another spot of trouble involving women and telephones, collecting a police caution after officers were called to his home following a heated domestic dispute.
The broadcaster and writer Rod Liddle has become embroiled in another spot of trouble involving women and telephones, collecting a police caution after officers were called to his home following a heated domestic dispute.
Liddle, the former editor of the BBC Today programme, was held by police for five hours after a furious row with Alicia Monckton, the 23-year-old for whom he left his wife, after she discovered their text messages.
Liddle was arrested after he and Monckton, who are expecting a baby in September, had the bust-up at their London home on Thursday afternoon. This ended in his girlfriend phoning 999.
Although she hung up before anyone answered, the police traced the call and turned up an hour later. By then, the row had subsided and Monckton told the police that there was nothing to worry about.
The police disagreed and took Liddle, who at 45 is 22 years Monckton's senior, to a south London police station where, after five hours, he agreed to accept a caution for common assault.
However, a furious Liddle, now an associate editor at The Spectator - where he met Monckton - has told The Independent on Sunday that he regretted accepting a caution. "I'm so furious and upset about it," he said. "If I'd had enough spine I would have said no to the caution. They couldn't have charged me."
The row, Liddle admitted, had been explosive - but he denied hitting Monckton. "We had this row and we were shouting at each other. I said, 'Well, phone the police', and she said she would. I thought she was only joking. She didn't talk to them, just hung up. An hour later the coppers got here. She begged them to go away, but they wouldn't."

Monckton confirmed that she hadn't been hurt. "There was a physical struggle with a suitcase, but he didn't hit me," she said. Liddle and Monckton have been living together since their affair was revealed last summer, shortly after he had married Rachel Royce, the mother of his two sons. Royce subsequently used the pages of the Daily Mail to describe in intimate detail how she checked his restaurant receipts, phone messages and even followed him after she suspected him. Royce said yesterday that Monckton "obviously sounds slightly unstable".
Liddle was held under new domestic violence guidelines in which suspects are questioned whether there has been a complaint or not.

MoistVonL · 03/08/2026 19:02

SoBoredOfSelfDoubtHowToGetOut · 03/08/2026 17:26

He did say he couldn’t imagine become a teacher because he’d want to shag the students.

And Steve Martin said he could never hold down a job if he were a woman because he'd be playing with his breasts all day.

I think it's called reductio ad absurdum. Although that could be a spell from Hogwarts; don't quote me on it.

It's ok to simultaneously think Rod Liddle was a shit-stirring contrarian AND a supporter of those GC women who stood tall.

Purity tests and black and white thinking are for the very young or those unable to understand nuance.

RoyalCorgi · 03/08/2026 19:03

One of the things you realise as a feminist is that most men are misogynistic to a degree. You have to accept it otherwise you'd go mad. So yes, I found Liddle's views to be offensively misogynistic at times. But on the plus side, he refused to believe that men could be women, which, whatever his other views, placed him well ahead of all the left-wing politicians, actors, journalists, academics, trade unionists, comedians etc who pretend to believe that men can be women.

Gender ideology is as misogynistic as it comes - any man who claims to believe that men can be women has absolutely no right at all attacking Liddle for being a misogynist. Because however misogynistic he was, he is still by an order of magnitude less misogynistic than you, you utter prick.

BackToLurk · 03/08/2026 19:04

RoyalCorgi · 03/08/2026 19:03

One of the things you realise as a feminist is that most men are misogynistic to a degree. You have to accept it otherwise you'd go mad. So yes, I found Liddle's views to be offensively misogynistic at times. But on the plus side, he refused to believe that men could be women, which, whatever his other views, placed him well ahead of all the left-wing politicians, actors, journalists, academics, trade unionists, comedians etc who pretend to believe that men can be women.

Gender ideology is as misogynistic as it comes - any man who claims to believe that men can be women has absolutely no right at all attacking Liddle for being a misogynist. Because however misogynistic he was, he is still by an order of magnitude less misogynistic than you, you utter prick.

Liddle said out loud what a lot of men think.

likelysuspect · 03/08/2026 19:07

WrongKindOfFeminist · 03/08/2026 17:44

Hi, OP. What does your username refer to?

Why do you keep asking this question?