Why are some gender critical feminists praising Rod Liddle?

[Mouldemort]

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

Liddle wrote that shortly after Peter Townshend was arrested for downloading child sex abuse imagery. Townshend claimed this was for "research". Liddle was satirising this in his column by making an even more absurd claim.

Shagging teen jokes? No I wouldn't be rushing to say lovely things but I didn't know the guy.

My impression is that the people expressing sorrow about Rod Liddle's death did know the guy.

OP: He was a wife-beating misogynist who argued that it shouldn't be a crime to look at images of child abuse.

None of this is true so what exactly is your issue with Rod Liddle? Is it that he stood up for women, is that it? You have made a thread to blame Kathleen Stock and Julie Bindel for admiring a man who was a friend and supported the rights of women. Well done you.

He was also a funny and imaginative writer and a person brave enough to go against the crowd. By making up over the top scenarios he revealed a lot about culture and politics. Bad faith posters can attack him by pretending everything he wrote was 'who he was' but mate, it's cringe making.

He was consistently down on the mentally ill and stated that gluten and peanut intolerance were made up imaginary illnesses. He referred to "mental elf" like it was comical and a ruse to get attention or cheat the system.

The news from twitter is that some gender critical feminists who knew him in a personal or professional capacity have said nice things about Rod Liddle.

Other gender critical feminists who didn't know him broadly share the OP's opinion.

His family clearly loved him.

Men are still not women.

Kirstie Allsop referred to him as ‘a class act whether or not you shared his views’ - don’t think KA would ever be described as GC.

There is an irony, unlost on me at least, that the kind of 'no-fun feminist' who would have been arguing against men who held a similar position to the one Liddle explores, are exactly the type of women that the OP and their ilk probably normally consider po-faced, puritanical kink-shamers.

Radical feminists have been pretty consistent on their attitudes toward porn and sexual images of children.

Do you understand what 'made' means in the context of accessing images of CSA?

It's a legal term that means accessing images. FWIW.

And to clarify my position: Images of CSA are abhorrent, and accessing or viewing - 'making' them - is rightly illegal. Before anyone jumps on me for 'supporting' it because I am explaining a term.

When I made my earlier comment I hadn't realised he'd died. Mea culpa.

Doesn't change how I feel about him. But I wouldn't have been as callous.

Spectator compilation. Rod Liddle imitating Rowley Birkin imitating Boris Johnson; that's going to stay with me

No, he really wasn't satirising anything. It was a serious article. You are laundering the reputation of someone who supported child abuse. It was as awful in 2003 as it is now:

"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"

The “collective neurosis and confusion about paedophilia” had been explored two years earlier in the Paedogeddon episode of Brass Eye. All you’re doing is highlighting you have no clue about what was debated and discussed in the U.K. in the early 2000s.

That article does not support child abuse.

'the one laudable and necessary aim - to protect children from abuse'

Are you aware that in satirical pieces, writers often say things they don't literally mean, and exaggerate for humourous effect?

Please read the opening paragraph of that article again and consider, for example, whether "I was doing it on your behalf" and "perhaps the policemen should turn up at your house instead" were intended as literal statements of what the author truly believes, or is a comic reversal acting as the punchline to the absurd scenario he had set up.

I watched it - it was excellent satirical comedy. This is not that.

I have a simple question - do you agree with Liddle when he says the following, or not?

"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."

I’ve already made my position clear. I’m not sure what you don’t understand. I’m pretty hardline when it comes to CSA images. I’m also pretty hardline when it comes to pornography. How about you?

It's very wrong. And if Liddle were alive today, I expect he would agree.

I don't particularly mind him attacking a religion like Islam. It's a huge organisation backed by Qatari and Saudi money. It was his decision to attack people with mental health problems, "mental elf" as he called it and claim that people with food allergies are making it up that was despicable. They have enough problems without him piling on. Nobody has their back at all.

Yes. Legally, it doesn't matter if you took the picture yourself, rendering on a screen is considered to be making the image.

And even if that weren't the legal position, just from basic economics, if you view something you increase the demand for it and in this case that means more kids getting abused on camera.

I don't think anyone doing or advocating for that to continue deserves plaudits, in life or death, especially not by those who supposedly want to protect children and women.

Yes. Exactly Jenni Murray’s argument at the time. Such a brilliant, consistent feminist, wasn’t she? Sadly missed.

www.theguardian.com/society/2003/jan/15/childprotection

Because they're grown ups.unlike you.

What do you think porn means? It means sexual images used for sexual purposes.

It's often abusive, it can be rape, it can be murder, but it's still pornography if it sexual images for the viewer to use sexually.

I don't know if you are trying to virtue signal, find spurious reasons to dismiss others, or what, but it's a complaint that bears no relation to the e actual meaning of words.

And even if you are asked, surely the obvious response is not to comment, rather than to offer praise.

Because they always do. See also comments on Russell Brand, Woody Allen, Johnny Depp etc.

They're part of the establishment, and the establishment will always protect men who say outrageously racist, transphobic and misogynistic stuff for cash. No matter how they treat the women in their life.

Jeremy Clarkson's comments about Meghan. James Cleverly's Rohypnol 'jokes'. Graham Linehan being...Graham Linehan. All and many more defended by 'gender critical' women because they're all part of the same club. They're either well-paid by wealthy right-wing media tycoons or close to them - it's fairly obvious.

Transphobia is a tool used by the right to divide the left.

It's been used very successfully to stop all kinds of independence and rights campaigns.

It promotes the idea that male violence is inevitable and can only be ameliorated by avoiding men. It enforces segregation of the sexes, trivialises CSA and says men will always be superior to women. Even at chess and quiz shows.

It encourages regressive 'feminine' stereotypes by policing our appearance.

And does nothing whatsoever to help cis women. Just damages us.