UPDATE
Minutes after I posted this article, the ludicrous Jess Phillips published an article in the Guardian which could not have been better designed to prove my thesis. A number of people have posted comments on the Guardian article pointing this out, and they have all been immediately deleted by the Guardian. I just tried it myself and was also deleted. I should be grateful if readers could now also try posting comments there, in order to make a point about censorship on the Guardian.
Catching up on a fortnight’s news, I have spent five hours searching in vain for criticism of Simon Danczuk from prominent or even just declared feminists. The Guardian was the obvious place to start, but while they had two articles by feminist writers condemning Chris Gayle’s clumsy attempt to chat up a presenter, their legion of feminist columnists were entirely silent on Danczuk. The only opinion piece was strongly defending him.
This is very peculiar. The allegation against Danczuk which is under police investigation – of initiating sex with a sleeping woman – is identical to the worst interpretation of the worst accusation against Julian Assange. The Assange allegation brought literally hundreds, probably thousands of condemnatory articles from feminist writers across the entire range of the mainstream media. I have dug up 57 in the Guardian alone with a simple and far from exhaustive search. In the case of Danczuk I can find nothing, zilch, nada. Not a single feminist peep.
The Assange case is not isolated. Tommy Sheridan has been pursuing a lone legal battle against the Murdoch empire for a decade, some of it in prison when the judicial system decided his “perjury” was imprisonable but Andy Coulson’s admitted perjury on the Murdoch side in the same case was not. I personally witnessed in court in Edinburgh last month Tommy Sheridan, with no lawyer (he has no money) arguing against a seven man Murdoch legal team including three QCs, that a letter from the husband of Jackie Bird of BBC Scotland should be admitted in evidence. Bird was working for Murdoch and suggested in his letter that a witness should be “got out of the country” to avoid giving evidence. The bias exhibited by the leading judge I found astonishing beyond belief. I was the only media in the court.
Yet even though the Murdoch allegations against Sheridan were of consensual sexual conduct, Sheridan’s fight against Murdoch has been undermined from the start by the massive and concerted attack he has faced from the forces of feminism. Just as the vital messages WikiLeaks and Assange have put out about war crimes, corruption and the relentless state attack on civil liberties have been undermined by the concerted feminist campaign promoting the self-evidently ludicrous claims of sexual offence against Assange.
As soon as the radical left pose the slightest threat to the neo-con establishment, an army of feminists can be relied upon to run a concerted campaign to undermine any progress the left wing might make. The attack on Jeremy Corbyn over the makeup of his shadow cabinet was a classic example. It is the first ever gender equal shadow cabinet, but the entire media for a 96 hour period last September ran headline news that the lack of women in the “top” posts was anti-feminist. Every feminist commentator in the UK piled in.
Among the obvious dishonesties of this campaign was the fact that Defence, Chancellor, Foreign Affairs and Home Secretary have always been considered the “great offices of State” and the argument only could be made by simply ignoring Defence. The other great irony was the “feminist” attack was led by Blairites like Harman and Cooper, and failed to address the fact that Blair had NO women in any of these posts for a full ten years as Prime Minister.
But facts did not matter in deploying the organised feminist lobby against Corbyn.
Which is why it is an important test to see what the feminists, both inside and outside the Labour Party, would do when the leading anti-Corbyn rent-a-gob, Simon Danczuk, was alleged to have some attitudes to women that seem very dubious indeed, including forcing an ex-wife into non-consensual s&m and that rape allegation.
And the answer is …nothing. Feminists who criticised Assange, Sheridan and Corbyn in droves were utterly silent on the subject of Danczuk. Because the purpose of established and paid feminism is to undermine the left in the service of the neo-cons, not to attack neo-cons like Danczuk.
Identity politics has been used to shatter any attempt to campaign for broader social justice for everybody. Instead it becomes about the rights of particular groups, and that is soon morphed into the neo-con language of opportunity. What is needed, modern feminism argues, is not a reduction of the vast gap between rich and poor, but a chance for some women to become Michelle Mone or Ann Gloag. It is not about good conditions for all, but the removal of glass ceilings for high paid feminist journalists or political hacks.
Feminism has become the main attack tool in the neo-con ideological arsenal. I am sceptical the concept can be redeemed from this.
Stop reading the piece of junk and stop commenting there, and let it be known that you have stopped reading it and no longer are commenting on it, also any given opportunity ensure that the advertisers know that you have stopped reading it and you no longer comment on it.
I have not watched beebeecee since the time Stephen Sackur attacked a little old Muslim whom did not play the game;
SS- Do you believe (you do know and agree) that Mr. Blair knowingly did not mislead the parliament, and the people of the UK?!!!!!
LOM- No I believe he knew he was not telling the truth!
SS- Oh well what do you expect with community leaders thinking like you obviously others in the Muslim community will be thinking the same!!!!
The game of “do you believe” was far too rich for my constitution and since then I have not watched one minute of the tawdry packages aired by that ignoble organ that is ran by the propaganda taxes imposed on we the people.
I would like to ask could someone please tell me what a neo con is .? I have read this many times but I honestly do not know what it means
” could someone please tell me what a neo con is ”
On this blog it’s anyone to the right of Trotsky.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism
Isnt the same tactic used to fragment popular movements?
I have been waiting for someone to prove me wrong by providing examples of prominent feminists criticising Danczuk. An interesting silence.
As a feminist, I strongly object. What you are labeling ‘the forces of feminism’ is nothing more than the establishment using certain feminists when it suits their purpose, and as with many other legitimate causes, all too often some are bought out.
I wish we couldn’t be used but it happens in the UK and I see in the USA with Hillary Clinton and some of her followers using her faux feminism to attack Bernie Sanders.
Using this as an attack on feminism, on the right of women to have a full range of human rights, is unconscionable on your part.
Let me add that I expected better of you. What supposed ‘leading feminists’ say (and who declared them the leading ones?) has nothing to do with the ‘forces of feminism’ which doesn’t in fact HAVE any forces.
J R Tomlin,
Where precisely do I say or imply that women should not have the full range of human rights? Human rights are for all humans, equally.
Operation Mockingbird:
“Operation Mockingbird was a secret campaign by the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to influence media. Begun in the 1950s, it was initially organized by Cord Meyer and Allen W. Dulles, and was later led by Frank Wisner after Dulles became the head of the CIA. The organization recruited leading American journalists into a network to help present the CIA’s views, and funded some student and cultural organizations, and magazines as fronts. As it developed, it also worked to influence foreign media and political campaigns, in addition to activities by other operating units of the CIA.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird
Oh, yes those other humans, the male ones, did a LOT of fighting for women’s human rights before feminism existed, didn’t they. That’s why women didn’t have the right to education, their own children, right to abortion, and to control their own earnings until feminism came into existence.
An attack on feminism in general (as opposed to an attack on certain supposed feminists) is an attack on women’s rights. I note you didn’t tell me how you declared those particular feminists the ‘leading’ ones.
Are you going to go out and fight for my rights, Craig? As a female human being (not a neuter one ‘human one’ with no specific female concerns). I am specifically FEMALE and have concerns such as a right to abortion that do not apply to males of the species, whether you want to admit it or not.
Maybe no commentating ‘feminists’ but plenty of discussion chat and condemnation on personal timelines across the country! Plenty of comments and discussion also on webpages of national newspapers, not the guardian! I personally don’t read newspapers anyway! Most info is shared by friends with similar views, a whole sub culture which goes unnoticed.
“Human rights are for all humans, equally.”
Could not agree more. This is somewhere where only the Royal family has any rights. Please help to get Saudi Arabia removed from the United Nations.
https://www.change.org/p/united-nations-remove-saudi-arabia-from-the-council-of-human-rights-now?
I have rarely been so disappointed in someone I have held in high esteem.
“I would like to ask could someone please tell me what a neo con is .? I have read this many times but I honestly do not know what it means”
It’s neoliberal economics combined with bombing opponents of such economics to kingdom come.
Formed mostly of former Trots, at least in the PR dept.
J R Tomlin
What I meant by “leading” is most visible or prominent. Fair question. I do not accept that “an attack on feminists in general is an attack on women’s rights”. The two are not synonymous.
But let me ask you personally this. In your own public utterance, either posted comment online, or verbal communication, how does the balance stand of your own criticisms of Assange, Sheridan, Corbyn and Danczuk?
“It’s the economy, stoopid.”
Any political movement that forgets that is doomed to failure.
Women’s problems are economic, same as men’s.
And that applies to all other istisms.
Divide et Impera.
It shouldn’t be that difficult, using Lexis Nexis, to do an analysis of media coverage of the Assange case and compare it with Danczuk coverage.
The truth lies there.
I’d expect it shows Craig is correct.
Ms Tomlin
I understand that you have a right to have your unborn baby killed by a doctor (possibly the male variety). Why don’t you campaign for the right to kill it yourself?
Maybe with a 2 week window after its born so you don’t have to damage yourself with a coat hanger.
State feminism has always operated within the confines of a narrow, establishment consensus. Supporting military violence, economic repression, and brutal attacks on women – provided the political actors are ’empowered’ and privileged women.
Thankfully there are some real feminists out there, focusing on matters of real concern.
The global women’s strike have been tracing the connection between militarism, selective austerity, and attacks on the social rights of women for decades.
Unfortunately they are now in a minority.
ess Phillips is out of sympathy with the politics of the left and this is a other feeble attempt to undermine it. The Guardian wants to deny the British electorate a choice and clearly won’t be content until we are back to having two Tory parties to choose from. Talk to David Cameron, Jess, I’m sure he will offer you a job in return for stabbing Jeremy Corbyn in the front.
I read that Mark in Guardian comments and thought it very good. 😀 Is David119 you’re pseudonym?
or even your pseudonynym.
You’d think that Corbyn represented everything that ordinary people wanted.
I mean, what’s not to like from the perspective of the ordinary peeps.
Yet, you wouldn’t know it from media coverage.
Curious.
I was under the impression that today’s rampant feminists were more on the neo-lib side than on the neo-con side. Not quite sure what the difference is, though, between neo-libs and neo-cons – perhaps they are the same, with the former just wearing a mask.
As to Danczuk, would you not think that he is more of a tool than a proponent of any of these ideologies.
Doesn’t the child abuse scandal, which has occupied Danczuk’s attention for a while, seem designed to compromise the representatives of traditional conservatism? Unfortunately, delving deeper into the motives of this media-assisted scandal would involve breaking other taboos and giving the Neos grounds for stricter censorship.
i have left the following comment on the Guardian article, let’s see if it gets pulled.. no reason it should, if it does, i won’t be surprised tho.. man that paper really is an evil entity these days..
———
you really shouldn’t dean yourself fit to talk for the left. you clearly are not part of it. funny how you trudge out an old Galloway defence of Assange, rather than make a condemnation of Simon Danczuk. Between those two cases it is clear which is the most egregious example of sexual assault. The woman ‘accusing’ Assange of initiating sex with her has made no claim of a lack of consent, where as an ex partner of Danczuk has explicitly described sexual manipulation and abuse.
But more significant is the rampant cognitive dissonance displayed by flogging the dead horse of the ‘no women in the top jobs’ boo-hockey. Corbyn has compiled the first 50/50 split in his shadow cabinet, far more women than Blair or any other Labour leader has ever had, and he DOES have a women in one of the so-called ‘top jobs’, Kate Hollern is the new Shadow Defence Secretary. Of course it’s a joke for two more reasons; 1) there is no such thing as the ‘4 top jobs’, thats an antiquated concept, and unless you think bombs are more important than schools, you will have to reappraise your view on the shadow cabinet roles. 2) wouldn’t it be even more of an insult if Corbyn, or any party leader, had included women in certain roles just because they have a vagina? Surely the posts should be filled by people based on their suitability for the job? Isn’t that the true end goal of feminism, to be treated as equal?
for a more comprehensive and verbose deconstruction of this trend of so called left media using feminism as a tool of the neo-cons, see Craig Murrays blog.. google it, i wont link in case the censors at the Guardian have a hissy fit.
yup, it’s been deleted already.. amazing.
One of the leading journalists involved in Operation Mockingbird was Philip Graham, publisher of the Washington Post. From 1946 until his suspicious suicide in 1963 (after a stay at the CIA-connected psychiatric facility Chestnut Lodge, after he had begun to make indiscreet revelations on sensitive matters), the newspaper exhibited all the signs of being a CIA organ, and that tendency continued for years thereafter, arguably until today, when the editorial page continues to support neocon policies.
What’s your point? Women employed by the right wing press write things that are right wing?
Can we please distinguish between real feminists and the other variety employed as commentators by the neo lib press?
It’s a bit like saying all men are right wing just because most of the male “journalists” employed by the media say right wing things.
And here we have west Indian cricketer Chris Gayle being ‘misogynist’ and daft enough to think that whats good enough for Sharapova would also apply to him. Little did he know that his colour and youthful vigour would make him a target of feminists.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hC5XKcqeq_g
They said almost nothing about Sharapova finding the physique of a male interviewer quiet dashing, live, but Chris Gayle had reims written about his disgusting comments, when all he did was had the audacity to ask the interviewer out for a drink.
I counted roughly, there are about 30 plus online Guardian articles written by our glass ceiling only feminists that deal with the abhorrent and outrageous comments of Chris Gayle.
Now is it because Danzcuk is white and not so sexy that he does not get equal treatment by our so reluctant feministi dubios?
Could it be false jealousy that they are blind to Honky Simon? he who so eagerly explains on the BBC that he always had younger women in his life, not just his previous two wives….
And from his lofty position high up in Australia’s male bastion….
“Cricket Australia chief executive officer James Sutherland was more firm, telling reporters in Sydney that Gayle’s comments “border on harassment”.
Piss poor colonial racism and misogynism in the western empires, not just here in blighty, you should have heard what Fox TV had to say about Chris, its unrepeatable here and I won’t link to it, the man had enough stick for thinking aloud with his cohones.
This is the same Jess Phillips who stated that Galloway should never be allowed to rejoin the Labour Party. Galloway being another who has been targetted by the faux-feminists because in his defence of Assange he said the following;
‘Not everybody needs to be asked prior to each insertion. Some people believe that when you go to bed with somebody, take off your clothes, and have sex with them and then fall asleep, you’re already in the sex game with them.’
I can therefore only imagine that in the opinion of these faux-feminists, who don’t appear to understand human relationships in the real world, or even the concept of “context”, that a substantial proportion of the male population are therefore misogyny rapists.