Robert Kenyon, Reform's candidate for Makerfield. Would you let him in your house?

Yes it would be good to have some level of consistency.

It's interesting that you state misogyny is OK if there was an apology and it's a long while ago. But you say nothing about the circumstances of Streeting's tweet being triggered by Moir's bigoted, homophobic and inaccurate article about a fellow gay man. What are the rules for Moir?

She repeated and exacerbates her position- Jan Moir- Daily Mail, 13 June 2024 "Wes Streeting, his threat to throw me under the train- and his pompous, self serving non- apology'

Did Moir apologise for her bigoted, homophobic article in 2009? Did she apologise to Stephen Gately's grieving family as she published her article before his funeral actually took place? Has he ever apologised since? Does she take any accountability whatsoever? Should she apologise. Do apologies count for anything?

Or does Moir continually deflect from her own shortcomings and deflect to Streeting's shortcomings instead- because he's a Labour MP? He was wrong. He hasn't shied away from it. He leaves it on his wikipedia page for the world to know. Nobody is saying it's OK.

Posters can come to their own conclusions on Moir's extent of pomposity and absence of apology 15 years later.

Then in our quest for consistency and fairness- how does Streeting's 2009 tweet about Moir compare to Kenyon's multiple vile on line comments and lack of apology?

Directed to Galaxy.

LemonJam

Kenyon's online comments are multiple and highlight his racist and misogynistic beliefs. He has made no public apology as far as I'm aware or said that his belief and values system has changed in any way.

His Reform UK colleagues seem to be dismissive about it.

Right wing newspapers, such as the Telegraph dig up any historical comments like Streeting's one tweet in 2009, as some kind of comparison to deflect and minimise the comments made by Kenyon and Reform UK colleagues. There's little comparison....

I agree LemonJam.

Yet we have posters on this thread minimising Kenyon’s vile comments via comparison & equivalence - posters who claim to uphold the rights of women🤷‍♀️

Then is spirit of consistency- let's imagine every single politician in recent history as a university student.

Thats a student tweeted a comment along the lines of "I'd happily throw X under a train" ( that is what he actually tweeted" in response to a journalist writing a bigoted, untrue, homophobic or misogynistic article about their death that was repugnant.

Now are you more incensed about the student who apologised or the more mature bigoted, homophobic newspaper reporter?

Should that university student in those circumstances be excluded on vetting from entering politics? Should that reported be chastised and told to apologise and not repeat writing bigoted, untrue homophobic articles?

What should society tolerate and what are the rules?

Wherever you land with that- Kenyon's repeated racist and misogynistic comments falls far below such standards.

Yeah my feminism doesn't involve thinking it is ok to suggest pushing women under trains if you don't agree with their views. That's not feminism it is just looking out for women you agree with. Feminism involves fighting for the rights of women whose political views you don't agree with.

Yes we watched people cheering on threats to women they saw as bigots. We have seen it all before.

Galaxy

Yeah my feminism doesn't involve thinking it is ok to suggest pushing women under trains if you don't agree with their views. That's not feminism it is just looking out for women you agree with. Feminism involves fighting for the rights of women whose political views you don't agree with.

Galaxy- do you have absolutely no views about Moir's bigotry and homophobia? Do you have no views about the distress Moir caused to Stephe Gately's grieving family? Do you have no views about her lack of apology? Do you have no views that she was just looking out for Daily Mail readers that agreed with her homophobia? Do you not support the rights of men- and only women?

After all you did ask for consistency at 17.37.

.

But that way of thinking means that nobody can ever speak out against anything, unless they have also spoken out about every other injustice/lie/bigoted tweet committed by anyone ever, whether they were aware of it or not.

Whataboutery doesn't move arguments forward, however tempting indulging in it may be.

I have many views on her but that still wouldn't make the throwing under a train comment any better. Also we were discussing misogyny, no I don't include fighting for mens rights to be part of that.

It is not whataboutery it is lack of trust in those who use womens rights as a political football.

Galaxy doesn’t your feminism include fighting for the right of Carol Voderman not to be sexually abused online?

Yes it does and I don't agree with Carol Vordeman politically on many things. See how easy it is.
But no it is ok to say it about Jan Moir because reasons.

Yet, in your view, Streeting’s historical post (for which he apologised) was ‘worse than’ Kenyon’s online sexual abuse of Carol Vorderman (for which he has not apologised) … because reasons!

So you feel you have to fight for Moir because she’s a woman but not for Stephen Gately because he’s a man Galaxy?

You feel it’s ok for Moir to be vile and homophobic towards Stephen Gately because she is a woman?

You don’t agree with Carol Vorderman politically and therefore you don’t feel the need to fight for her rights to not be subject to Kenyon’s sexually abusive comments.

In all of this in your view Streeting had/ had the worst behaviour of all three?

I don't like threats of violence, now I don't actually believe Streeting was going to push her under a train but then I don't actually believe that the reform arsehole was going to do the deeply unpleasant things he suggested.
I used to like Streeting a lot, he stood up for women rights relatively early on when it was quite tricky, I have gone off him lately but absolutely nothing to do with his old tweets. I am not sure what I feel about the whole trawling through social media thing, it makes me uneasy to be honest.

No lemonjam I answered very clearly that I would fight for vordeman despite not agreeing with her on many things, I expect the same response from other people to men suggesting Moir should be pushed under a train.
I could fight for Gately but it wouldn't be challenging misogyny and would not be feminism. It would be something different, something I spent 20 years of my working life doing, but that's by the by.

10 years actually, don't know where the 20 came from. Always good to be accurate.

Galaxy

Yeah my feminism doesn't involve thinking it is ok to suggest pushing women under trains if you don't agree with their views. That's not feminism it is just looking out for women you agree with. Feminism involves fighting for the rights of women whose political views you don't agree with.

Absolutely, women’s rights are (or should be) for all women, of all ages, race, colours and political persuasion.

I don't think Streeting's comment was misogynistic. It wasn't expressing "hatred" of women or "contempt" of women or sexualising women. FGS a man can say something unpleasant about a woman without it being "misogynistic". Streeting's comment was "unwise" and I do not condone it but it was prompted by Moir's article about Gately not Moir as a woman. He was angry, made a rash statement and has apologised. Not his finest hour but to use it to defend Kenyon is frankly laughable. Kenyon posted a tweet about performing sexual acts on Vorderman, that clearly falls into the category of "misogyny". Anyone who cares about women should understand the difference.

Galaxy

I don't like threats of violence, now I don't actually believe Streeting was going to push her under a train but then I don't actually believe that the reform arsehole was going to do the deeply unpleasant things he suggested.
I used to like Streeting a lot, he stood up for women rights relatively early on when it was quite tricky, I have gone off him lately but absolutely nothing to do with his old tweets. I am not sure what I feel about the whole trawling through social media thing, it makes me uneasy to be honest.

I think it’s fair to say most people don’t actually think Streeting wanted or planned to push Moir under a train or view his reactive tweet to her article as an actual threat of violence.

I still don’t understand however why you feel unable to condemn Moir’s homophobia, bigotry and distress she caused Stephen Gately’s family just because she is a woman.

I do think Kenyon wants to stop abortion for women however which really undermines feminism. I also and for the life of me understand why he thinks so lowly of raped women. That is really, vile misogyny.

Oh there is always a reason for mens behaviour, I don't care how angry he was or what her views were/ are. In the same way I don't care why Kenyon did it or what his reasons are.

Galaxy in your opinion, is Streeting’s post worse than Kenyon’s?

It isn't really about Streeting or Kenyon for me. It is about a lack of trust of those who use womens rights as a political football. Only shouting for womens rights of those women they agree with, and excusing any attacks on those women they disagree with. I just can't fight alongside those people because I don't trust them.

It isn't really about Streeting or Kenyon for me

Galaxy yet your post earlier today stated that Streeting’s comment was ‘worse than’ Kenyon’s.

I don't like threats of violence, they concern me more than sexual unpleasantness. As I have said I don't think streeting was going to push someone under a train but I also don't think Kenyon was going to do what he suggested 🤢. To be absolutely honest this thread has confirmed absolutely my distrust of those who are shouting about it.