See this is what people say here but if you go on her social media the majority of commentators are still applauding her. On Twitter as on here it’s a small group of people calling her out.
It gives me strong cult-leader vibes as her behaviour towards SA is there for all to see - if people can defend this you wonder if there is anything she could do that they wouldn't defend.
I just had a look at the institutional library database to see which universities and scholarly organisations, if any, are carrying Jess's books. The answer is virtually none. Only the British Library, Trinity College Dublin, and the National Library of Wales are listed as having them - and these are legal deposit libraries, which means that every UK and Irish publisher is required to lodge a copy of every book they publish with them. What this tells us is that no one in any university department has chosen to use her books for teaching or even got their library to buy them. She has social media fans, yes, because she's very good at grandstanding and persuading people who know nothing about clinical or academic psychology that she's an expert. But actually in the field? Assuming people have even heard of her work, it's not well-regarded or taken seriously. Why Women are Blamed for Everything reads exactly like an unrevised PhD dissertation, because that's what it is. I recognised it as such right away, and I would have known even if I hadn't seen the actual thesis - there are so many giveaways. Sexy but Psycho isn't research/evidence-based at all. It's one woman's rantathon, and if that's what you want to read, you might as well just browse social media. When I was getting anxious or perfectionistic about my own research my supervisors told me that my PhD should be my weakest work - it's the starting point, not the finish line, and you're meant to move on from there. Jess has gone backwards in every respect. She might brag to her fans that she's some sort of field-changing expert, but the field is paying her little to no attention. She might kid herself that it's because she's just too amazingly radical and original for us poor moribund academics to cope with, but the simple reality is that thousands of psychology PhDs are written every year and most are not special enough to stand out.
I think it's unlikely most people defending her online know what Sally Ann has said. The sympathetic responses almost all vague tweets about bullying. There are a handful of people who do know what she's said and are choosing to write her off as "obsessed", and I suspect that's because they struggle to believe that a practitioner psychologist who produces world-leading research (because this is what they think Jess is) would behave as Sally Ann is claiming. Jessica's bluster about "lawyer-checked consent forms" and her little habit of calling the police out will satisfy some people. They will assume that she must be in the right if she's had legal advice and phoned the police. Her act is very convincing. Then there are a few others who are invested in the idea of themselves as radicals with special unique insight into psychology and patriarchy, and supporting Jess maybe gives them the feeling that they belong to a beleaguered but elite club. Admitting they were wrong about her would involve losing their sense of specialness.
The bottom line is that while there is a lot of noise and hype generated by Jess, it doesn't actually translate into any meaningful influence or involvement in the field. I doubt she cares about that providing enough people believe she's an expert - the fact that she can't stay off social media for five seconds and is always looking for a platform where people are less critical is testanent to that. She's all show.
