Women policing women

I think that women on the whole are more language policed because we are constantly checking ourselves to make sure that men don't 'check' us instead. I had an abusive father growing up and I would remember trying to get my siblings not to make any noise or be silly at all because I was scared he'd take it out on all of us. I knew that what they were doing wasnt that important, but i was overly paranoid because i knew how easy it was to set him off. I guess this situation isn't dissimilar; we're always policing the actions between each other in a subconscious fear that men will find another reason to hate us. Thats my take on it anyway. See the self-ID debate for example. Even on this forum we are policing each other to make sure that we don't say something TRAs can twist and distort to support their agenda.

I don't know if you want to discuss this on the thread Posie but I asked you about whether you believe in privilege and you didn't answer.. would I be able to discuss it with you on PM if you don't want to do it here?

Well said Writersblock2

The problem here is that you're not accepting that sometimes women use agency, when we have it which we often don't, to do things that can be harmful to other women. It's crucial we can name that as anti-feminist

I agree. There is this terrible thing called "the Patriarchy" which oppresses women; the Patriarchy should be dismantled- by whom is not clear. Society? Men? But heaven forfend any suggestion that women might take an active part.

There was a thread a while back bemoaning yet another tasteless, sexist Miley Cyrus video. The general tenor (and I am paraphrasing) was , yes it was terrible, but this is just what poor little Miley has to do to make a career in the music industry. No , it isn't. It was very rich Miley making even more money colluding in the making of tasteless, sexist videos because she lacks any other discernible talent.

Indeed

Perhaps, instead of de-railing yet again, some of the people who insist on following her around an Internet forum to pounce on her every time she opens her mouth would like to come along to a meeting to get their point of view across?

Literally who did this

I have to say, I’m getting bloody fed up of people coming in and de-trailing threads and turning it back, yet again, to Posie’s tweets (and their imposition, out of context, on what those tweets could mean). One of my own threads, about the Truro meeting, was completely overtaken by people (I don’t know their sex) who wanted her taken out back and shot (and us, the organisers, along with her, for daring to “allow” her to speak).

I find it particularly ironic in a thread which is about women being policed.

Thank god we have got women like Posie who won’t be brow-beaten and hounded away, but who bounce back time and time again to speak out on issues that impact women. And no, that doesn’t mean people can’t disagree with her, but could we try and stay on topic ffs?

Perhaps, instead of de-railing yet again, some of the people who insist on following her around an Internet forum to pounce on her every time she opens her mouth would like to come along to a meeting to get their point of view across?

The question for feminism about this, to my mind, is whether or not either side should be excluding the other side from gatherings and meetings discussing women's rights. Is there a threshold - from either side - of acceptability?

Yes, better to get back to the point.

I don't think there is a threshold, more a slant. One group is entitled to prioritise the upholders of patriarchal religion over the hard line critics who make them feel unwelcome.

Other groups are entitled to prioritise unflinching criticism of patriarchy in all its forms, even if the majority of their skin colours/heritages is from an oppressor class.

I don't believe excluding either (upholders of patriarchal religion or hardline critics of religion from an oppressor class) from open meetings but it is fine to exclude them from organising if they do not fit your slant.

I know i said i wouldnt keep posting...

But I literally answered her question! How is that contributing to a pile on? My god

I debunked this by saying that I disagree with her as much as the writer.

That strikes me as a 'personal' position of disagreement with an individual, owing to prior conversations, rather than merely commenting on one or two posts in the context of the wider thread.

*I disagree with the writer of the article as much as you, definitely.

Although admittedly taco you are the least of the three, the fact that you were making it about the op after the other 2, when up until then the thread was discussing the broader issues, it looked like a sudden pile on to me.*

But what I said wasn't a personal comment? She suggested that I would allow the writer of the article to have an opinion and not her. I debunked this by saying that I disagree with her as much as the writer. That's answering her question no?

I'm exhausted by this, so I'm going to stop replying to people now. I'm tired of accusations of pile ons and silencing when I have consistently been polite and respectful throughout any threads I have been on. I have never once implied or said that anyone can't have an opinion, so I don't really know what people keep implying.

With regard to this thread...

Some women hold hardliner views on patriarchal religions as detrimental to all women.

Some women feel those hardliner views tip over into racist attitudes and may also alienate the voices of women who are too often unheard.

The question for feminism about this, to my mind, is whether or not either side should be excluding the other side from gatherings and meetings discussing women's rights. Is there a threshold - from either side - of acceptability?

And I take exception to people following a particular poster around mumsnet to goad her into a particular argument.

Anyone would think it is an attempt to drive her from the forum.

I've read 6 pages of this thread and feel I don't need to read any more.

The threads that popped up on MN after WPUK's decision were not places I felt I could honestly engage. I find that discussions like these are best done on hangouts or Skype among women only, esp the women that are directly involved.

I find the constant interjections by those who are doing them in bad faith do not help. In fact, they hinder the process. I especially have issues when men try and use these threads as ways to divide and conquer.

I have had many disagreements with women I support (and I do support your work Posie, just like I support Greer) regarding feminist ideas but I don't think they get solved on message boards. They get solved by talking to women in other mediums where there's a certainty that it's women only.

Your question is a good one and has elicited some good responses. However, it's going sideways and personal.

Meh. I'm almost 50 and I've had my days of being immature and backbiting other women. I find once it turns personal, it just isn't going to be productive.

That said, I really love talking about issues that affect women as a class and how to resolve them.

Cheers

Personal criticisms of op

Number 1:
"Ha!
The irony of this when the poster has policed other women's clothing choices.
How funny..."

Number 2:
I'm amazed because your best friend VA did this to a woman

Number 3:
I disagree with the writer of the article as much as you, definitely.

Although admittedly taco you are the least of the three, the fact that you were making it about the op after the other 2, when up until then the thread was discussing the broader issues, it looked like a sudden pile on to me.

Flash the thread is not about that. Mentioning it will probably get people telling you to stop derailing the thread. It doesnt matter that you werent the first to TAAT but you have an opposing opinion, so I wouldn't mention it. It will just rile up other posters.

PermissiontoSpeakSir there have been no 'personal comments' though? Only from posie herself? Which is why what you said is confusing.

No its not like that. It's just that flash , taco and southfields all came one after another when the thread had been more broadly about the issues raised, rather than criticisms of the op as an individual, up to that point.

The Posie fanclub can't understand why some ppl disagree with her. "They must be trolls... etc. Here we go again.

I'm confused now PermissiontoSpeakSir where are the three posters making personal comments? Was this:

If that's the case you're possibly a terrible advocate of identity politics and need to have a sharp word with yourself

not a personal comment? Yet a poster with an opposite view is suddenly suspicious. Again. How many times must we make the accusations of posters not being genuine?