Squeamish about far right hangers on

When you say "equality tick-box credentials", you're saying that you doubt the skills of those on JC's front bench that are from minorities

Dawn Butler- utterly useless, thick as a plank and very happy to accept freebies.

I think that on any debate, you have to look at who is standing next to you, and why you're both on the same side

And yet both you and i find ourselves here on this board, and you seem to assume automatic opposition and ill intent because I point out something which doesn't accord exactly with your position.

You know, the Labour party, like all the other parties were always a very broad church...and then, increasingly under the sway of Momentum, Jeremy Corbyn and the new youthful demographic that had been nurtured, the Labour party front bench and most prominent spokespeople became all about conformity to narrow, politically correct thinking and agendas.

I am not a Corbynite but this is so offensive on so many levels. When you say "equality tick-box credentials", you're saying that you doubt the skills of those on JC's front bench that are from minorities. It's absolutely shocking that you should use your own political stance to take a shot at minorities

You may find it offensive, but it is, unfortunately, true.

I'm not sure what you think my political stance is, but I'm a life -long Labour voter, and even I can see total lack of talent and ability when I see it. The Labour party has become about 'all women' short lists, and ticking all of the inter-sectional boxes and yet it is still to elect a female leader, or to have women on its front benches who will turn up at the appropriate committees and speak up on behalf of women.

There's a massive difference between making common ground with some women in the Tory party and forming alliances with far-right organisations and politicians who are deeply anti-feminist. Surely people can see why it's not a good idea to associate ourselves with people like FRC? Ethical issues aside, it's an absolute gift to the TRAs, who then paint us both as being politically aligned with these people and funded by them. (This is exactly what Naomi Wolf is doing at the moment.) It means that all those people in the middle who aren't quite sure are able to write us off without even considering the arguments.

If feminists are going to win this battle - and remember we're fighting against people who really are funded by some dodgy organisations and who have absolutely no qualms about playing dirty - then we need to make sure there is absolutely nothing that can be used against us.

It's not about the rights of women on the right

It's about questioning why , after perhaps a lifetime of left leaning, you appear to align with thoughts of people on the right. It's about trying to untangle why you agree on one subject when on many other isms you might find the far right position abhorrent

Why are women from all political backgrounds brought together on this issue? Why do some of the left leaning politicians appear to find the female perspective morally wrong?

Sometimes you looked at Jeremy Corbyn's front bench and it made you think that some people were there purely on their equality tick-box credentials rather than on ability or talent.

I am not a Corbynite but this is so offensive on so many levels. When you say "equality tick-box credentials", you're saying that you doubt the skills of those on JC's front bench that are from minorities. It's absolutely shocking that you should use your own political stance to take a shot at minorities.

OP, I get you. There are certain issues I support who also get the support of people who are so so far away from me politically. I do tend to avoid signing petitions like that, and take individual action instead. Sending letters etc.

I think that on any debate, you have to look at who is standing next to you, and why you're both on the same side.

If there were left wing petitions I would sign them. But the left has abandoned women and girls.

I haven't RTFT but feel obliged to ask if you think women on thee right don't have, or shouldn't have, the same rights as women on the left? Should we start asking rape victims their voting preferences before deciding if we help them or not? Many women still vote Labour even after everything they have done to eliminate women. Politics has no place whatsoever in radical feminism and those who push purity politics are as big an enemy as the TRAS, IMO.

As for Jayne Egerton, she promotes and gives a platform to a man with AGP and who has proven time and time again to be no ally to women, the left or children, so what Jayne thinks about anything is not that important, always imo

It looks to me that most of those are about some sort of general support for that particular organisation and it's goals, and I would also say their interpretation of and understanding of race and racism.

Well, I have a lot of problems with their goals and understanding so no way I'd sign that. Even if it was not mentioning those things specifically, their goals are typically so vague it seems like nothing more than saying yes, I support this group.

On the other hand, if there was a petition to change a specific law in a specific way, or to support a particular policy point, I don't care if the BLM people sign it or even put the petition out there, so long as I actually agree with the specific policy point. I don't care why they want to do it, if I think it should be done.

Neither the left nor the FRC is my friend.

I am telling you, FRC is not the friend of say, an unmarried mom with mixed race gay kids - just to use an example! The FRC does not have my interests in mind, only their own. Their own overlap with mine in the most superficial of ways, on this one issue.

I mean, I'm not signing BLM petitions circulated where I am, because they are signed onto by anti-semitic, anti-women, anti-democracy groups. I'm not going to apply one rule to a BLM petition, and another to a women in sports petition. FRC support the death penalty in countries that have it for gay sex. That's not just a Tory bedfellow, or a conservative bedfellow - I'm OK with Tories and conservatives, because generally I agree that conservatism has a valuable place in discourse - but thinking that gay men should be put to death for being in a same sex relationship? That's well past the 'hold your nose' stage for me.

Fwiw, I wasn't bothered by Posie's US trip, so am not a purist at all. But FRC - man, that is a loooong way to the Christian right.

But is the feminists' view really more committed to equality? I don't think that's the difference there at all, in fact you could argue it both ways, you could say they are trying to force women's choices into the same model as mens choices which shows lack of respect for women as women. It comes down to this judgement about equivalent outcomes. Which interestingly looks a lot like the identity politics approach

That is, increasingly, how I view the matter. Feminism, when tied to 'equality' outcomes ends up resembling just another tick box on the inter-sectionality framework/diagram.

So I do not have a common cause with those that want us all back in the right box. I think we'd be worse off if they had control of the discourse than we are at the moment

Ironically, it seems that is the left that wants people, firmly, "back in their boxes" these days, to the extent that anyone who steps out of their box is denounced.

I've met ore than one feminist OTOH that has found the push for mothers to be in the workforce personally oppressive and feels that looking for equality of outcome in that area might be a mistake.

Basically - I think the vast majority of views on this are on a spectrum that's very much weighted towards the middle, whether people consider themselves to be on the left or right.

FWIW, I met Beth (founder of Save Women’s Sports) in person, briefly, and she came across as completely sincere and caring about women and girls, no matter their political standpoint(s).

I read or heard during an interview with her (can’t remember when, sorry) that she is also a DV survivor, and that informs a lot of her stance in favor of women and girls as a class.

Tl;dr I understand the hesitation of women on the left (like me) who don’t want their pro-female stance to be counted as anti-progress, but I just don’t see how signing on as pro-female sports could be assessed honestly as pro-sex-stereotypes.

I'm not sure petitions are really effective in the first place, even as they seem very popular these days. They create a feeling of political action where there really isn't any.

This. We are better off writing letters, visiting MPs, speaking to women in real life and organising within our natural habitats (whether that be left or right, political party or trade union, school governing bodies whatever) than we are signing a petition anyway.

Bear in mind that some people who are branded as ‘far right’ might well not actually be far right at all eg Boris Johnson (a libertarian conservative). In the current political Climate simply saying ‘humans cannot change sex’ can get you denounced as a Nazi.

Goose, I don't see feminism as trying to force equality , although I agree that inequality of outcome is often used as a metric for want of a better understanding of the impact of biology on a persons instincts

I see it More as trying to ensure that opportunity is not denied on the basis of sex, trying to avoid artificial limitations and restrictions

So conservatives seem to think that any differences natural, whilst ( in my feminism) I can see that many differences are not natural but forced , that predujuice is rife. Because I have experienced it.

And my feminism also wonders about how the differences should be acknowledged. For example, is it right that men have a larger voice in government because its natural that women focus more on the family, or should society listen to all voices and therefore ensure that women with children are accommodated? What is reasonable? We no longer accept that the man who punches hardest rules , we have moved on since the Stone Age.

TAAT is a thread about a thread.

Aren't they supposed to be funding UK feminists? #StillWaiting

Yes, where's my two dollars?

Aren't they supposed to be funding UK feminists? #StillWaiting

@pawpawpaw what's TAAT?

GC feminists and conservatives will generally agree that biological differences between men and women are real and matter - but this tends to be viewed in the context of it being a source of oppression by feminists and as a normative statement by conservatives ...

This kind of thing points to a problem I think with the idea that GC feminists/the left are pro-equality and conservatives are not.

The idea that male and female bodies have significant and largely unchangeable differences is objective fact from both positions. The conservative position tends to say that this fact tends to lead to different outcomes and choices for women on the whole, but that is ok. Most also agree that this may require certain protections for women. The feminist position tends to say that these different outcomes are a problem and we need to adjust society in order to make the outcomes the same, as well as women requiring special protections. The underlying assumption tends to be that without social oppression on top of the biological differences, outcomes would naturally be the same, but that's an ideological rather than an evidential claim.

But is the feminists' view really more committed to equality? I don't think that's the difference there at all, in fact you could argue it both ways, you could say they are trying to force women's choices into the same model as mens choices which shows lack of respect for women as women. It comes down to this judgement about equivalent outcomes. Which interestingly looks a lot like the identity politics approach.

These kinds of questions are the very ones that seem to be in real flux now in terms of how they operate on the political spectrum.

This depends whether you call yourself a feminist or not. What would feminists have in common with the far right who are intrinsically against women's social and political freedoms from the oppression of men? Also they are racist and feminists oppose that. Don't they? So. Nothing. What would they have in common with right wing parties who deliberately target women with policy designed to harm them including austerity, rape clauses, the slashing of women's support services etc etc? Nothing. There's not really any hand wringing to be done. You are either willing to look the other way on racism and misogyny or you aren't.

It's a tricky one. The thing is, believing male and female are biological concepts is pretty mainstream. It appeals to everyone from the far right to the far left, from trad wives to radical feminists. That means people of all kinds of political backgrounds find themselves uneasily agreeing - just like they'd have to agree water is wet.