Jane Clare Jones on navigating non-agreement/infighting

@GrumpyMenopausalWombWielder did the GRA have anything in it for women? What would we lose if it was repealed?

I'm one of the many women who struggles to keep track of the vast amounts of information in this business! There's always so much going on, with so many people, court cases, organisations...

I know what a woman is, though, and what the implications are of eroding that boundary.

This is one of the resolutions on WPUK's website:

* 3. Nothing about us without us.*
All organisations, committees and politicians speaking on issues of material concern to women to demonstrate that they have widely consulted the women they represent and serve and that such consultation informs their action and their policies.

Which I agree with. So it does beg the question why WPUK don't pay heed to their own aims & ask women what they want/need so that their ambition to get a 'seat at the table' is based on genuine collaboration & evidence based arguments.

The problem WPUK has is they don't want to compromise their political allegiances & don't want to be hampered by women who say no to any male being included in female only spaces. Because the accusation of transphobia is so damaging (within the political circles they're operating in) they choose to keep/include males claiming to be women in their fold to give them a shield to these accusations.

It's political expediency at the expense of women like trans widows - women who often are subjected to horrendous behaviour & abuse from partners/spouses when they declare themselves to be women. This is a clear example of how politics determine which women are worth throwing under the bus for political reasons. It also leaves the wedge of 'some males' being acceptable to this org & makes the entire arguments over single sex spaces impossible to resolve because we all know one male person in female space/services/provision renders the ability to exclude any male unworkable.

That's the stark reality of the situation we are in - this truth is something women have being working out for themselves & it why they're moving past WPUK on this. And it's why PP'a message resonates far better with women who have all worked this out too.

WPUK have a lot of women who are used to excluding other women for political reasons. They haven't worked out how to put differences aside to find common cause with others they're politically opposed to. Instead it's a flat refusal to engage. Which again seems to be the MO in left wing political spaces generally. It's that refusal that's also helped leave WPUK trailing behind the rest of this movement.

Baroness Nicholson has been a brilliant advocate for women in places where our voices have been rendered silent - she's been actively 'recruiting' HoL members who have been great in getting our cause more traction & exposure. She's an experienced networker & will work with anyone. And the progress she's made has been amazing to witness. That's what WPUK are missing out on, all for political purity & expediency.

I don't know if anyone here is familiar with Lachlan Stuart - he's been involved in the Labour Party for years, worked on policy development etc. and vocally supports his 'comrades' in WPUK - he's active on Twitter.

He's been having a 'moment' on twitter for days over the whole posie/WPUK debacle & has somewhat aggressively stated partly in conclusion to his output over the past few days:

"You are proposing law reform. In your case, GRA abolition. Expect scrutiny."

This is what WPUK are terrified of - GRA repeal gaining traction. Even if it's bad law, they don't want to go near it in terms of repeal. And again, the problem is, women have been working out that the root cause of all of the problems we're now trying to fight against stems from this legislation which is terrible law. The only grassroots org that have canvassed women for their views/input has been For Women Scotland. It wasn't an onerous task, but the results would definitely be 'problematic' for WPUK if they did the same. Because 83% of 550 respondents said they backed repeal of the GRA.

Link to FWS member survey results

I think politically, WPUK are hampered by their political allegiances in a way that FWS aren't (they repeatedly state they're apolitical as their members are across the political spectrum). And ultimately women have to decide if their political allegiances matter more that their feelings on women's rights/spaces/services in terms of being clearly female only. WPUK are very clear that they won't go near repeal, while women are strongly leaning that way with every obstacle they're encountering over straight forward requests for female only provision etc.

It's ultimately up to WPUK whether they continue to dictate their policy position as opposed to collectively bring women along with them. But honestly, I can't see women following this line in great numbers much longer. Maybe that's WPUK's ultimate goal? To return to be niche enough that they can just continue to ignore the elephant in the room - that the GRA is bad law & the root cause of all of this mess.

I agree with you. I also think that publicly calling other women names like domesticated zombies or dog shit because you don't agree with them is a) profoundly unfeminist and b) says a lot more about you as a person than the woman you're insulting.

@donquixotedelamancha thank you

what were / are KJK's views on adoption please?

It was a long time ago so I can't remember her exact words. It was on here but I'm fairly sure the thread was deleted.

Her comment was effectively saying that adoptive parents aren't real parents, perhaps even that adoption is morally wrong. I questioned that and she replied that that wasn't what she meant but didn't clarify despite being asked.

I don't like assuming malice so I put her comments down to lack of thought. Its not unusual for people to say very dumb things about adoption when the lack experience of it.

Growing up with a Tory father who felt girls and women could do anything and a Labour mother with a trade union official father whose wife (my grandmother)!rarely left the kitchen I don't see right v left as goodies and baddies and don't see that either side is more pro women. My own politics has changed over the years but I've remained a feminist.
The more people who see through the danger and nonsense of encouraging and facilitating children and teenagers to change their bodies to fit their personalities (at that time) the better

@donquixotedelamancha what were / are KJK's views on adoption please?

I guess the 'domestic zombies' exchange has stayed with me because it goes way beyond a public disagreement, and because it's not only deeply unpleasant but also demonstrates to me that women who think (some) feminists look down on them are correct to feel this way, and secondly that PP has made a connection with some of these women that the leftish/academicish branch of feminism ignores at its peril.

However that doesn't stop me also saying I think Sarah Ditum's Spectator article on Roe Vs Wade is a banging good piece of writing. I can admire someone without liking everything they do.

I’m sorry that was harsh of me to say it’s boring, but unintelligible and unnecessary to me. I don’t really get what you are arguing about, surely women’s rights over our own bodies and spaces and safety and security etc is paramount, and there is no right way to get the message across. Both posie on Instagram and Maya and Allison on here have opened my eyes

Easel Art
Thing is you’re doing it on a public forum in front of people like me who only get their info from mumsnet. And generally read AIBU. I got drawn in by the Allison Bailey case which was shocking , why don’t you pm each other with this stuff. It’s boring
This ^^
And very centred around England. Remember what is happening in Scotland ?? The law is changing for women and girls now in Scotland . It is on it's way. I think our Scottish sisters have organised and campaigned with so much more solidarity and respect for each other, in spite of having really horrible institutional barriers and harassment from the onset .

Thing is you’re doing it on a public forum in front of people like me who only get their info from mumsnet. And generally read AIBU. I got drawn in by the Allison Bailey case which was shocking , why don’t you pm each other with this stuff. It’s boring

In this thread I'm seeing a lot of mixed messages of this type:

Wow. Well, that's Sarah Ditum down the drain. Publicly dissing other women who are fighting on the same side of you in a war is a really shitty thing to do.

I don't expect us all to get along, or to agree on everything. I think that in many cases this is a feature, not a bug: being part of a movement which has many different opinions in it is how we challenge ourselves and our arguments, and come out with stronger selves and better arguments.

However, a thread in which many here seem to simultaneously be saying "we shouldn't tear each other down" AND "wow, aren't WPUK (or Sarah Ditum or whoever) sneering and elitist/insert epithet of choice", then I think some rethinking has to be done. Pick one.

I like both Sarah Ditum and WPUK a lot, by the way, though I don't necessarily agree with everything she and they have said. I also really like lots of other women and women's organisations mentioned here, again although I don't agree with every pronouncement or choice of focus. I'm less keen on a few others, because my analysis of being "pro women" precludes me supporting them, but I understand that we all don't feel the same. And that's fine.

I think us analysing why we do or don't support this or that stance or action by this or that organisation, is fine. I don't think it's "infighting", I think it's normal debate. But we should be honest about it.

Couched in a lot of nicey-nicey but basically comes down to this:

I am concerned, and troubled, by a narrative which is gaining increasing traction, that suggests that there is really no need for arguments, or any thinking really, that everything is very simple, that all that is necessary to win this fight is to communicate a very simple message to the public, that anything else is a distraction, or is just pointless, or is elitism.

Let me translate for you....

"Kellie Jay Keen focuses on one simple message, and people pick up on it. She gets more attention than the rest of us and we don't like it."

JCJ - we see you.

I absolutely agree. I used to be of the left and considered myself progressive and feminist but in recent years I have felt betrayed by the politics that emanates from these centres of right-on thought and have given up on them. Tell me again that intersectional feminism has nothing to do with the unnervingly stupid ideology that is gender ideology, that most professional feminists aren't more tied to their leftwing politics and "optics" than to the actual welfare of women. That they dont relativise and minimise the suffering of say, muslim women against the perilous-to-their-reputation optics of appearing Islamophobic? KJK has been accused of making remarks about the hijab. Well the hijab is a horrendously gendered attire and tied irrevocably to oppression by males and I dont give two fucks about saying that. I am not a middleclass white woman - I live in Asia and my reality is that Islam is far worse than evangelical christian nutters. I refuse the labels of islamophobia and transphobia when both are ill-defined and self-serving thought crimes devised to shut down critics. So I stand far more with Kelly Jay than WPUK. It took me years to shed the instinctive cringe I felt initially when encountering KJ, so this is not a decision I arrived at easily. I consider the Stella Creasies and Laurie Pennies of this world infinitely more dangerous to women's rights and I bitterly oppose them.

In recent days there has been criticism of KJ not being sufficiently outraged by Roe v Wade being overturned. The professional feminists are in a proper froth about it and are using it to slam down GC women. Again fuck that. Abortion rights are dear to me but I dont waste any energy on the toxic blackhole that is US politics. I'd far rather contribute to movements that work for abortion rights in say, the Philippines than in the US, where the women are organised and wealthy with huge institutional support. Let them fight for their own rights in Alabama or move out. I have chosen my battles and don't give a flying fuck that they dont ally with the ACLU or even, WPUK.

Thanks joody. I hadn't seen that.

I wasn't very clear I guess, this isn't quite what I was getting at. The exact thing being advocated for or against isn't my point, only that someone might see it as fighting male supremacy.

I think the "on behalf of women" element, and also perhaps "women as a class," can very easily lead to a way of thinking about feminism that allows people to justify that their voice is the one advocating on behalf of women, rather than the voices of those women themselves, who are presumably ignorant or handmaidens or turkeys voting for Christmas.

It very much takes the discussion out of the realm of actually working through the problem or propositions rationally or evidentially, into a kind of hierarchical jostling for power.

MenopausalMe

Spot on.

And I’m really interested in the “how do we discuss those issues?” question.

It is such a ‘tread carefully’ area and all too easy to be misinterpreted/ misunderstood, especially in online discussions.

I’ve attended a WPUK meeting but was a little put off by the organisers/speakers being so cosy with Kristina Harrison at the meeting. Meeting other local feminists at the meeting was worthwhile. After a promising start WPUK seems to have fizzled out. I provided my contact details but hear nothing. As a socialist and feminist i feel engaging with the Labour Party is a waste of time right now and WPUK have proved that by their lack of headway with them. But thats fine they can chose who they align with just as we can.

I don’t follow KJK but admire her ability to reach and engage with women outside usual feminist circles. Those tweets were at best clumsy, but how do we discuss some of the issues she raised? Deplatforming her for them was playing the TRA playbook.

There’s room for all women who want the freedom to define and organise ourselves, we’ll never be one view, theres too many of us

But isn't the mail point with the grooming gangs issue that people were not wanting to blow the whistle because of a fear of being accused of racism? There are actually people who remember being told to leave it for that reason.

The Andrea Dworkin quote doesn’t say “standing up for women” or “what is right and good” though; what it says is: “fighting male supremacy on behalf of women as a class”. And that’s her definition of feminism. So in a debate about any of the examples you include, the first step would be to be clear about whether they constitute fighting male supremacy and therefore fall within Dworkin’s definition of what feminism’s purpose is.

It’s not clear to me that/how parental leave for men is fighting male supremacy. But no doubt some form of argument could be made. On the other hand, it is clear to me that opponents of women’s right not to be forced to carry a pregnancy and give birth against their will are supporting male supremacy.

I was in a cafe once listening to an overweight late middle aged man speaking in a very animated and emphatic way about how unfair it was to deny young women the opportunity to work as grid girls. So very unfair. And I thought to myself ‘hmm, I wonder why this topic is so close to his heart, rather than the barriers to women becoming judges’. I’m sure he thought he was standing up for women. He wasn’t fighting male supremacy though. He wasn’t Dworkin’s definition of a feminist.

What’s useful about Dworkin’s definition is that it provides a useful test to apply to all those tedious “but women want to shave their legs!” arguments and sort the wheat from the chaff in what to apply time, energy and focus on.

I don't have a problem as such with that quote, but it does seem like it creates a situation where some people who try and follow that road end up appropriating, or negating, the voice of others.

So one woman may feel that state sponsored daycare, or unrestricted abortion, or shared parental leave, or some other set of things, is the path for standing up for women. But then there are also lots of women who disagree, and while they may understand and accept the difference of opinion, what they don't accept is the idea that they also are not standing up for women, or what is right and good. It's a very short space to say, those women's voiced against these things don't count because I don't see what they are saying as good for women.

It's the kind of problem that's reared itself on the left forever, with a group that sees itself as speaking for the interests of the unenlightened masses below, who will appreciate it once it's all come to fruition.

Couldn’t agree more. I saw a smattering of tweets about this on Twitter today. I despair.

I don't think WPUK claim to speak on behalf of all women.

Their stated aims are very clear and freely available in the public domain.

I didn't like their platforming of Debbie Hayton, although it made strategic sense at the time as their primary campaigning aim was calling in the question and halting the proposed reforms to the GRA, which DH was vocally advocating against as well. . As far as far as things stand at the moment, that aspect of their campaign has been successful.

That was in 2019, I believe. Not sure that they'd platform DH now, tbh.

Given that, I wouldn't agree with the poster who said they hadn't moved the dial in left wing politics. They've created a space for leftist feminist organising in what is a very barren landscape and played a very significant part in halting the GRA reforms.

And, to be fair, the left are such a shit show at the moment, no-one else has been successful in 'moving the dial' either.

GrumpyMenopausalWombWielder

Excellent post at 19.53. I'd be very worried about policy makers thinking WPUK speak on behalf of all women.

I think JCJ, WPUK and co think regular women who do what they can in their own spare time, care a lot more about JCJ and WPUK than we do. To me, they're all sources of information that has to be interrogated, weighed up, and used as you might need to in order to write to your MP or take part in a consultation or resist a crap initiative at work or in your kids' school.

There are likely reasons why Labour won't want Posie drawing attention to what's known to have happened in areas with largely Labour-run local politics. The screenshots WPUK posted are devoid of context but they invite the reader to have their own thoughts so mine were:

• these lack context and I can't even read all of what each one says, let alone what began the thread
• recently, a chief offender was also revealed to be a council welfare officer (which cannot have been news to those in the Council, surely including elected councillors), I imagine Labour wouldn't want attention on this. Posie would not, not mention this if relevant to her message
• Labour seemed to accept the most recent Rotherham report which found "oops! no further action and it's all different now anyway" and they're way off the public opinion in that regard

We can't know the extent of the "problem" of what's been called "Asian grooming gangs" because there is no reliable data. The report started under Javid and published under Patel concluded this. We on this board know that there are problems with data because we know that rape with a penis has been being recorded as being committed by women. The extent of that problem isn't known. But it's not beyond the realms of possibility that there might be deeper data problems. Better data might show what's gone on in largely Conservative-run areas.

As against Cockbain's Guardian piece, there was this with another perspective:

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9070905/DAN-HODGES-reveals-inside-story-cover-abuse-young-girls.html

"a ministerial ally told me: 'Some issues get under your skin. And that's what happened with Saj. When you become Home Secretary, you get taken to see the unit that's combating child abuse. And they're literally looking at live streams of children being attacked. As a father, and a Muslim man, this was personal to him.'
I spoke to a number of Javid's aides who worked with him at that time. Each of them was clear on two important points. His intention was to produce a comprehensive and definitive report on child grooming. And that report was going to be made public.
...

One other key area – the one Ms Patel was careful to highlight in her foreword – was the lack of hard data on the ethnicity of offenders. It was an issue Home Office aides kept using as a rationale for not drawing a clearer link to the predominance of Asian offenders found in countless high-profile grooming cases. But as one official explained: 'They were right, there wasn't any hard data. But that was because people didn't want to record it or look for it because they knew exactly what they would find.'
Whatever the reasons, by the time Javid left the Home Office in July 2019, the fate of his investigation had been sealed. As one representative of the victims bluntly put it: 'The civil servants buried it. Saj was committed to it, but they were the ones who buried it – 100 per cent.'"

Equally, I read Conservatives for Women and I note what they do and don't talk about. I'm not incapable of seeing these features, weighing up what they all say and landing on what is and is not the least contested ground - backed up by evidence.

They all have agendas, we normal women aren't so stupid we can't see that. Thinking we need a long thread and lecture is as bad as the HQs of all the main parties thinking they can just throw us under a bus with GRA "reform" and we won't say anything.