Is it okay to work with groups whose principles you dont share as a feminist, but there is a common cause?

This is why I cancelled my Labour Party membership.

I thought, "It's worth hanging on in there because there are these women fighting for us and I want to support them and see Labour turned around".

Then I realised that they weren't fighting for us, they were fighting for themselves, for their place at the table to decide what is best for the rest of us.

It was the straw that broke the camel's back after buckling under the weight of Labour Party misogyny and authoritarianism. The final straw was the contempt for and undermining of other women by "Socialist Feminists", including the women running WPUK.

Whatever good work they have done collectively and individually, and I applaud them for it, it stands them in no more or less good stead politically with me than women of other political persuasions who have done good work for women collectively and individually.

Their behaviour has, more than anything else, made me reassess whether any "political brand" of Feminism truly puts women first or is capable of putting women first.

They talk all the time about having the right to establish their own boundaries and they have shown us where their boundaries lie. That's fine, no one objects to boundaries.

They do more though than setting up boundaries, to exclude women who do not support their general political aims. What they do is actively undermine and oppose other women's rights activists.

That is not "boundaries", it is setting out a battle-ground and going in for the attack. Where I thought they were facing inwards towards the Labour Party and trying to reclaim the Left for women, they are facing out, trying to recruit women to socialism and attacking women who they perceive as standing in their way.

That's fine too, but it means that they are not focussed on women's rights first and foremost. Which is also why I distrust their advocacy within the Labour Party on behalf of women.

@TinselAngel I hope can remind me but I recall something about the "Spousal Exit Clause" being bartered away - who did that? Was that within the Labour Party?

Someone wrote about how WPUK had started out as a women's rights organisation but had expended its aims and updated the website. I think a lot of us did not notice and have been confused and hurt by their behaviour towards other women.

Similar to how many of us did not read the small-print on the Women's Equality Party website and were shocked to discover that their definition of "woman" was rather broader than we imagined.

Socialist Feminists seem to despise Radical Feminists. I wish they didn't and would concentrate their efforts on trying to win over the Left. Or maybe they have decided that is a lost cause so they turn on other women in their frustration?

Whatever. I'll work with Socialist Feminists on the common causes of defending and promoting women's sex-based rights and safeguarding children but not to the extent of attacking and undermining other women who are doing the same thing.

It is people working behind closed doors, on issues which should be completely public and transparent, who are the problem; who have always been the problem.

I do feel let down by left political parties, all of them. But having left/Labour women telling the rest of us to shut up and to shun KJK, because they - the special cabal of left women - are working all this out behind closed doors, and we needn't bother our little heads about it!

No.

VestofAbsurdity · 22/11/2022 18:47

TRAs shot themselves in the foot with their no debate and refusal to appear on programmes with anyone with an opposing viewpoint to theirs and now they are hoist by their own petard.

Yes, this.

So for any any women who call themselves feminists, if they are trying to go down the "no debate" route, should absolutely know and be very well aware - "no debate", "we know best" is not a way to go. Otherwise, you're no better than #nodebate

Fuck off. If that's your attitude - "Women shut up because we are the women who know best and must speak for all women, be told" - Then, No.

We want a debate. We want lots of debates.

Isn't this kind of how political discource and action HAS to happen?

What's the alternative, get laws changed without actually interacting with the other citizens and convincing them, getting votes?

Because it seems like the way some people see it is that there will be the people who are morally correct, who will somehow manage to impose the right thing on everyone else, through some sort of power play.

That would either involve some seriously non-democratic process, or it's simply never going to be effective.

That thinking seems to be a larger issue in left politics.

Just came across another example of unlikely allies cooperating to achieve a goal:

Glenn Greenwald‘s partner David Miranda (Brasilian left-wing politician) worked together with the right (and left, of course) to give policemen in Brasil access to mental health services. Studies show that this helps decrease police violence.

One key-ally, Capitao Augusto in this is an avid Bolsonaro supporter. And Bolsonaro is the (dictatorship endorsing) hardline (now ex-) President of Brasil who threatened Greenwald and Miranda and tried to prosecute and silence Glenn Greenwald for digging up dirt on him and publishing it. (Also, without Greenwald‘s reporting Lula would still rot in prison instead of being the new elected President of Brasil).

Frankly, I doubt I could have looked past this, had I been in David Miranda‘s shoes, but then again, it is always a question of how commited you are to your goal…

They would and that is why they are so angry that they can no longer hide their deep and utter hatred of women and that's all women including those who pander to them and massage their fragile egos.

TRAs shot themselves in the foot with their no debate and refusal to appear on programmes with anyone with an opposing viewpoint to theirs

But they'd have gotten away with it too if weren't for those pesky women.

I would say it was the adult, sensible, reasonable grown up thing to do. Furthermore those who think their views will change if they so much as sit in a room with someone who has a diametrically opposed viewpoint can't be very sure of their own views or the basis for them.

TRAs shot themselves in the foot with their no debate and refusal to appear on programmes with anyone with an opposing viewpoint to theirs and now they are hoist by their own petard.

Exactly you stick to the matter in hand and leave everything else out of it.

endoftheline precisely!
If you want to achieve an objective you build broad alliances with people who want that, too. If you disagree on other things, well, you‘ll have to find other alliances for achieving those other goals…

I spent years working with an all party parliamentary group. One of the most effective and hard working groups of people I have worked with and extremely productive. They didn't waste time arguing about the things they didn't agree on.

Well a very good friend of mine went from pro-life to pro-choice partly because pro-lifers in the city centre kept on shoving lurid photos of fetuses in her little girl's face and partly because life caught up with her

+1

Thank's deepwatersolo!

Reading the recent posts make me think of Biblical analogies, like the Prodigal Son being welcomed home 😇

It is often remarked that the Social Justice/Woke movement does not have a capacity for "forgiveness", that once one has "sinned" that there is no hope of redemption.

I am not sure if that is true.

Throwing oneself on the mercy of the mob isn't going to help one iota.

Public humiliation by "Struggle Session" wouldn't do it either.

There does seem to be a system of buying "indulgences" however. Donations to a trans charity seems to be a common ploy with one wing of the woke.

I think though that KJK would have to be fabulously wealthy and do something like fund a single-sex rape crisis centre in every town and village in the land before they might sniffily concede that she is not ALL bad.

There is also the possibility of redemption if a Secular Saint decides to cease smiting the unworthy and instead smiles on the wretch.

For that to work KJK would probably have to dive into shark-infested waters to save Jeremy Corbyn's life and then he would belatedly acknowledge her as his secret love-child 😂

I don't know what, if anything, would satisfy the Americans though. Perhaps if she Ninja'd up a drainpipe and bludgeoned Trump to death with his smart-phone? 🤔

Sorry my answer is late Bosky. Yeah, The Young Patriots were white working Class guys who wore the confederate Flag around their necks. But Hampton&Co convinced them that they had Common interests (and a common enemy, I guess). So they worked together and the Young Patriots actually stopped wearing the confederate flag.

Yes! Brendan O’Neill is something to behold isn’t he? His arguments seem more robustly feminist than a lot of women. It makes me realise that there are some people out there who seem initially to be anti-feminist and likely to eyeroll when you make a feminist argument, maybe because they stereotype feminists as tedious lefty whiners or something, then when they realise the truth of the matter, and the injustice of the truth of the matter, it lights a fire under them and they go all out radfem!

It makes me realise how important it is to recognise one’s own prejudice and be willing to speak with anyone- you never know who is going to be a total diamond.

I agree with all of this. I'm sure KJK is careful who she works with but as she always says, she's speaking the truth so she's got nothing to be afraid of. It's hard to corrupt people if they are committed to simply speaking the unvarnished truth. But of course you can hurt them in other ways.

I know that KJK has totally radicalised Brendan O'Neill when it comes to trans issues. He used to be pretty obnoxious about feminism but now he is one of the most forthright speakers against gender ideology. He was at first of the 'be kind' persuasion and didn't see the problem with using preferred pronouns. Then he got chatting to KJK and Julia Long and now he writes articles about why he'll never used preferred pronouns. He had Genevieve Gluck on his podcast last week, and they were chatting away about misogyny and women being seen as castrated men. KJK alone is probably responsible for changing a lot of people's minds about this subject!

I don't think it's at all foolish to think that you can win someone over to your point of view if you have a good enough argument. The whole point of a debate is to try to make the strongest arguments to win the audience to your side. That's one of the reasons it's so frustrating when posters here refuse (or are unable) to make a coherent argument for their point of view. You might be right! You might get people to see it your way! Why not give it a go?

I suspect there’s a greater fear that the pro-choice person will somehow be ‘corrupted’ into thinking differently.

and of what happens if you can no longer caricature your “enemies’” position - either because you me assumptions were wrong but also they may not be as fixed and intractable as you imagine.

I don’t think it is foolish at all. You may not get someone going from 100% pro life, to 100% pro choice, but they might become more pragmatic about cases where a mother’s life will be saved by a termination, especially if she already has children, or when looking at the balance of rights where a young girl is the victim of incest, that sort of thing.

I honestly think that bloke from Hearts of Oak is being introduced to feminist ideas by KJK. I watched his video - one with the liberal use of the c word. But he was saying “how is a woman going to know if a bloke is a degenerate rapist just by looking at him?”.

I hope this is the right place to ask, but why is it always assumed to be so one way? If someone pro life works with someone pro choice, is it not possible that the pro life person could change their mind? Or is that a foolish question?

All in all, I think that different groups can work together towards specific goals, but they would probably all be wise to refuse ‘favours’ from one another and should ensure that they do their own communications, such as press releases - or be pretty stringent about any collaborative work, eg- an open letter, making sure that it is truly collaborative and all parties are 100% happy, having clarity about how they are going to sign things off, before it goes out.

That would be in cases like the FWS education event. For KJK, I think it is nonsense that people showing up at the event to listen and reflect on what is said, or take selfies or whathaveyou, are a danger. But I think KJK should be very careful about anyone she entrusts as staff or volunteers.

Absolutely makes sense @beastlyslumber . Goodness! You lot are a fascinating bunch.

Its so interesting thinking about entryism and the church too. I hadn’t really thought about that, but it is staring me in the face.

‘False prophets’ are in a way like the Buddhist near enemy. And the way KJK has been denounced and the reasons for doing so are bordering biblical 😂 She’s a false prophet - I am the real Brian!

Also, as you highlight, purist left wing feminism is completely at odds with accommodating Muslim religious conservatism. And yet here we are - notions of female ‘modesty’ and wearing a veil in public and needing private places to adjust it, because of sinful, tempting lady-hair, is frequently trotted out.

Also, how about the accommodation of a leading transactivist into the feminist fold - up on the platform, absorbing women’s words and getting paid gigs to rephrase them “women are entitled to define their own boundaries”, all the while not recanting his previous woman-hurting activism to leave women and girls no right to our own boundaries.

One thinks certain feminists should look a bit closer to home for the infiltration of hostile beliefs.

I hadn't thought about this, you're right. Maybe entryism is actually more of a danger than I thought. In this particular circumstance, I don't think it's an issue, but it's probably right to think that entryism is the biggest danger to any group or organisation. Even governments are vulnerable to this form of attack.

I've definitely seen women arguing that proximity to right-wing groups will make feminists vulnerable to entryism by these groups - this was a repeated argument on one of the KJK threads a while back, that Hearts of Oak were going to take over KJK and Standing for Women. But I think if a feminist group is collaborating with a religious group or a political party, the dangers of entryism are actually less because each group has its well-defined identity and role to play within the project. It wouldn't serve either group's interest to disband their own group in order to infiltrate the other group. So I still wouldn't see this as a reason for different groups not to work together towards the same goal.

I suspect that groups are less vulnerable to entryism when they have one clear and specific goal. A group that organises around a set of moral values will be more vulnerable because values are subject to interpretation and application to different goals. E.g. if the WPUK's value is to 'respect all minority groups' then that can easily be put to the purpose of silencing criticism of children wearing hijab or fgm etc. Whereas a group that is organising around the goal of protecting single sex spaces or keeping prisons single sex or fair play for women in sports is harder to infiltrate because as soon as you try to push them away from their goal, it will be noticeable and radical. And dropping that goal would mean the end of that organisation.

I hope that makes sense! Just trying to think it through. Really appreciate the conversation on this thread.