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

Especially when you start utilising the languages of war to describe everything. Categorising everyone as ‘enemies’ and ‘allies’ is a huge problem in the 21st century. It’s all picking sides and having to be seen to be on the right one

It's really not though, it's the opposite when you genuinely hold conviction in your beliefs.

Look at me, I don't fit in anywhere. I'm GC in so much as I believe in single sex spaces to protect women on a legislative level against men who could abuse the system to take advantage of women, but I don't believe being GC extends to denying trans peoples' ideas about themselves and day to day dignity, so I support pronouns, living as women, the concept of genuinely just "being" trans which is so rejected here, yet I'd never be considered a trans ally despite all that because of the fact I do believe in single sex spaces.

On the contrary to wanting to be right, it's a very hard and lonely place to be in, when everyone on one side is screaming at you HAND MAID and everyone on the other is screaming TERF.

Except that the whole allies and enemies model is STUPID.

Do you even understand the difference between talking to or engaging with and supporting?

Because they’re not looking to talk to people and find ways forwards. They’re looking for allies to help them defeat their enemies

Yes. You've hit the nail on the head. That is the answer to the OP and why it doesn't work to club together with people pushing narratives you disagree with in order to target the "enemy". It's not a good faith and honest approach is it? It falls down to scrutiny when you pick an "ally" with such unfavourable views. It brings your own judgement and point into question, and negates your credibility.

In my personal view, no it is not okay to nurture a political relationship with groups that represent ideas that I cannot abide

good job you aren’t tasked with international relations then, isn’t it?

Especially as, when relations fail entirely, you end up in situations like the Ukraine war - and everyone suffers.

finding ways to work with people you don’t agree with is important.

You're more than welcome to support those people most vociferously but you may find somewhere along the line that rather than "cancel culture" there simply isn't the appetite for the views they hold in wider society.

And mermaids would most certainly not be letting in anyone who might threaten the ideological purity of their event by asking uncomfortable questions.

Because they’re not looking to talk to people and find ways forwards. They’re looking for allies to help them defeat their enemies.

Again though, there is a huge spectrum of morality between "purity politics" and using your critical thinking and nuance to reflect on the context your beliefs are existing in.

It's very nice to acknowledge that holding x view doesn't make one a bad person, or that it's the only view they hold. But you still have the responsibility to not go too far down that path. In my personal view, no it is not okay to nurture a political relationship with groups that represent ideas that I cannot abide. I can respect everyone's right to personal belief especially over emotive issues like abortion.

But I cannot respect or abide anyone who feels that it is okay to try and legally remove other women's right to choose. Any sort of collusion with those groups (groups are not individuals subject to the same nuance as a human being and therefore do not need or deserve the same empathy as a human).

You also can't conflate political groups with individuals for the above stated reasons - being emotive about how it's not right to judge people and it's denying their free speech blah blah doesn't cut it when what you are actually talking about is rejecting an organised group pushing for certain policies.

Would you not recognise this if it was a mermaids event designed to talk about teaching children about transitioning I wonder? Would it just be considered a healthy talk about education then?

Or would the source of the information suddenly then become extremely relevant?

If Mermaids were hosting an event like this, which was open to all and where other groups with different views were also sponsoring and being platformed, then I would support that. I would be very happy to attend such an event and would look forward to asking many questions and trying to get many points across.

There are no opposing view points there.

the thing about cancel culture is that there never will be. Let’s all just shut down and shut out anyone we don’t want to hear from. We’ll pretend they don’t exist except where we want to use them as a bogeyman.

And we’ll stop anyone else from trying to talk to them too. We’ll insist they are ‘collaborators’ (in the language of war) and shun them too.

just brilliant.

Talking to people are trying to find any common ground or areas of consensus is helpful.

no person or group shares all your views. We all have to learn to live with differences and manage to get things done regardless.

Insisting on ideological purity and division is extremely harmful. It just makes everything worse. Especially when you’re determined to demonise anyone who holds different views.

Especially when you start utilising the languages of war to describe everything. Categorising everyone as ‘enemies’ and ‘allies’ is a huge problem in the 21st century. It’s all picking sides and having to be seen to be on the right one.

The clue is in the sponsors. An event sponsored by certain groups will influence the topics covered, the speakers selected.

Would you not recognise this if it was a mermaids event designed to talk about teaching children about transitioning I wonder? Would it just be considered a healthy talk about education then?

Or would the source of the information suddenly then become extremely relevant?

And okay, even if you believe it was to in good faith discuss "education", it is sponsored by those groups. It's hardly an unbiased event designed to create debate, it's to discuss topics from an agenda set out by the sponsors.

If it were a debate it would have been advertised as such. There are no opposing view points there.

Okay, cancel culture. Why do you think that it's an event about supporting anti-abortion campaigns rather than an event to discuss cancel culture?

You're doing it again. "Collaborating" "supporting". By your logic, they would also be collaborating with and supporting you. Rather than groups and people simply sharing space to discuss ideas and find points of agreement.

I think you really need to clarify what you think this event is for, Dreamwhisper.

Do you think that the person debating Kathleen Stock here is 'allying' with her?

It's not to discuss education, it was to discuss "cancel culture"

And gay rights do affect gay women?

Where have you got the impression that this event in support of anti-abortionists, dreamwhisper? It's an event to discuss education. It's not in support of any of the groups that are organising it.

I'd like to see any feminist who would say they'd be happy to picket at an abortion clinic or protest their existence.

Saying you respect personal beliefs of people who don't morally agree with abortion is again, a thousand miles away from collaborating in any way with a group who seeks to remove the choice and therefore a woman's bodily autonomy.

I can't believe I'm even having this conversation on a feminist board.

Going along to an event in support of them

What is your understanding of what a 'conference' is?

frankly what is the use of a "feminist" who is incapable of defending their point of view. The argument about abortion, for example is an ongoing one. For many years women in the USA had their entitlement to abortion facilities guaranteed, now that is history. Surely we need to engage with pro-lifers, not just run away.

Exactly. If you're too scared to engage with debate and argue for your views when it matters then you're no real use to your movement at all. You might as well be on the other side for all the good you are doing.

Also, I am not a "feminist" I am a feminist.

That would be great if that was the point either I or the thread were making.

I would be more than happy to go up to debate pro lifers or even, if appropriate, hear them out.

Going along to an event in support of them because they hold one belief in common with me, for totally the wrong reasons, covers neither of those things. I is a bad faith argument to suggest that anyone would be going there under the premise of the OP but also going under there to speak out against the same groups.

It would be nice but it is just not the reality of the situation.

The woman saying she's not comfortable attending events to hear views from anti abortion and anti same sex marriage groups is the anti-feminist?

There is nothing to indicate that those views will be expressed in the meeting, but frankly what is the use of a "feminist" who is incapable of defending their point of view. The argument about abortion, for example is an ongoing one. For many years women in the USA had their entitlement to abortion facilities guaranteed, now that is history. Surely we need to engage with pro-lifers, not just run away.

As for anyone suddenly questioning the need to safeguard children or the impossibility of changing sex because Hitler or someone abhorent also holds those believes, the idea is absurd.