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

Yes, it's the idea of infection that seems so powerful in these discussions where people want to prevent others from being exposed to "bad" ideas.

It reminds me a lot of the research around the idea that conservative temperaments tend to be people who are afraid of physical contamination as well.

I think that a lot of progressives now are actually temperamentally conservative in this sense. There is a high degree of fear of contamination.

KJK is therefore guilty of both sins of commission and omission. Firstly, she commits the sin of "talking to women who are pro-life, or who think motherhood is a high calling, etc. as if they might know their own minds".. Secondly, she is guilty of a sin of omission, because she fails to "tell them that their value systems are wrong".

And yet it was KJK who was critical of Muslims who put 7-year-old girls in hijabs. Tweeting about this and the ethnicity of grooming gangs resulted in her being no-platformed by WPUK.

In May 2018, we became aware of several tweets by KJK that made pejorative comments about Muslim communities. We believed these tweets would contribute to a hostile environment for people from minoritised communities. The views expressed in these tweets are diametrically opposed to our principles and beliefs.

womansplaceuk.org/2022/06/22/womans-place-and-posie-parker/

Thanks for collating and honing everything down so well from this long, complex thread @Bosky !
Really helps to see all the most interesting and thought provoking points pulled together.

That's a fascinating article Arabella. Very helpful to reflect on

Yes. Some feminists seem to believe women are passive vessels that are in danger of being hypnotised by the sight of a Crucifix and accidentally infected by far-right ideas.

It does seem quasi religious. Some people think they are 'saved' and are the only ones who can save others.

It's depressing.

Having said that - I suspect CI is more concerned itself about entryism than the other way round. They are taking a defensive stance against attack on their beliefs.

"The only time I have witnessed - entryism/ hostile takeover, it has been third wave feminists, transactivists and men taking over feminists groups and assets, by first acting friendly, then ‘offering to help’, then offering to help govern, then kicking out the feminists who created the thing.
I seriously doubt this kind of thing could happen with the CI, because, firstly, they have their own thing going on so don’t need to do it further their aims, secondly, I believe they are sincere about their concerns - worrying about the education of children seems to be consistent with Christian values, thirdly, I have never seen evidence of Christian organisations operating in that underhanded way before.

Entryism definitely takes place in Christian organisations but you probably just haven’t thought about it. There have been power struggles within the Christian Church since the word go. Entryism/hostile takeover is even constantly warned about in the New Testament. If you look at the history of Roman Catholic Popes in Rome until relatively recently it is all about powerful families trying to get control. One of the big events in the history of the Christian Church was the translation of the bible into English and German rather than Latin, so people could read for themselves what was written. Even today we see the likes of that Church of Scotland minister who gave evidence to the GRR committee ‘offering to help’ then presenting an opinion at odds with many in the Church of Scotland.

Yes. This covers quite a bit of the issues that some seem to have with KJK I think.

That's amazing @Bosky ! Thank you 😊

"I genuinely want to here ideas about real life sucessful campaigning whether locally or nationally. So for me it isn't so much about whether others are going to turn round and say you are a bad person/feminist for doing this, but does it work? ie a collaborative campaign made up of a very diverse range of groups. Does it in fact help the argument that people from a range of perspectives had different concerns about the same issue?

I don't have the historical political knowledge to think of other examples but there may well be instance where this type of working alliances have worked. eg abortion rights was a Liberal Party campaign wan't it?"

I was interested in the same thing, also if there were any counter-examples of where a diversity of viewpoints had been counterproductive and hindered collaborative working.

Thank you to PP for the following examples of successful outcomes:

beastlyslumber · 18/11/2022 15:36

Votes for women

Gay marriage

Civil rights in the US

beastlyslumber · 18/11/2022 15:51

"They had different reasons for wanting the same thing.
Some people supported women's suffrage because they were on the left and saw it as social justice. Others because they were more conservative and saw it as a means of preserving social power. Etc etc."

Ladyof2022 · 18/11/2022 18:34

"Many years ago everyone in my workplace had to pull together and organise together to take on our employer in order to get justice. In he end we went on strike, and we won.


We had nothing else in common. My workmates were Christians, Muslims, Sikhs, atheists, Catholics, Jews and Hindus. They supported opposing football clubs; they voted for opposing political parties; they were male and female, and many of the males were raging misogynists. They were gay and straight, and some of the straights were homophobic.


If we had not put ALL our differences aside and worked together we would have lost."

PriOn1 · 18/11/2022 19:51
(On general principles of collective organisation and campaigning)

"it is completely normal for diverse groups to come together to campaign on single issues. That’s politics for you. Very few issues are pushed through by small numbers, unless they have huge sums of money behind them. If a wide variety of groups all agree that one specific situation is morally wrong and they are willing to fight for it, they are much more likely to win that particular debate.

Most political debates are won, in the long term, by persuading people your position is justified. If wider society believes that a law is unfair and unreasonable, the powers that be will ultimately not be able to enforce it, though driving changes, even to unjust laws, will generally take some time."

Theeyeballsinthesky · 18/11/2022 21:48

"TRA will work with anyone if they think it will advance their cause


they’ve absolutely no problem politically with cosying up to the Crispin Blunts of this world for example


and even more so they’ve absolutely no problem standing alongside men who send death threats to women, say that women who disagree should die in a grease fire, who posted gleeful pictures of facing skeletons when Magdalen burns died & turn up at women's meetings screaming abuse & physically threatening them"

I think the last two examples are good and go well together because they reflect not a short-term tactic of convenience but a very successful long-term strategy of working with whoever it is advantageous to do so, including organisations that might be expected to be oppositional, see "Press for Change Campaign, 1994"
web.archive.org/web/19990423103416/www.pfc.org.uk/campaign/pfcaims.htm

EndlessTea · 18/11/2022 21:55

"I’ve noticed the crossover between radical feminist and religious conservative concerns for years and it has been of great puzzlement and interest to me.


Anti-prostitution.

Anti-gender identity ideology.

Anti child abuse.

Anti-surrogacy.

Anti-slavery and exploitation.


There’s loads more.


i concluded that some things are just wrong and people organise to abolish them, whether they are coming at it from a religious or political perspective.


I also realise that moral notions of ‘equality’ actually stem from religious beliefs, like ‘we are all equal before God’, which are sharply contradicted by the wild variance in fortune and misfortune between people in reality, so even though feminism is secular, its ideal of ‘a better way’ isn’t. So that’s why feminists and religious people keep bumping into each-other when we pursue our causes."

EndlessTea · 19/11/2022 08:56

"Regarding the OP, I think there has been a lot of cooperation between right and left and religious and secular groups behind the scenes. However those of the left cannot be ‘seen’ to do it, because the annoying, controlling drama llamas and idiots on the left will make life very difficult for them. It’s all pretty hush hush.


For example, you need signatures for a petition on abolishing prostitution. You go through your ordinary secular channels and get hundreds of signatures. However, if you collect signatures outside a mosque on Friday or a church on Sunday and your signatures will suddenly be in the thousands.


I would argue that it is extremely important for feminists to give the feminist perspective and have a presence to better inform people from the religious right. For example, if Christians want to provide a meal for the homeless, then feminists can advise them to have a women-only sitting first, otherwise the women are likely to get sexually assaulted and bullied or even pimped out by the men.


Religious groups tend to have a lot of goodwill and financial clout, but they really do need the knowledge and expertise of feminists when the rubber meets the road like that.


You can obviously get into difficulty with an issue like services helping women out of prostitution or for those within prostitution, because those of a religious pro-life stance are going to advise against abortion for women in prostitution. In a case like that, feminists will want to get them information on how to access abortions.

Even so, if there was an initiative to, say, close down a website and get police to prosecute men were boasting about dangerously abusing women in prostitution and egging each other on to abuse those women, then the shared knowledge and experience of both groups are going to be powerful in combination. I still think the feminists would be having to watch their backs though, from the left trying to sabotage their efforts for having been ‘seen’ with those terrible pro-lifers."

(Although this is speculative and aspirational rather than a historical example, it is very good IMHO as an example of how if we actually did have those mythical Evangelical Christian dollars flowing our way that it is conceivable that they could be put to good use without compromising feminist principles.)

OldCrone · 19/11/2022 09:55

"Here's another example of feminists and religious groups working together for a common cause:


www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/03/left-wing-feminists-conservative-catholics-unite/520968/

Feminists and Catholics oppose surrogacy for different reasons, but as one of the feminists quoted in that article says:


“We see it as a struggle against the patriarchy, the Catholics see it as a struggle to preserve the traditional family, some anarchists see it as a struggle against capitalism—and I don’t have any problem with this.”

(Good example for the range of political and religious views or lack of them)

beastlyslumber · 19/11/2022 10:04

"Cooperation across diverse interest groups is the way forward. It shouldn't be about saying 'we have the answers, you have to follow us or you're morally wrong'. It's about saying, 'we all have an interest here. What's the best way to get us closer to our shared goals without imposing on one another?' "

(Aspirational but lays down the basic principle of collaborative working, whether "Across the Aisle", "Cross Party", multi-disciplinary, multi-agency, etc. In a previous life I taught people how to set-up effective Collaborative Teams and the first step is agreeing a common goal, then how to deploy time and resources most efficiently and effectively. I think *beastlyslumber" sums it up better than my "management speak"!)

TheBiologyStupid · 19/11/2022 11:29

"Examples include the US and USSR, despite their profound political and ideological differences, joining to fight the Nazis in WWII. All of the countries currently at the overrun COP27 trying to agree on how to combat global climate change, regardless of their differences on many other economic and geopolitical issues?"

(Going global now! Nothing can stop us!)

TheBiologyStupid · 19/11/2022 13:06

"And yet it was the Conservative Party that introduced same-sex marriage in the UK..."

(Boom! Mic drop moment! That didn't happen by refusing to talk to Tories.)

deepwatersolo ·20/11/2022 08:39

"It boils down to the question how pressing the issue at hand is for you. Black Panther Fred Hampton certainly did not condone all opinions held by the Young Patriots, and yet he forged a coalition with them, because he considered the improvement of living conditions for Black people paramount and urgent."

(I don't know much US history - would the Young Patriots be equivalent to the Proud Boys?)

Happylittlechicken · 20/11/2022 09:24

"I always think of the Northern Ireland peace process and how, if those groups had not sat down with each other and been willing to listen and compromise, we’d still be having IRA attacks on a regular basis and more people would have been killed. I wouldn’t say either side ‘brainwashed’ the other. I think they realised a common goal was more important than perceived differences."

(Another good, real-life example! Mo Mowlam was the hero of the hour - and wasn't Blair so jealous that she took the limelight away from him!)

beastlyslumber · 20/11/2022 09:32

"Another example where talking to people on the opposite side makes a difference: Daryl Davis is a black musician in the US whose mission in life is to fight racism and disband the KKK. He does this by meeting KKK members, talking to them, striking up friendships, sharing his life with them. He's convinced many people to leave the KKK. He can only do this because he's open and loving towards people who he has every right to hate and shun.


Unless you're saying that feminists are the KKK in this scenario, I feel this is a powerful example that shows how well worth it can be to talk to our perceived enemies."

(Not quite theright sort of example because the initiative was from one side, aiming to change the perspective of another group but too good not to include.)

beastlyslumber · 20/11/2022 16:56

"I thought I'd try and steelman this a little bit. (I'm sick and bedbound at the moment.)

I've been trying to think about what arguments could be made to support the claim that it would be dangerous for feminists to collaborate with other groups on a shared goal. If we took the case of FWS and the Christian Institute, which are the two groups in this event that on the face of it are most opposed, what could the dangers be?

First of all, I think I'd want to establish exactly what the opposing views were. But let's say abortion, because we can probably roughly assume that FWS are generally pro-choice and the CI are generally pro-life. So what could be dangerous for FWS here?

One possibility is that by working with the CI, FWS could be said to be supporting a pro-life message. I feel this could be easily disputed (as they are clearly not supporting this message and it's not the point of the event to even raise the issue) but it's certainly true that some people will use 'guilt by association' as a way to try to undermine a group's mission. So there's a danger that by associating with CI, FWS becomes vulnerable to the 'guilt by association' tactic.

Another possibility is that by working with CI, FWS will make CI more accessible to their members, allowing for the possibility that some will be swayed to a pro-life point of view which they wouldn't have if they had never been exposed to the CI.

A third possibility is that the CI could use this friendly and collaborative practice as a way to try to infiltrate FWS and destroy it from within.

There may be other possible dangers but given that no one wants to say what they are, these are the ones I managed to come up.

So the questions then would be:

a) what's the probability of any of these situations arising? Is there any historical precedent or example we can look at where any of these possibilities have transpired?
b) are the potential dangers enough to stop feminists from wanting to work in collaboration with other groups? Even if we accept the existence of these dangers, do the benefits of collaboration outweigh the risks?
c) what could FWS do to ensure that they safeguarded against any possible danger?

I think that the first possibility - that people will use 'guilt by association' as a tactic to try to undermine feminists - is the most credible danger. It's the one that we are seeing in action already. The use of 'guilt by association' to undermine women and feminists is coming from TRAs and also from the 'real feminists' and the left. I personally don't think it should stop women from organising. I think that this tactic can be used even when there is zero association - e.g. it's used against KJK simply when someone stands in the same field as her. So I think that FWS just have to accept it will be used against them and I don't see what they can really do to safeguard against that. The best way to undermine this tactic in my opinion is to rigorously expose it for what it is.

The second possibility is credible, but I don't see as a danger. People are allowed to change their minds. Plus it's likely that some individuals who support FWS are already pro-life on the issue of abortion, are already Christians, or have some other belief that they share with the CI. I don't see it as a problem.

The third possibility I don't find credible at all. I would want to see some evidence of this having happened to other movements before I took this seriously.

I suppose another question might be, well, the Christian Institute are one thing. What if feminists want to collaborate with the Reclaim Party (pretty sure there are feminists already in that party tbh) or another right-wing group? There's a slippery slope argument here, that if it's okay for FWS to work with the CI, it may legitimise them working with Reclaim or another, less cuddly group. I think the potential dangers and my rebuttals would still be the same in this case. I wouldn't have a problem with it in the context of an event like this.

I'm sure I've missed lots here! Just thought I would give it a go."

(Hurray for the first serious attempt to envisage downsides!)

EndlessTea · 20/11/2022 17:19

"The only time I have witnessed - entryism/ hostile takeover, it has been third wave feminists, transactivists and men taking over feminists groups and assets, by first acting friendly, then ‘offering to help’, then offering to help govern, then kicking out the feminists who created the thing.


I seriously doubt this kind of thing could happen with the CI, because, firstly, they have their own thing going on so don’t need to do it further their aims, secondly, I believe they are sincere about their concerns - worrying about the education of children seems to be consistent with Christian values, thirdly, I have never seen evidence of Christian organisations operating in that underhanded way before.


So I agree it isn’t credible."

(Good! Real example of things going badly wrong in the past but reasons given why it is unlikely to be repeated in the current real-life situation.)

===========

Apologies if I have missed any other examples.

There was some excellent exploration of other issues but I just wanted to try to pull together the examples of collaborative working mentioned so far.

I hope that helps move things forward rather than it petering out inconclusively or looping back into other issues discussed, important though they are in their own right.

"Do you believe that KJK is telling women that their value systems are wrong?"

I think what MangyInseam is saying is that KJK's critics give her flack because she does NOT tell them that their value systems are wrong,
ie. her critics believe

1. that the value systems of those women are wrong
2. that this is because they are misguided and they need correcting or educating
3. that KJK is therefore wrong to talk to them as if they might know their own minds
4. that what those women think, what is in their minds, is wrong, not worthy of respect and should not be tolerated because their beliefs (pro-life/anti-choice and seeing motherhood as a high calling) are politically anti-feminist and therefore dangerous to other women
5. KJK is therefore guilty of both sins of commission and omission. Firstly, she commits the sin of "talking to women who are pro-life, or who think motherhood is a high calling, etc. as if they might know their own minds".. Secondly, she is guilty of a sin of omission, because she fails to "tell them that their value systems are wrong".

"But that's where KJK gets so much flack, talking to women who are pro-life, or think motherhood is a high calling, etc. as if they might know their own minds.
Rather than telling them their value systems are wrong."

"Rather than telling them their value systems are wrong.

Right, you may have expressed that it a way that I have not understood.

Do you believe that KJK is telling women that their value systems are wrong?

I would ask - who has the arrogance to tell any woman that her values systems are wrong?

KJK seems to be asking women to come up to the microphone and speak. Let a Woman Speak.

The fact that her campaign has got so much violence from men, just proves she's on the right track - for women.

She's telling men that they have their value system wrong, and it's true. It has been true for centuries.

Well, yes, women from many backgrounds can have a kind of solidarity. They will have certain things in common that men do not.

But - not all women agree with the orthodoxies of progressive feminism.

There can be something a little unsavoury about this idea that some women who know the truth can come in and tell other women from certain communities that they have it all wrong. That's not communication and solidarity, it's patronizing.

But that's where KJK gets so much flack, talking to women who are pro-life, or think motherhood is a high calling, etc. as if they might know their own minds. Rather than telling them their value systems are wrong.

What if I just say that there are women who just don't want men telling us what to do? And a bunch of us get together, from all those communities where men traditionally tell women what to do?

Are we actually still X-wing or X-religion women, if we women within those communities are actually trying to fight it? Are we always to be defined by the men in the community in which we find ourselves? Are other women, from other communities, banned from trying to reach us, because we are from a despised community?

This is very interesting.

I suppose you are really getting to the nub of what I personally find a bit baffling - this idea of the spectre of the ‘far right’ looming over us, ready to snap us up somehow. It seems a bit crazed, if I’m honest. And many feminists I formerly had strong admiration for have gone down in my regard because they keep panicking about the far right, without being able to justify it. The ‘near enemy’ or ‘fifth column’ is a far more plausible concern.

Ah I see. So you're saying that a feminist might use Muslim women as an example to support their point around single sex spaces, but refuse to share a platform with them because they are, by virtue of their religion, anti-abortion and same sex marriage.

This is a good question. I suppose in order to be consistent, if you wouldn't share a platform with the CI, you wouldn't share a platform with a Muslim group either. But that would rather show up your hypocrisy in using Muslim women as a way to support your arguments. And I also get the impression that for many on the left, the idea that any part of Islam is anti-gay or anti-women is considered to be racist.

Imo, we should be way more worried about people who seem to be on our side but who push at boundaries and create division.

the buddhist concept of 'near enemies' can be useful here.

www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/jun/07/change-your-life-near-enemies-buddhism

What I said follows directly from what you said.

You do not want feminism to cozy up to right wing or conservative groups or other people with bad ideas, because you are concerned that they may begin to accept some of those bad ideas.

How do you think that would happen, osmosis? If people come to accept some ideas that before they didn't, after talking to people who believe those things, it is because they have heard what they have to say, and found it compelling.

You don't want that to happen, so you don't want feminists to interact with these groups.

How is that NOT an attempt to control the ideas people are exposed to?

Your biggest problem on this thread is that you don't seem to have laid your own ideas out logically to see what the implications are, or to follow them to their logical conclusions.

Use who to bolster an argument? Not sure what you mean about that?

I was using ‘you’ in general to refer to feminists who object to sharing a platform with certain beliefs. Not aim at you beastlyslumber. I mean the fact the Muslim women would be excluded from toilets/changing rooms etc (discriminated against) is often brought in to strengthen the argument against allowing men in women’s spaces.

Would I share a platform with Muslim women? Yes, why not? Would I share a platform with Muslim men? Yes again, why not? Especially if we could discuss women's rights.

I'm not sure a fundamentalist Islamic cleric would share a platform with me because I'm a woman. And I wouldn't be the best person to have the discussion because I've never read the Qu'ran, for example. But there are plenty of Muslim and ex-Muslim women who could take him on.

Use who to bolster an argument? Not sure what you mean about that?

Thanks @EndlessTea It's not serious. I'm hoping I'll be on my feet tomorrow as I have about a million things to do!

The only time I have witness 3 - entryism/ hostile takeover, it has been third wave feminists, transactivists and men taking over feminists groups and assets, by first acting friendly, then ‘offering to help’, then offering to help govern, then kicking out the feminists who created the thing.

That's a good point. I've seen this happen too with wokism invading all kinds of online communities - knitting is one that springs to mind. And yes, many feminist groups got taken over, including the Women's Equality Party. I feel like groups are more vulnerable to entryism by groups that are already seemingly aligned with their values. It's not just acting friendly, but also lying and deceiving about their motivations and beliefs. So it would be harder for a Christian group to do this because their motivations and beliefs would already be known. It would maybe be more of a concern with a right-wing group but again, their beliefs and motivations are already known.

Imo, we should be way more worried about people who seem to be on our side but who push at boundaries and create division. I've mentioned fifth columnists before on FWR. We'd be naive to think that they don't exist in our midst! One way we protect ourselves is with these kinds of discussions where people have to set out their thinking. It's not so easy to mess up a loosely affiliated group of free-thinking, critical-minded individuals. Much easier to find the cracks in an ideology or the fault lines in an existing manifesto.

Also why would the CI try to infiltrate and take over a feminist organisation? It's not really like the Christian Church is a tiny wee grassroots organisation fighting the behemoth of radical feminism, is it?

Good point @ArabellaScott As someone (you?) pointed out early on in the thread, it works both ways.

It is often mentioned on here that Muslim women can’t share intimate spaces with men. Would you share a stage with them? Knowing how harmful Islam is for women’s rights? They are anti-abortion and anti-same sex marriage too. Or can you only use them to bolster an arguement if they don’t speak up about those beliefs which keep them away from men?

Yeah, but what if policy change is achieved that is positive for women and the wrong people have achieved it?!?

For some, feminist is an identity and it is way more important to keep that label pure than to achieve material change for women.

Only read the first page but oh dear!

Anyone who says ‘I believe in free speech BUT...” or “It will be a cold day in hell before I share a platform with an anti-abortionist” is parroting TRAs #nodebate. Why is it suddenly ok to cancel or nodebate something you believe is wrong? Why can you no longer see the need for winning people round by debate, by argument? Why is it ok now to shut down opposition? Do you not argue that TRAs should debate with us? That sunshine is needed? That their inability to debate is due to a lack of substance?

Also why would the CI try to infiltrate and take over a feminist organisation? It's not really like the Christian Church is a tiny wee grassroots organisation fighting the behemoth of radical feminism, is it?