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

Very good @beastlyslumber . Sorry to hear you are ill right now 💐

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.

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.

So... no answer? 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?

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.

I don't recall you posting any reasons at all, and other posters seem to have had the same impression.

You don't seem to have read the thread very thoroughly yourself if you really think that no one has provided any examples of diverse groups working together for a common cause.

I posted a link to an article about European feminists and Catholics campaigning together against surrogacy, DameMaud posted about an organisation in the US bringing left and right wing people together to discuss their differences and someone else mentioned the UK and US allying with the USSR in WW2 to defeat Hitler. I think there were some other examples as well, and there have been a few more this morning.

Your only objection seems to be that if feminists work with religious groups on issues such as indoctrination in education, we will all end up in the Handmaid's Tale. Which is just ridiculous.

Yes! His astonishing courage and faith in the innate goodness of human beings, putting himself at risk, persuades these seemingly entrenched people out of extremist ‘hate’.

Lurking on incel forums isn’t quite that.

Okay, so how about you clarify what you believe the dangers of ‘working with’ (but please define what you mean by ‘working with’ as part of it), people who agree with you on the topic at hand, but oppose you in a different area, are.

Are there any examples you can draw upon, to illustrate what you mean?

Oh and it's a bit insulting to Daryl Davis to say his activism is educating himself about the KKK's views!

Since when did this conversation become about listening to others to educate ourselves about their hateful views?

I think you missed the point I was making with my example @Dreamwhisper . You said it would be dangerous for feminists to meet with other groups, e.g. Christian groups. So I was giving an example where meeting with another group had a positive effect.

Please explain why you think feminists meeting with other groups imight be dangerous.

absolutely no exploration into the nuance of why it might be dangerous

Are you going to provide that, then? Why might it be dangerous to associate with people whose views differ from one's own? Because one might be persuaded to agree? Is that your logic? Genuine question.

Since when did this conversation become about listening to others to educate ourselves about their hateful views?

It was about actively working in tandem with groups who advocated views you disagree with in order to further a common cause.

I'm perfectly happy to listen to peoples' views I find awful and frightening as I think it is so important to understand peoples' underlying motivations that drive those views. I've spent a ton of time quietly lurking incel forums in order to understand why it is these guys think this way and even what it is that they seem to think.

You really are talking about two completely different things here.

Yes!

The pessimism, that all people are absolutely entrenched, it is impossible to move the needle on anything, therefore all discussion is futile and should simply be put to the vote, seems a bit bloody weird on a discussion forum!

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.

@Happylittlechicken that's a great example of why people need to listen. I've one thing to say really and that is that once the word "hateful" enters the discussion it is game over for any progression in the conversation. The word doesn't have a place in meaningful discussion because it is so emotive. There are very few areas in which there are not significant points to discuss for and against. Those seeking to hone an argument are actually advised to argue for the point of view opposing their own first. It helps to ensure you really do think what you think you do. (I do say this as a person who would usually come down on the side of feminism and left wing politics, but only from a considered place, I have been sorely challenged in this in recent years)

I agree with all of this. I'm not sure how we're meant to actually do anything on FWR other than hash these issues out and hone our thinking, so being scolded for doing that seems a bit off. I think it's an interesting issue and not one that's going to be solved with a simple show of hands.

I’ve read the whole thread now and I’ve had a think and I can kind of see both sides. The problem I have is, if groups all refuse to engage with each other and just stay in ‘bubbles’, how can those groups reconcile. 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.

absolutely no exploration into the nuance of why it might be dangerous

I think this is the key point that people are disagreeing with you about, Dream. You claim it's dangerous for people from different groups to meet and share a platform. But you have not explained why that might be the case. You can't expect people to make your argument for you. And if you don't make an argument at all, then you can't really complain that people aren't adequately addressing your argument. We are trying our best to work out what you mean and respond to that. You could progress the discussion by explaining your points, backing up your assertions with examples e.g. of historical coalitions that have been bad for the progressive part of the coalition, or with logic that shows how meeting together could lead to one group being overtaken by another. Try to persuade people using logic and evidence, instead of repeatedly stating your belief. And then try to answer people's points and questions by showing how they're wrong - not just stating that they're wrong, but showing it by way of exposing flaws in their reasoning.

Dreamwhisper, I appreciate you have stuck things out on the thread. But you give a feeling of ‘clinging’ to something to me.

To use another Spinal Tap thing, your explanations/justifications come across as robustly as Nigel Tufnel justifying that his amp is louder/better because it “goes up to eleven”.

Yes, you think that feminists cannot work with, talk with, appear with, or be seen to work with, talk with, appear with, people with certain religious beliefs.

You seem to think that by doing so that makes them, by definition, not a feminist.

But you haven’t explained why. It seems like a gut feeling or truism for you.

And this gut feeling and truism seems to bind you too your comrades, perhaps your real life friends, who share the same gut feeling and truism, so exploring it makes you defensive, as though thinking for yourself will make you disloyal to them.

You haven’t really stopped clinging. At one point you seemed to loosen those knuckles, but then came back swinging, perhaps after you had a wobble about your loyalties, I dunno. But you haven’t explained or justified anything.

What bad things do you think will happen as a result of joining with other groups to discuss a shared topic of concern?

Or do you think that the discussion itself is the bad thing? If so, why?

I.e., if you can't even accept the potential issues in the first place and just write it off as "oh it's just an educational event with a diverse groups of opinions" , then don't expect people to take your opinions on the question of whether it's an issue or not, seriously.

I completely agree. I actually feel rather offended @IwantToRetire that I have engaged thoughtfully, and because I had a bit of time on my hands I get scolded for talking too much. To me, the OP looked like it was trolling for a bunfight, and I am still unclear about what you were actually hoping to achieve by it, even after you clarified.

So are we also being scolded for using the internet to chew the fat and wrestle our opinions too? We are wasting our time ‘theorising’ when we should be out there doing stuff? I don’t feel like I am part of an ‘I’m better/more virtuous than you’ contest. This thread has been really valuable and interesting to me and I feel that this issue of feminists being ‘tainted by association’ clearly needs a lot more discussion, judging by the way it keeps coming up, and a cohort of feminists believe very strongly and passionately that an deadly infection of right wing ideas and people is an ever-present danger.

I believe we are in a very exciting time for feminism and these mumsnet discussions, thrashing out ideas, is part of it.

I literally have explained my reason of thinking, it's just silly ill thought out dismissal to say "evidence" something as nuanced and nebulous as, does working with conservative views when you're a progressive feminist help and hinder the cause?

I actually have provided plenty of reasons for feeling the way I do. You seem to be confusing your need to agree with those reasons for me not providing them.

And also in terms of "explaining my views", I will always feel reservation over the legitimacy of the people I'm talking to who claim to be feminist but also claim to see absolutely no issue with these types of coalitions.

Let's have a reality check here, no one here has provided any convincing arguments in support of the OP, quite the opposite, the issue has been obfuscated and oversimplified, comparing it to attending a church toddler group and the like, with absolutely no exploration into the nuance of why it might be dangerous, and then the subsequent explanations to back up why it's actually okay.

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.

How many times on this board do we see a poster who has a tightly held belief who cannot show anything but emotional manipulation and fear of being ostracised from the community they cling to as a support of that belief?

Or the fear of being mistaken as one of ‘that’ group ? A group with some sort of undesirable belief, perceived or real? (How often too is ‘that’ group the demographic usually ‘thrown’ at this board - middle class, ‘older’ ?)

Rather than a belief that can be reliably explained, shown and evidenced?

In some posters cases (again this is a general comment) they have to rely on the ‘good’ versus ‘bad’ dichotomy to distance themselves from ever being mistaken as being associated with the ‘bad’ group.

We see this all too often with regards to the ‘speakers corner’ rallies. People cannot conceive that just because someone turns up and speaks that the group is not ‘working’ with, not ‘standing shoulder to shoulder’ with.

The fear of taint of just letting someone speak is overwhelming for some people from what I have seen.

You say you're 'willing to defend' your point of view, but you don't seem able to explain it. Perhaps this is because it is a point of view based on belief (the word you used) rather than one you have come to as a result of thoughtful analysis of the available information.

You made this comment earlier in the thread: "the very people who support you most in your fight against trans ideology are the very people who would advocate for a very "Handmaid's Tale"-esque future if they could."

This doesn't seem to be an opinion based on any sort of evidence. Do you really think that Christians in the UK see a dystopian future as portrayed in the Handmaid's Tale as in any way desirable? Do you think Christian women want to be stripped of all their rights? Do you think this is the world Christian men want for their daughters?

You seem to view religious people as inherently bad people who can't possibly have good motives for doing anything, simply because some of them disagree with you about issues like abortion and same-sex marriage. Perhaps you should try talking to some of them (which is what this whole thread is about). Ask them why they hold these views. But first you need to be open to the possibility that they may be decent people who just hold different beliefs from you. Just making the assumption that they are inherently evil people because you believe that they believe certain things gets you nowhere.

I don't understand your unwillingness to discuss and debate with people who don't share your point of view. You seem determined to put people in boxes of "good" or "bad" without recognising that the reality is far more complex.

You're the one who doesn't seem to understand how debates work. It's not a case of saying "I'm right, these are my beliefs". You need to construct an argument to support your point of view. To do that you need to analyse your own position first. Have you ever stopped to consider why you hold the beliefs and opinions you do? Is it an entirely faith-based position or one you arrived at by weighing up the evidence?

This thread is over for me but I do need to address this.

You do really need to get over yourself with this pile of nonsense.

Having a view point and being willing to defend it does not mean I'm trying to "control your thoughts". Please grow up and understand how debates work.

If you're disagreeing with me, and saying my thoughts and feelings on the subject are wrong, are you trying to control my thoughts too? Of course bloody not.

Stop throwing your toys out of the pram because someone has different beliefs than you, I'm saying I think it's wrong to do what the OP suggest, and question if certain views and actions go against the feminist cause, in my opinion. Feminists are not one homogenous group, please don't pretend that any discourse is "totalitarian thought control" that is so absolutely eyerolling. 🙄

Yes, and similarly, the reason Catholicism doesn't support gender ideology isn't because they hate trans people, it's because they think it's not true that people can change sex, that sex is an accidental characteristic, or that you have the soul of a man in a woman's body or vice versa. All of which reflect Catholic theology around material reality. You could say similar things about some other religious groups.

This.

Catholics don’t dislike prostitution and surrogacy because of ideals about the family but because they undermine the inherent dignity of the women involved.