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

I keep coming back to this idea of assumptions about the other side. I think it's important, but it's not always ideological, it's also factual issues.

It was mentioned earlier about religious groups shaming prostitutes and drug addicts, or pro-life groups doing nothing to help pregnant women or struggling mothers.

While there are all kinds of people across the political spectrum who do not put their money or efforts at the service of their ideals, it's simply untrue to say that these groups do not act on those issues. There are many many religious groups involved with supporting people who are addicted, or women in prostitution. There are all kinds of evangelical or Catholic groups that are significantly involved with care of mothers and babies. In fact in all these cases these kinds of groups prioritize these kinds of action.

If people are learning in their university courses that these things don't happen, they need to start asking some pointy questions of their professors.

I thought it was a good discussion, too. Sorry if it wasn't the discussion you wanted, OP, but to be fair, your OP didn't give much guidance and then you left the thread for most of the discussion. Maybe try again with something more directed, that you can be present for?

However, I think this is the discussion that we need to have and we're going to keep having as various people work the issues out and end up either in separate warring factions or - hopefully - in a loose coalition of women striving for the same end goal: the preservation of our rights and the protection of children.

Well that doesn't really contradicted my statement, you are basically just saying what I said in a different way, which suggests that you don't actually know what the reasons for those views are.

I had thought we were having a possibly useful discussion on working with 'groups whose principles you don't share'.

But fine, I'm quite happy to fuck off.

I do agree with this Arabella.

I think that while it was not quite what OP expected, those reading along can see the interplay between the concepts.

One that seems to be a mature self reflective approach of hearing and interacting while also understanding that those interactions may even bring a previously extreme view more onto a feminist perspective. and one that feels that isolation is the key and protection against impurity.

I think that readers are getting a better sense of where they are comfortable the more they see what is posted.

100%.

If many women who were feminists were listing to the arguments of conservatives on various issues, and came to see some of them as relevant to their feminism, do you not think that might be because the arguments were in fact compelling?

Is your position that other people are incapable of evaluating ideas, unlike, presumably, you are? That women today are somehow different than the women who defined whatever it is you think "feminism" means?

Because what it sounds like is that you believe that you get to define feminism, and you are desperate to stop other women from hearing ideas they might find compelling, but which you know to be somehow wrong.

That is actually trying to control thought. You are telling people it is wrong to listen to those who don't say the right things, because you don't want them to think about those ideas. That is the essence of totalitarian thought control wherever it occurs.

If you really think that is an ok approach, own it.

But this endless back and forth about our own perceived virtuousness is exactly what seems to me to be the problem I was hoping we would address.

I'm not sure what this means. I think if you want a specific outcome or kind of discussion on a thread, you need to make your OP really clear and specific.

At this stage of the thread we could by now have got an idea of how many thought it was okay and those who thought it wasn't.

Agreed. Is there anyway of adding a vote to these threads like on AIBU?

FWIW, I'm happy to work with anyone who shares a common cause.

I do sometimes wonder if this is the real fear of those who want to maintain ideological purity. to the point where they won't even engage intellectually with certain people.

They don't want their views challenged. They don't want to think that others might have reasonable views. That there might be elements they hadn't considered. They want to maintain the illusion that "those people" are evil.

And they don't want anyone else to have those experiences either.

Absolutely. I've worked on (my role was simply proofreading, nothing academic) several journal papers about conflict resolution in different settings (gangs and paramilitary groups in South America, religious and tribal conflicts in India and Africa, etc.) and none of the participants or facilitators would have made any progress if they had thought that some of the others taking part were beyond the pale or had approached the process with closed minds. After all, you don't negotiate peace with your friends.

Sounds really interesting, DameMaud.

Apologies for typos (look, not loo)

One of the best explorations of how to work, effectively, with polarization was an interview with the founder of the Braver Angels organisation in the US (I linked it on another thread a while ago)
The organisation brings right and left wingers - whose paths would never ordinarily cross- together, to understand each others differences and work towards de-polarizng and building bridges.

His whole personal journey to forming the organisation, and the work they do now (volunteer led) left a profound impact on me.

Here is the main example of the process they work with that he gave, that stuck with me and comes to mind in this discussion here:

He had each side meet in their own group first, and come up with a list of what they envisioned the others perceptions/stereotypes of their views on them would be; for example:

The right wingers/republicans might say they expected the left to believe they were self-interested, 'up by the bootsraps' types, homophobic, racist etc.
The left group thought the right would say they were all welfare scroungers, bleeding hearts, naive idealists etc.

He then brought both groups together to discuss and confirm how far they had correctly anticipated the others perceptions/stereoptypes.

And here was the most interesting bit:

Each side were asked to reflect, dig deep, and examine how far these perceptions were actually true of them; and to share these insights to each other in the shared grouping of both sides.

This is where the magic of developing nuanced understanding happened.

The clearest example given, was when one of the republicans said, yes, he thought there was definitely some truth in the linking if right wing views and racism. But also, that it didn't seem wholly true and he had to spend a lot of time really thinking and talking it through.

In the end, the two groups came to an understanding together; That felt like a truth they could all accept ; that racists tended to be right wing, but also that by no means were all people on the right were racist.

It seems so obvious when you loo at it, but to come to that as a shared understanding required alot of self-reflection, personal stories etc. On both sides.

This was fertile ground for both of the two groups to then examine all of the perceptions and prejudices they held about each other and to begin moving towards a more shared understanding and respect for each other and their differences.

The aim of the organisation is to tackle polarization at a grass roots level, peer-led, as a way of dealing with the seemingly unsolvable issue of the culture war in the US, so that things could move beyond the splitting of good/bad/enemies etc and towards resolving actual issues.

Have run out if energy to articulate exactly how in this post, but it came to mind strongly in this thread and so putting it out there.

Can post link of original video of interview if anyone is interested.

it has also made me aware how many people on the GC side (though clearly not all) are taking exactly the kind of black and white, simplistic, tribal approach to these issues that they accuse ‘TRAs’ of taking.

I think it's quite human and understandable to have that impulse to simplify issues and categorise others into groups. It requires more effort to constantly see nuance and remain uncertain and keep questioning everything. Balance, as ever.

Right, and there you have my view on conservative groups in a nutshell. I don't trust their underlying motivations and how these motivations inform their actions.

This is where we get into 'dogwhistles' and unconscious bias and so on, isn't it? It gets a bit difficult to navigate discussions when parties are all trying to second guess each others' motivations.

I think again it comes down to the same trap of tribalist thinking, which is when we are trying to ascertain whether a person is 'good' or 'bad' and making our decisions to trust or engage or believe them based on that very simplistic judgement. Rather than listening to views and discussing the views themselves.

I don't on the whole judge people as 'good' or 'bad'. I often disagree with friends, I often agree with enemies. The key is to focus on the issues, rather than the people making the arguments. Otherwise we just end up shouting at each other, and nothing is ever resolved to practical, workable positions.

I've genuinely never felt the need to go on about free speech in the context of my own views.

Why do you think this might be?

I used to teach an anthropology module to non-anthropology students. Basically my main aim was to get students to understand that really listening to and trying to understand views or practices that you think are utterly abhorrent is so important. Not least because you can often learn that your assumptions were completely wrong. You might even learn that the problems you perceive as awful, immoral practices or views are often symptoms of a completely different problem. If you address that problem, then sometimes it turns out that people shift views and practices in response.

But, crucially, you have to be open to the possibility that your worldview is not the ‘correct’ one and to properly trying to engage and empathise with people who are very different from you. It may even require you to reflect a bit on the extent to which your views may be problematic for many people and are just as rooted in your own cultural context.

None of that means that you are condoning or endorsing practices. If you want to solve a problem, the very first step is understanding what is really going on and being willing to learn that your assumptions were wrong.

it has also made me aware how many people on the GC side (though clearly not all) are taking exactly the kind of black and white, simplistic, tribal approach to these issues that they accuse ‘TRAs’ of taking.

There is no possible compromise between making women's facilities mixed sex and keeping them single sex. Trans activists have decided that a third space option is an insult, not a solution.

Either come up with an acceptable compromise that we haven't thought of, or accept you are also a black and white thinker on this issue.

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

If you don't attend and argue the case for the legality of gay marriage, those evangelicals are never going to have to consider any other point of view than their own though.

I completely agree.

And once you have established this. The reality of the situation, there’s a chance for some nuance.

People are going to have different places of where they’ll draw the line on certain things. Eg- whether to prioritise the involvement of transwidows or their husbands in feminism, whether it matters if a man cuts of his genitals or has facial surgery, what should be done about those who who were given puberty blockers as children and so on.

Yes, will you fight for their rights with LGB Alliance - or do they support the wrong kind of lesbians?

men are not women IS black & white though

biological men - no matter how they present no matter what surgery they have (if indeed they have any) no matter what drugs they take (if indeed they take any) - are not and never can be women

everything flows from whether a person believes that or not