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

Why thank you, darling, can confirm I am very rarely called lovely and poised, but I'll take it! 😂

Yep. It's a long, greasy, twisted purity spiral that they want us to fall down into.

I used to take it more seriously, when I thought there were genuine arguments there. But the more you push people to explain their stance, the more obfuscation, goalpost shifting, and insults you get. It finally dawned on me that it really is as simple as them believing that anyone not in their clique is a bad person. Anyone who votes tory, anyone who has a religious belief, anyone who doesn't subscribe to the tenets of socialism feminism - they are bad. And their opinions are therefore also bad. Oh, and anyone who's not a socialist feminist is weak-minded and easily led so must never be exposed to any other viewpoints.

So yeah. It's all bollocks. 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?'

I do appreciate your lovely, poised posting-style @ArabellaScott it shows up how I have descended.

So now think this thread should have been why aren't the left and the liberals supporting women? Is it any wonder that the vaccum created by the failure of the left liberal axis means that women have had to look elsewhere, even if only to make a temporary common cause.

So the answer to my own OP isn't is it okay, but that it makes double the work. Not only having clearly defined positions within the work alliance, but also wasting hours dealing with accusations by those doing nothing that you are a political traitor, or actual intimidation

That is a whole other question!

I think none of this time is wasted. We're trying to work stuff out, it takes time. Painstaking time to sort out misunderstandings etc. Yes, it's tiresome to go over things, but discussion hopefully can be productive, strengthen arguments, gain clarity, etc. It also reveals some big flaws in left thinking, yes. Namely tribalism, magical thinking, certain intellectual lazinesses.

If the left want to strengthen their cause they need to attend to these problems. Urgently.

I think that will only happen when we get beyond this very emotional, black and white way of dividing people into 'goodies' and 'baddies'. We need nuance, calm, patience, critical thinking. Then we need the left to listen. They won't listen so long as they keep dismissing all disagreement as monstrously evil.

And frankly our whole political system and society suffers so long as the discussion is a childish purity spiral. We need a robust, effective, adult opposition at the very least to challenge and examine the current govt.

Exactly. I mean the RF in TERF stands for radical feminist. Radical feminism has its roots in Marxist-type class analysis.

When I say I don’t give a shit what they think (or say, for that matter), I am referring to the leftist groupthink enforcers, not what any left-leaning feminist, myself included, thinks.

"As a left leaning feminist I've been accused of acquiescing to mens' opinions and putting them above womens' if I support any aspect of trans "ideology". "

Genuine question. Is there any aspect of trans ideology that you do support?

feminists so comfortable and companiable with these right wing skewed ways of thinking

Again with suggesting women here are 'right wing'. Stop trying to stuff people into such simplistic boxes.

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.”

Is this the sort of thing you were looking for @IwantToRetire ?

Also, posters scoff at beliefs being "infectious" but peoples political ideology and social outlook absolutely can be changed and influenced? It's not really something to joke about to be honest.

Quite a crucial point in this discussion.

Yes, ideology and outlook can be changed and influenced. Thank fuck, eh, or we'd have no hope of ever changing anything!

There does seem to be an emotional, tribalist way of thinking about beliefs, thoughts, ideas, that suggests that someone is at risk of having these changed if they associate wth anyone with different views. As if ideas have some kind of mystical power to accidentally fall into our heads and change our views against our will.

I'd say that yes, we should be open to changing views, of course we should - I try to listen, research, assess and base my views on information and reason. What's the alternative? Clinging to a view because our pals have it, or it's fashionable, or a certain newspaper says that's how we ought to think? No, that's not for me.

Listen to everything, assess it all, test it out, think it through, try it from different angles. Allow for the fact that you might be wrong, allow space to change your mind, allow for the fact that others have different views.

As for influence and 'brainwashing' and infectious thoughts ... humans are susceptible to groupthink, and persuasion. We learn how this works and we exercise our muscles of cognitive abilities by the process I've outlined above. One becomes aware of blind spots, weak areas in reasoning, etc, by testing it all ou in discussion - and not just with those we agree with!

The thing is left leaning feminists would say the same about TERF style feminism.

But ... 'TERF' feminists are mostly left leaning, ime, so this comment doesn't really make sense.

I don’t give a shit what they think

I don’t want to derail the thread, but I disagree. Lots of evidence to back it up.

if we are taking about who we consider to be the real feminists, in my opinion, it does not include those who want an underclass of women and girls as human fuck-dolls for men.

There are genuine social issues with supporting or collaborating (since this is now what we're talking about) with those groups.

What do you see as the genuine social issues around working with different groups who are all concerned about education @Dreamwhisper? This is the issue that the event in the OP is about. What problems do you see arising from these diverse groups coming together to discuss indoctrination in the education system?

The thing is left leaning feminists would say the same about TERF style feminism.

Instead of allying with damaging right ring rhetoric, perhaps we should be allying with each other.

The reality of groups working together though is not as separate as signing a petition though. If you're rallying a group to get on board with you, they will either expect input, or be putting their own input on the issue.

It's simply not the case that feminists should be sharing the majority of views with the religious right as they are simply and demonstrably not feminist, and they will inform the opinion and action of these groups.

Criminalising prostitution damages women, there's lots of material out there to support this. You're wrong to assume that the right and especially the religious right view women who do sex work, or are addicts, in a sympathetic light. It may be an easy answer but it's simply not true. Women who have been trafficked from countries where religious views are strongly held literally can't go back, because they will be shunned by their families. For being trafficked into sex work.

This is the reality that we are dealing with. It might be a nice ideological one to assume these don't matter, but you have to look at where the evidence takes you. How can conservative views that believe women are naturally inferior to men, who should serve their husbands, who are pro life, ever deserve to claim to support the feminist cause?

It's just such mental making peace with glaring truths that I'm uncomfortable with. As a left leaning feminist I've been accused of acquiescing to mens' opinions and putting them above womens' if I support any aspect of trans "ideology". It feels ironic (but not in a funny or scathing way, in a worrying way) to be told this by feminists so comfortable and companiable with these right wing skewed ways of thinking.

It is a massive oversimplification though to assume it's just those pesky, nagging left wingers hand wringing or vitue signalling.

To be honest, I used to feel much more inclined to listen to them and tread on eggshells for fear of their wrath, but now I give much less of a shit. I’ve seen so much of it is egoistic bullshit, territorial arseholery and deranged fallout from personal histories, whereas I once thought it was all robustly underpinned with solid theory and acquired experience. Now I trust myself, my own mind, my own knowledge and my own experience - I’m not taking any more of my fucking cues from them. It’s a big fuck off and no thank you from me.

As with ‘abolishing prostitution’ there is obviously an argument to be had and the religious idea of ‘fallen women’ and ‘temptresses’ which underpins crimes of soliciting can easily be argued against, for any person with a conscience. Focus on the crimes of exploiting and abusing women- focus on the buyers, the pimps and the traffickers, decriminalise the abused and exploited. That way both the religious people and feminists can be working together with the same aims.

The reason I chose those examples is because signatures on a petition are simply signatures on a petition. It doesn’t matter what the rationale for getting them, they greatly bolster the feminist aims of the petition and come with no strings attached.

It might even be the case that whilst collecting those signatures, feminists get to provide the feminist perspective and give the signatories a more nuanced view. Double the value there.

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.

This is the irony for me. Together, those groups can potentially do a lot more to help women than those who insist feminism must be pure.

I found myself wondering whether all the suffragists and suffragettes were pro abortion. If they weren’t, does that mean they were not feminists? I realise that term hadn’t been coined then, but I don’t believe that there should be an inner group who decides what is feminist and what isn’t and excludes other women from feminism or fighting for women’s rights on those grounds. Opinion on all subjects must have space for nuance.

Still, as we see with KJK, some of those fighting most successfully for women’s rights self-exclude from feminism, presumably because of its puritanical leanings.

I appreciate that and I see you are coming at this from a genuine place.

It is a massive oversimplification though to assume it's just those pesky, nagging left wingers hand wringing or vitue signalling.

There are genuine social issues with supporting or collaborating (since this is now what we're talking about) with those groups.

Take your example of getting signatures for a petition abolishing prostitution, and how you'd get thousands by approaching religious groups. Great on the surface if those are your aims, but I'm studying criminology right now and the focus is actually on sex work, and one woman who has done extensive study on the issue of minorities being stuck in sex work due to the shunning they face from their religious communities.. It leads you to think, while these people are happy to "abolish prostitution" and put their name to that - what does that materially mean for the women involved in prostitution in that area?

Are they lifted out of their situation, accepted and supported, or are they shunned and people are signing those petitions because they want the dirty sex work to be gone. Does "abolishing" i.e. criminilising prostitution actually push women further into the underground because what they're doing is illegal (clue - the answer is yes this does happen)

It's similar with the religious right pro life argument. These groups may scream outside of abortion clinics, but do they vote for policies which support the families of the children those unborn babies become? Absolutely not, if they are voting conservative, those policies do not favour those families at all.

I don't have all the answers, but I believe my concerns are valid and self evident when you put them in context of how society is working.

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.

This is feminism 101. By "enforce the other stance" she means if you're not pro choice, what does that mean for women?

It means removing their right to abortion. Which is the material reality in plenty of places.

So yes, being pro life is directly antithetical to feminism, whether that is intended or not.

The obvious panic when women find ways of working that actually work.

The organisations and speakers for this event have been detailed more than once on this thread. None of them are homophobic or misogynist or racist as far as it's possible to ascertain. So what is the objection?

Genuinely, is the objection that it might actually help achieve something?

So you would be happy attending an event and campaign with people who hold homophobic views (against gay marriage and clergy) and don't think women should have a choice as to what happens to their own body (anti-abortion)?

I mean what else? are you going to also buddy-up with racist organisations because they might share your views on a particular issue?

Grim.

how do you enforce the other stance ? Can you explain what you mean here please?