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

Apologies, pro choice should have been pro life.

So your opinion is that any woman who is pro choice is inherently anti-feminist?

@PriOn1
Any one who thinks woman shouldn't have autonomy over their own body is not a feminist. Not saying it is not complicated and not uncomfortable or there isn't a clash of rights but this is the bottom line because how do you enforce the other stance ?

So you believe that any woman who is pro-life cannot be a feminist? You think that there is no nuance around this topic and that any woman who agrees is anti-feminist? I note you did not argue your point, but simply pretended mine was so ludicrous it didn’t deserve a response.

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.

Surely this goes both ways though? Women with different beliefs meeting together for discussion might both learn from the experience and come to have more nuanced views on the other’s position, even if ultimately their opinion doesn’t change. Unless these views are so utterly abhorrent that it’s impossible they might be driven by a different understanding (for example, a group that is arguing for genocide would fall into that category) I don’t think we should fear meeting them, especially if we are discussing a different matter. And I can’t see how being pro-life falls into the “utterly abhorrent” category. I can easily believe that a group that is pro-life might be arguing from a position of compassion because the question of abortion is definitely one where there is a clash of rights, where different people could draw different conclusions.

I find it concerning because 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.

And this is one of those bizarre jumps where I feel you are catastrphizing. Conservative values might be pushing to take us back to a time when women were considered “helpmeets” within a marriage, and thus perhaps second class citizens, as it were (though I can also see that there was also a feeling then that women had to be looked after and nurtured, which is paternalistic and somewhat demeaning perhaps, but not necessarily done out of cruelty). But it’s a huge illogical leap to suggest they would be pushing towards a dystopian system like that in the Handmaid’s Tale. This is why discussion with these groups IS important, because without it, you may jump to conclusions about their views and hopes that are completely without foundation.

@MangyInseam that is rather patronising. Of course people understand that there are theological or other theories underpinning ideas the views of others. But we also understand that those belief systems are often based on a view of woman or of gay people etc. These are not different things . There is reason to talk to people and learn more about others but I still think if I worked with others with hateful views about other issues my judgement on the shared issue would be called into judgement.

I also find it odd that you believe the pro-life stance is inherently anti-feminist.

Wow, I've heard it all now.

I think it's actually pretty clear why Dreamwhisper and her supporters can't wrap their heads around this.

They actually believe that people who have these different views, who are on the other side, think that way because they are hateful and are looking for a method to strip other people of their rights. There is no reason, no argument, no belief about reality, that underpins these people's different standpoints. If they don't believe in allowing clergy in same sex marriages, that is simply because they hate gay people. If they don't believe abortion should be without restriction, it is because they want to control women. Etc.

There is a bit of a bump with trans issues, because in that case some good people have issues that are ok, but the people on the other side just hate trans people, they aren't worried about their kids or the safety of women. Because obviously they all hate women.

I suspect that's why many of those women struggle so much finding themselves "on the wrong side', they are unused to seeing that there can often be compelling arguments for other viewpoints.

It's actually quite a good example of what happens if you don't ever talk to people with different ideas than your own.

Dreamwhisper, could we please stick with UK politics? The USA is different in many relevant ways, not least the existence of a popular, rightwing, strong and well-funded fundamentalist Christian movement which has no equivalent over here.

I understand your fears, but I can’t help noticing that we are far more persuasive than incels or whathaveyou, and that is why there has been such huge investment in trying to stop us.

FWIW, thanks for coming back, arguing, and not backing out, Dreamwhisper. Always interesting to hear from another point of view.

Off to bed for now.

But you don't understand any of the ideas. You refuse to listen and you condemn others who do want to listen. So you'll understand me thinking it's simple prejudice on your part.

Are you in Scotland? Any experiences with some of the more trad/conservative Scottish churches? Because Scotland isn't the US.

Not at all. I reject conservative values that doesn't mean I believe all people are the same.

If you come to me as any human with any views just wanting to be friends or chat or need help I'll be there. I'll advocate for womens rights even if they are conservative women.

You're conflating my disdain for ideas with disdain of groups of people and trying to use that to paint me as a bad person.

I'm not a bad person. I'm not bigoted.

That's really interesting. I hope you are right. The whole world seems propped up on needle stilts right now though, and I do worry that these alliances over issues could be used to betray us one day. Perhaps I worry unnecessarily, and it's hard to articulate because I'm tired but I even worry that all of the trans debate and constantly pointing out the differences between men and women has been picked up and fetishised by these far right people and used to further push their own patriarchal gender roles - e.g. Lauren Bobert coming out and saying how women are naturally inferior creatures.

I know we aren't aligned on everything, I just worry that in years to come it may be a "boiled frog" type situation.

I think you are a bit of a bigot, Dream. You say you won't associate with conservative women and worry they will somehow taint your feminism. Yet you don't have any interest in knowing what these women think, what their values are. You just put a label and a judgement on them. I really don't respect that.

Same sex marriage is no longer up for debate. Nobody is campaigning for its repeal, not least because it would be unjust.

I think it’s ironic that some feminists have taken on the role of the Inquisitors in that views on marriage and abortion have become moral litmus tests and what was until very recently, mainstream Christian thought, has become heresy and ridiculously labelled as an extreme hard right view.

Have a religious view about marriage? You must be homophobic and hate all LGB people. Want to protect unborn life? You hate women, think they are breeders and want to enforce stereotypical gender roles.

Its no different from the TRAs who yell ‘hateful transphobe’ at those who want to protect women and children.

While I’ll admit my experience has coloured my view of many TRAs, it doesn’t mean I believe that every single transgendered individual is an inhabitant of a town on the west coast of Scotland.

It is entirely possible to hold divergent views on contentious social issues without hating or wishing harm on others who make different choices. You can want to build a pro life culture without hating women or wishing to harm them, just as you can hold a Christian view on sex and marriage without hating on gay people.

The trans issue is about a clash of rights and responsibilities that affects everyone.

But then I’m not a political feminist and not desperate to be validated or accepted as one. My philosophy is that female flourishing can take several forms.

Want to be a SAHM? Fill your boots. Want to be a career woman? Marvellous. Want to have children and nurture them and also have the opportunity for a fulfilling career. Brilliant.

Female biology should not limit or confine us BUT every woman will at some point in her life have to grapple and come to terms with her female fertility, whether that’s in terms of wanting to achieve or avoid conception and whether or not she can, or is able to, birth and raise children. Female fertility will dictate a large path of a woman’s life and what choices may or may not be open to her.

Equally female biology will always put women at risk of sexual exploitation by men. In most places in the world, poverty has a female face, as it is predominantly women who are tasked with caring responsibilities for the most vulnerable from the womb to the tomb.

Those are the points on which every woman ought to agree, irrespective of which political label she applies to herself or, has applied to her by other women who think they know her better than she does!

Never before has feminism so directly aligned with groups that are directly antithetical to its cause.

What do you mean by this? Are you referring to the sort of "feminists" who say TWAW?

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.

Tbf I have noticed a shift on MN away from Radical Feminism, to this kind of new ‘Mumsnet Feminism’ though - Second Wave ideas which are updated by the way our lives have changed eg- being online more, and how we consciousness-raise through it, that kind of thing, and what we’ve learned from the implementation of earlier feminist ideas.

I think the gender crap has definitely changed me too, made me more open-minded and tolerant. I used to be more intimidated by and deferent towards feminists who want us all contained in a left-wing silo and now I think “ah fuck off with your tribalism”.

Also, I have noticed more right wing women feeling comfortable in FWR - iirc it was lasswithadelicateair who was pretty much alone in these parts for a long time.

Overall I see things have evolved and shifted, but in a good way, and not towards anything antithetical to feminism.

But who women are working with will directly impact the course of feminism. This is a really serious issue. Never before has feminism so directly aligned with groups that are directly antithetical to its cause.

I don't see how or why the fact that TRAs are also lacking principles make it any better?

I have to just hope that these views really are as niche as they are portrayed online and that the only things that will gain traction are not too damaging. It's a sad state of affairs though.

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 womens meetings screaming abuse & physically threatening them

ill not be lectured about who women are working with when you look at who TRA are working with

One group out of five is anti-abortion. So the other four aren't. The anti-abortion group is a tiny minority of the participants.

The evangelical church stepped in to offer to host the event after the other venue cancelled. So they are showing a more liberal stance than the original venue by offering to host an event which includes organisations such as For Women Scotland, with whom they no doubt disagree about numerous topics.

The message of the OP was,

would you work with people who don't share your principles to further your common goal. The very article the OP linked stated that one group out of 4 is anti abortion and gay marriage, and is being hosted by an evangelical church. Is that genuinely not seen to be conservative enough these days?

And to answer her question more generally, no I would not, and the above I just posted is the reason why.