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

I haven't. It's an example to show that the type of event and the content of it is relevant.

I study history and social sciences where you are constantly taught to evaluate the source of things, so for me personally, no I wouldn't be interested in attending an event set up by the people mentioned in any way. I would find it in conflict with my beliefs. I would not find the information provided by these people to be non biased and without an underlying agenda, and agenda which I already know I don't agree with.

Now I've had time to step away from the thread and take a breather, I'm confused about why my opinion is so controversial.

Attend an event for a cat sanctuary fundraiser? Fine. Attend an event to discuss the reasons why gay marriage shouldn't be legal, paid for and organised by an evangelical church who actively opposes gay marriage? Not fine to me.

How have you come to the conclusion that is what the event is about?

That's not okay to me though. While I understand people may feel differently and I wouldn't denigrate someone for holding separate views, I would speak out against the issue (not the person) if it came up. I wouldn't join them in a congregation at their church if their Church were known to exclude gay people and demonstrated that by say, voting against same sex marriage or clergy.

Is that really that unusual? I watched a video where Ben Shapiro was talking to his mate who is gay and he said due to his faith he wouldn't be attending his wedding.

Is it only okay to do that in the name of conservative values then, and not progressive ones?

How about, to discuss education in schools?

The issue is more you're saying we shouldn't share a platform/attend an event with people who don't recognise gay marriage, because you believe that only one opinion on the topic is acceptable

Attend an event for a cat sanctuary fundraiser? Fine. Attend an event to discuss the reasons why gay marriage shouldn't be legal, paid for and organised by an evangelical church who actively opposes gay marriage? Not fine to me.

But it doesn't mean in practice this belief should mean gay people are excluded from getting married?

Gay people can get married. My, your, or anyone else's opinion has no effect upon their legal right to marry.

The issue is more you're saying we shouldn't share a platform/attend an event with people who don't recognise gay marriage, because you believe that only one opinion on the topic is acceptable. And pp on the thread are arguing that it's irrelevant, because the event isn't about gay marriage. (Or abortion, or whatever else you're disagreeing about.)

It's perfectly fine to have that belief and people should respect that.

Agreed. So if I collaborate on, say, a campaign to fund fistula surgeries, with a Catholic who's pro-life and doesn't believe in gay marriage, that's okay with you? Because the whole thread you've been saying that would be antifeminist and immoral.

The belief in practice is unlikely to mean much more than that they don’t recognise gay marriage as being a ‘real marriage’ and are unlikely to marry same sex couples in their church.

It's perfectly fine to have that belief and people should respect that.

But it doesn't mean in practice this belief should mean gay people are excluded from getting married?

PriOn1 what you are saying makes perfect sense. It sounds reasonable, reality-based, a tone based in experience.

I think the groupthink purity police are a superficial lot. United in their shared feminist identity by a regular two minutes hate of ‘those who are not them’.

It reminds me of the joke where a guy gets rescued from years spent alone on a desert Island where he had built three huts. He explains “That one is my house and that one is my church” and the rescuer asks “and the third hut?”. “THAT’s the church I DON’T go to”.

Apologies for the first paragraph. It should have said something like….

I realise the conference under discussion is a political one, but I still find the idea that a group sponsoring a conference must be considered to be “nurtur[ing] a political relationship” with the other sponsors….. is fundamentally flawed.

In my personal view, no it is not okay to nurture a political relationship with groups that represent ideas that I cannot abide.

I realise the conference under discussion is a political one, but I still find the idea that a group sponsoring a conference must be considered to be “nurtur[ing] a political relationship” with the other sponsors.

I go to a lot of conferences which are sponsored by various different groups, for example some have been sponsored by pharmaceutical companies. I never once assumed those sponsors were nurturing a relationship with one another. Indeed sometimes they are competitors. I assumed those organizing the conference asked different groups for sponsorship and received some from groups that perhaps hoped to have some influence by way of advertising their existence, but not necessarily by directly influencing what was said during the discussions.

I presume then, that “HandsUpScotland” wanted to organise a conference on this topic and then made requests for sponsorship from groups they thought might feel it was a useful discussion to have. There may be strings attached to the sponsorship, but I wouldn’t presume so, unless there is direct evidence of that. Even if there are strings (e.g. if each group gets a chance to provide a speaker) that doesn’t mean the entire conference is somehow tainted. Even if you choose to go to that lecture to see what the person says, that doesn’t mean you support or agree with their ideas. It means you want to hear what they have to say on a topic that interests you.

And yes, 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.

I also find it odd that you believe the pro-life stance is inherently anti-feminist. Feminism is a broad church. This idea that every feminist must have alignment of thought on every single issue affecting women is what puts many women off feminism altogether.

I also notice that there is a lot of conflating going on. For example. If someone believes in the sanctity of life, and the sanctity of a union between a man and a woman because it can create life, it is not the same as saying same sex couples are ‘an abomination’.
I see real parallels between efforts between trying to force everyone to believe humans can change sex, with trying to force everyone to believe that there are no significant differences between a same sex and opposite sex coupling. There will always be people who think creating life - making babies - is sacred - and believe that that is what marriage is all about. The fact they don’t recognise gay marriage doesn’t mean they hate gay people. I don’t get why it is so important to some of these feminists that religions should change something which is a pretty core belief.

You also shut down the debate to the point that you’ll never learn that good people can hold, for example, pro-life views. And that some aspects of their views may well cause you to reconsider your own in some way.

Together you might find that there’s an area in which you can find enough consensus to move forward.

And people will probably discover that their own position is probably less representative of society as a whole than they might imagine. It’s not always easy to guess or categorise peoples views.

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.

Thing is, if you actually engage with the dogs you get the opportunity get rid of the fleas and many other things that make them easier to live with. You can learn about the dogs and coexist better.

If you insist that all engagement is endorsement and collaboration you’re never going to find out. Much easier to decide their views are unacceptable and shun them, while congratulating yourself on how strong your morals are.

Lie down with dogs, you'll get fleas.

This is a meaningless platitude.

It has a nice ring to it. It almost sounds profound.

But it says sweet bugger-all.

Just putting this out there to the people who subscribe to this thinking.

Are you opposed to All Party Parliamentary Groups?

Are you opposed to peace talks?

Are you opposed to the exchange of ideas?

This is a really tough one.

I think in general most causes have some questionable groups, and it depends on whether their voice takes over and our participation is seen as promoting what we do not believe in.

You asked for an explanation of why it wasn't antifeminist and immoral to attend the event. I gave an explanation.

Now you are, yes, moving the goalposts. You say no, it's not about interacting with random people. Who said it was?

Okay, so. It's not antifeminist to discuss 'education not indoctrination' with people who belong to different groups, some of which allegedly espouse ideas that some feminists don't agree with. It's simply what happens in politics. People come together to discuss ideas and if they have a common goal they can help each other out.

If there's a cross-party committee on, say, child poverty, it doesn't mean that the Labour MPs are saying they support the Tories about their tax program or immigration laws. Same thing here.

Well, some of these issues are quite complicated! There is nuance required. Freedom of expression, thought and belief is a big subject.

That is actually in response to people asking specific questions though, IMO of which many are deliberately obfuscating the issue.

Of course someone engaging in good faith over so many posts will be addressing many different things.

It's still not an adequate explanation in the actual context of the OP though. It just isn't. Because it's not a case of simply interacting with random people in that example.

Dream many of your posts have been hard to understand. I've done my best to engage in good faith, but it is hard, and you do seem to leap about from topic to topic.

I don't think a single person here has adequately addressed why it is not antifeminist and immoral to attend the event.

It's not antifeminist because attending or not attending events has got nothing to do with feminism. It's not antifeminist to go to Sainsburys, where many anti-abortion people also shop. It's not antifeminist to discuss ideas or listen to people who have different views than you do. It's not antifeminist to discuss ideas with someone who isn't a feminist. It's not antifeminist to talk to someone who's an outright misogynist. It's not antifeminist to marry someone who thinks abortion is murder. None of these things make you against feminism. How could they?

It's not immoral because the idea that it's immoral to talk to people who don't share all your same opinions is frankly batshit crazy.

Lol, that's really not the case.

What I've been saying isn't hard to express nor to comprehend.

I've explained what I don't think is okay.

I've explained why.

I'm not the one who has been moving the goalposts and moved the conversation from a specific issues to general free speech whataboutery. In fact I am the one who noted the goal posts were being moved much earlier in the thread and attempted to stay on topic.

All of this "poor you, you're just angry cos you don't know what you're talking about" is very transparent and tiresome.