Harriet Harman and Fawcett Society

They note Fawcett is a membership organisation, with 3,000 members. Looking at previous accounts, last year there were 3,525; the year before 4,120; the year before, 3,946; before that, 3,582, before that 3,282. So membership is currently the lowest it's been in 6 years.

I think quite a few women's groups that had a traditional base, and some newer women's groups, have been struggling to maintain any reason to exist since the transing of culture.

Many groups just accepted it as the "new" direction to go in and are now stuck because in the process have lost the membership that joined because they wanted to campaign for women (ie actual biological females).

Some have amalgamated with "equality" groups, so again have no real focus.

Even if it isn't exactly that, what is obvious is how few of these groups like Fawcett have ever made a simple statement about supporting women's sex based rights.

Sadly I suspect some of it isn't even about strong beliefs or convictions.

It is just about strategic moves to keep the organisation afloat.

So having lots of people who are aligned with the new Government as your committee members must make them feel like they are on to a real winner!

As I said above, more and more these groups are more about people keeping their jobs, not about the purpose and core mission of the group.

@IwantToRetire
Well exactly.

They're consilidating power to get Starmers ears. I find it deeply concerning.

What is so depressing is that even if they form caucus, and even if it is very tiny, Starmer / Labour will make out if it totally valid and representative.

We always used to hear about the old boys network. Now (thanks to equality - not) we have old girls networks. Although unlike the boys this aren't self forming, they are created by the boys to make it look like the girls totally support the boys.

Hear hear Janice! They're consilidating power to get Starmers ears. I find it deeply concerning.

@Imnobody4 Yes they are, very.
This looks like an out and out powergrab to me.
Starmer will listen to them so its serious.

Missing in action

The Fawcett Society proposes to convene a cross-party caucus of women MPs. After 42 years in parliament, surely its new chair, Harriet Harman, knows that like-minded Tory and Labour women have always pulled together on issues such as abortion rights. Why do they need a charity to book the room?

In the past decade’s feminist battle, which united Corbynite trade unionists and Tory baronesses, Fawcett and Harman were both MIA. They could have intervened in the gender wars to host debates seeking common ground. Instead, when women in public life were vilified, threatened and sacked for believing in sex-based rights or questioning the medical transition of children, they hid away.

Women had to form new groups — Woman’s Place, Fair Play For Women. Their victories include the Cass review, a rethink on trans prisoners and many fraught legal cases. So it’s pretty rich for Fawcett to claim any right to speak for women now just to bolster its falling membership and reduced funds. “Courage calls to courage,” said its suffragist founding spirit Millicent. Pity that Fawcett and Harman blocked their ears.

Janice Turner - The Times
https://archive.ph/z5Q2z

"You have free speech, but be careful what you say" 🙄

That's terrifying in its authoritian overtones:"women who've found themselves on the wrong side"?!?!? Arrogant moron.

Oh dear,has someone been untoward about Harriet Harman?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68830796.amp

Harriet Harman showing her views on paedophiles recently. Burn the witch.

I mean, a thread about some action being taken by women's charity and a feminist politician, to benefit women, being discounted completely because "Fawcett Society thinks TWAW" and some scandal from the 1980s that Harriet Harman might or might not have been involved in.

Great. Really good work in supporting womens rights. I'm sure Rosie Duffield and JK Rowling can do the necessary on their own, given no other lefty women are pure enough.

OK. Guilt by association.

Unless you believe the version of events from a convicted paedophile over the version of a feminist politician. Which would be a strange choice.

The ones without penises?

Cassie I'd love to have your time and energy that you spend wasting on these boards trying to tell everyone how we are womaning wrong and what we should and shouldn't put up with. Admire isn't the right word but there's definitely a word for it. It'll come to me.

What's the good thing about being associated with the Paedophile Information Exchange again? For what reason should we uncritically accept her into public life? She should be persona non grata. As should many others. (Wait until you look up the Islington Care Homes scandal).

But you know, if you stand for nothing, you'll fall for anything. I'm very happy to stand for child safeguarding. It's my red line.

HTH.

I thought we didn't go by "guilt by association" on this board. Or smears against feminists.

There is no evidence of HH actively promoting pie. It is a smear. Meantime she's done more to support women and girls than most. Absolutely disgraceful to make out her appointment is somehow harmful to women, but of course tribalism being "a bad thing" only works one way.

@CassieMaddox you could not be more wrong about PIE. And victims and survivors of child sexual abuse - of which there are many - deserve better.

Your posts reveal you care more about party loyalty than you do about child safeguarding, and child victims of crime.

Shame on you.

I reckon this is an example of how insisting that women should be kind and share changing rooms, showers, hospital wards, prison cells etc with the Isla Brysons and Sara Jane Bakers of the world renders respected politicians like H H look like dangerous fools.
She openly argues that men are women when they say they are. She also sees the proponents of this immensely powerful ideology that has upturned the social contract with zero democratic discussion or consent as full of highly vulnerable people. She is partially right about that, but the vulnerable ones are the children who've been gaslit by these powerful organisations that their bodies are wrong but a sex change will fix them. She's pandering to the middle aged male transitioners and completely ignoring the vulnerable young people who she (along with a depressing number of politicians) have failed to notice or protect.

This whole ideology has progressed this far as from the outset women were told to be quiet, be kind, not speak up and not be difficult and cause dissent.

No more being told to be silent.

What? You think pointing out a smear from 40 or 50 years ago is "foul"?

I think we should leave it too. Let everyone see what left wing women are up against. Doesn't matter how much good you do, how much of a feminist you are, it will never be enough for the purists.

Apologies. Lack of fact checking on my part.

Once again the circularity is a feature, not a bug. From the SNP funding Stonewall, to national bodies like the NHS accepting WPATH's 'expert' advice. And the roundabout of money, grants, and jobs goes round and round.

Nah, don't get it deleted. Keep all the reported facts there. The Guardian article is not a smear and it does not support CassieMaddox's minimising story either.

"The motion was passed two years after Harman claimed that the group no longer wielded influence in the NCCL". Quite the long shadow. Harman's husband's "success" at stopping PIE from having any influence seems to have been more limited than she imagines.

The Guardian article is a timely warning on the dangers of turning a blind eye.

I heard the WH segment and she kept getting muddled on sex and gender, which was not very heartening frankly.