A challenge to Mumsnet

[BitOfFun]

I am posting and running, as I am having a break this weekend, but thought I would flag this up for you all first, as it's interesting:

liberalconspiracy.org/2010/10/14/a-challenge-to-mumsnet/#comment-185859

The comments have kicked off an interesting debate on the 'Let Girls Be Girls' campaign.

Yes I know what you mean, I do the same. But the danger with that is, that as you say, "they change their minds, they don't do what they say", probably because they never really believed in the principles in the first place, they just paid lip service to them.

Look at the strong movements throughout history that really achieved change - suffragettism, anti-slavery, civil rights movement in the US, anti-apartheid - they were really single issues. But they were just and fair and inevitably had to win, there was no way of stopping them. The people involved remained focused on their objectives and eventually the politicians had to change. But if these movements had been tied in with anti-sweatshop movements, and save the planet movements, and feed the world movements, then probably, not a single one of these movements would have achieved its objectives.

It suits politicians and parties to unite all of these movements, because they get more adherents who will vote for the party. But is the party just using these movements and the people who believe in them, will it tear up its promises? Also the more movements that are united together, the more opposition the united front will attract. There may be opponents who believe in one of the movements, but not in some of the others, and they may then oppose even the movements that they believed in.

I think that in the end justice always wins out, and if a movement is just and remains resolute and focused in its goals and doesn't become part of a conglomerate of differing goals, then it will eventually succeed.

claig - I agree with you too. Good examples. It's a tricky one. The principles vs policy thing is, in the world now, a bit of a least worst option now I think. I think politicians subscribe to ideology less than they did. But I don't buy the whole 'end of ideology stuff'.

But yes Dittany totally. If feminism is single issue then so is just about any other ideology I can think of. I could give a 'strapline' just as easily, or not, for any of them.

it's fascinating. Isn't it a bit like the derailing and 'what about the menz' arguments? i.e. you can't solve all of the world's problems in one go. You have to do it one step at a time, "softly softly catchee monkey", just like the women in Dagenham did, when they achieved the Equal Pay Act.

That's why I think this Liberal Conspiracy article is wrong. It is almost derailing 'Let Girls Be Girls' in order to solve the sweatshop problem.

That's a good intersection. It's like it's framed within the single issue stuff, you can only focus on one issue at a time, and then you have a hierarchy of issues. Therefore LGBG becomes not as important as child labour, but then does stopping kids dying from malaria become more important that than that? Is a campaign to stop child labour in sweat shops only possible in a country where you have the luxury of your child living old enough to go to work and not dying of malaria? It takes us nowhere good. Whereas a movement can frame single issues then there is in immediate link - you get plugged in and can campaign about lots of things within your world view. But without the world view do we lack the tribe or shared experience etc of being in a movement? I get pretty excited about the idea of there being another wave, and it inspires me to do things as you know there are others working to a common cause, but maybe through multiple, interrelated single issues [thinking smiley!]

Sorry for the block of text! Some spaces would have been good

I tend to agree with claig re single issues v. over-arching philosophy as being the way active politics seems to be going. The idea being that people cohere around a single issue, fight in that, then disappear if achieved, with another group of people coming together to fight on another, etc., etc.

In reality, I think it's a bit more fluid, there will often be a similar pool of activists, gathered around related issues.

I guess I see politics as a "net", with lots of inter-related actions/oppressions/exploitations, etc. Feminism provides a good slant from which to look at lots of the things that bug me, and connects with them, too. though I'd be loathe to argue for it as a privileged discourse, in the way Marxists used to argue for Marxism, and dismiss other struggles as side-issues.

I also agree with Dittany and Claig in their interpretation of the agenda of the Liberal Conspiracy person. Especially wrt its embedded sexism, and rather armchair view of activism. Reminds me of my father supervising my mother doing housework, when I was very young: "You've missed a bit", called from the armchair.

Having said all that, I do think the sweatshop issue is serious.

I guess the thing about any campaign is that you ideally choose one that can be achieved (unless you're a Trotskyist). And the thing about the LGBG campaign is that, because it is limited, a focussed pressure can be brought in a limited area, and consciousness raised (fairly easily) on a more general area.

Thanks for those posting links to companies' records on ethical goods earlier.

"You've missed a bit" is excellent , that sums it up. Criticising from the sidelines without get constructively involved.

The good news is that there are already large UK organisations, such as War on Want, campaigning against sweatshops
www.waronwant.org/campaigns/love-fashion-hate-sweatshops

But as far as I know, it is only Mumsnet that is campaigning for 'Let Girls Be Girls'. That is why the campaign is so important and its focus shouldn't be lost by campaigning for no sweatshops instead.

You seem to be ignoring the central point of the Liberal Conspiracy article ? that LGBG provides a convenient ?fig leaf? for companies with embarrassing ethical standards.

The campaign is about trying to ?curb the premature sexualisation of children by asking retailers to commit not to sell products which play upon, emphasise or exploit their sexuality.? It's not about sweatshops, or tobacco advertising or animal vivisection or any other cause. It's not a campaign against the things that specific retailers do wrong, it's solely about asking them not to sell products that promote the sexualisation of children.

If Liberal Conspiracy want to campaign against sweatshops, they should join the War on Want campaign. War on Want won't campaign for 'Let Girls Be Girls', which is why it is a good thing that Mumsnet does.

If we were to apply the logic of the Liberal Conspiracy article, then Liberal Conspiracy shouldn't advocate support for Labour, since it is providing a fig leaf for them taking us into a war on a lie.

I think your comparison is unfair. Groups endorse political parties on the balance of a wide range of issues that are important to them. Mumsnet, through LGBG, is endorsing companies on a single narrowly defined issue.

I don't think Mumsnet is endorsing companies. Most of us haven't got a clue which companies are involved. All we want is for them to stop selling stuff that sexualizes children. If Mumsnet can achieve that, then that is for the good.

I wonder if Liberal Conspiracy have managed to achieve as much good? They seem to turn a blind eye to people who sent us to war on a lie and caused the death of our service people and hundreds of thousands of others. Maybe they should sort out their priorities and stop campaigning in favour of the party that did that? But maybe they don't care? Maybe they want to campaign on other issues so as to provide a fig leaf for themselves and their chosen party, so that they can carry on endorsing the party that led us to war on a lie.

I doon't think Mumsnet is "endorsing" companies either, I think it's giving companies a kind of certificate for doing (or rather not doing) one particular thing. Saying that they shouldn't be giving out such certificates is a bit like saying that the Soil Association shouldn't certify food as organic if it's produced by companies with a record of employing illegal immigrants. It's a different issue, not a less important one but a separate one.

I have also noticed the habit that some people who are not active on any issue have, of criticising others for not being active on all issues.

"The first rule of activism is not to expect other people to do your activism for you." is a bloody great motto.

very good analogy about the Soil Association

I think its more like the Soil Association giving Monsanto a certificate for its organic allotment. Within the rules, but hardly the spirit.

Not going to waste time taking that apart David, but it's nice to see you've spread your wings from defending Hooters on the other thread. What is it about your consistent defence of "family breastaurant" Hooters that makes you an expert on how best to oppose the sexualisation of young girls?

Well of course sweatshops are important.

I loathe the subtle implication that just because mumsnet are campaigning against the premature sexualisation of girls, we've all of a sudden forgotten about sweatshops, or the two women murdered every week in the UK, or porn, or prositution, or the class system, or the big supermarkets/shops expoiting women and children...

The list of ills in the world is endless, endless.
We have focused on something manageable, to raise awareness more than anything else.

I truly, for the life of me, cannot think why anyone would attempt to put a stop to such a worthy campaign and direct energies elsewhere.

The obvious answer for liberal conspiracy is: start your own campaign if you're that bothered, surely?? Then spread the word and perhaps some mumsnetters will join you.

I think I live in a paralell universe, a lot of the time. My limited brain gets confused at why some things are suddenly opposed in the most illogical way.

SGM - because we're mothers of course and therefore thick. It's the same reason we have to be told not to drink at all in pregnancy, rather than be given proper information about units, because our fluffy little brains can't process too much information.

PMSL at E&M's question: "What is it about your consistent defence of "family breastaurant" Hooters that makes you an expert on how best to oppose the sexualisation of young girls?"

If you're PYSL at E&Ms lazy little ad-hom then you should probably get out more... or do some pelvic floor excercises.

I'm no expert, but I would probably try to tackle the demand side, rather than prohibit supply. Instead of playing fashion police and handing out gold stars to compliant retailers, you cold perhaps take your message to the parents that would buy these clothes.

Its easier to villify amoral retailers than it is to judge the choices of individual consumers.

Yes, you're no expert, that's true.

There's nothing to stop people expressing disaapproval of these clothes to other parents as well as putting pressure on retailers not to sell them.

The two things are not mutually exclusive.

Concern troll

A concern troll is a false flag pseudonym created by a user whose actual point of view is opposed to the one that the user claims to hold. The concern troll posts in web forums devoted to its declared point of view and attempts to sway the group's actions or opinions while claiming to share their goals, but with professed "concerns". The goal is to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt within the group.[15]

An example of this occurred in 2006 when Tad Furtado, a top staffer for then-Congressman Charles Bass (R-NH), was caught posing as a "concerned" supporter of Bass's opponent, Democrat Paul Hodes, on several liberal New Hampshire blogs, using the pseudonyms "IndieNH" or "IndyNH". "IndyNH" expressed concern that Democrats might just be wasting their time or money on Hodes, because Bass was unbeatable.[16][17]

Although the term "concern troll" originated in discussions of online behavior, it now sees increasing use to describe similar behaviors that take place offline.

For example, James Wolcott of Vanity Fair accused a conservative New York Daily News columnist of "concern troll" behavior in his efforts to downplay the Mark Foley scandal. Wolcott links what he calls concern trolls to Saul Alinsky's "Do-Nothings", giving a long quote from Alinsky on the Do-Nothings' method and effects:

?These Do-Nothings profess a commitment to social change for ideals of justice, equality, and opportunity, and then abstain from and discourage all effective action for change. They are known by their brand, 'I agree with your ends but not your means.'?

In a more recent example, The Hill published an op-ed piece by Markos Moulitsas of the liberal blog Daily Kos titled "Dems: Ignore 'Concern Trolls' ". Again, the concern trolls in question were not Internet participants; they were Republicans offering public advice and warnings to the Democrats. The author defines "concern trolling" as "offering a poisoned apple in the form of advice to political opponents that, if taken, would harm the recipient".

Source

great link Jess