Liberty takes a turn at jumping that poor, over-jumped shark

[pombear]

twitter.com/libertyhq/status/1053337483302367232

Liberty says:
If feminism is fundamentally about inclusivity, equality and empowerment then the fight for trans equality should be a feminist issue

I don't get how this is a rational argument. When did feminism become a cover-all for 'being inclusive and empowering to absolutely everyone'?

Then it's not feminism. It's just a standard base approach to humanity that we all should be subsribing to anyway.

I took a look at the Liberty team. Many have come from backgrounds of supporting children and vulnerable women.

How could you lose your way so much that suddenly 'feminism' doesn't equal 'women', it just equals 'everyone'?

Then I looked at their history:
We can never take our liberty for granted, and in times of economic instability and social upheaval, our basic rights come under attack. In 1934, as desperate people protested against poverty, corruption and the threat of fascism, the Council of Civil Liberties was formed to protect them, to champion the rights of ordinary people and hold the powerful to account. For 80 years we have been the conscience of the nation, and we are needed now as we were then to keep watch over our rights and freedoms.

Then I took a look at their current funders and thought, ah well.

Their feminism is not my feminism.

Actual feminism is the political struggle to liberate women from patriarchy, not some touchy feely, let's give the men hugs until they stop killing women.

Feminism is about inclusivity? Why? Since when?

They jumped the paedo shark in the Seventies too.

Yeah, I thought feminism was about women. Silly me.

Why the fuck are they cluelessly jumping on this bandwagon? Piss off.

Liberty have supported the wrong people before.

www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/10653950/We-on-the-Left-lacked-the-courage-to-be-branded-homophobic-so-we-just-ignored-it.-I-wish-I-hadnt.html

Feminism is not about inclusivity, equality and empowerment. It’s a movement for the liberation of women. Some people need to go back and read their Kate Millett and Germaine Greer. And then move on to Andrea Dworkin. Twats.

That sounds like a shout out to a Stock Chaser

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3353260-Kathleen-Stock-womens-organisations-have-decentred-biological-females

Stock wrote: twitter.com/Docstockk/status/1035578059858931712

Presumably most of you were weaned on serious thinkers like De Beauvoir and Dworkin and McKinnon, or counterparts. How can you keep a straight face as your PR interns churn out, on yr behalf, tweets from the Stonewall Big Book of Nonsensical Aphorisms plus a bunch of emojis?

...But better yet, stop with the craven capitulation, stop with the patronising doublespeak, and do the right thing. (Also, give the youngsters running yr social media some 2nd wave feminist books

Thanks for sharing that link Old. I've read stuff around how PIE had operated. This sentence stands out, amongst many learnings, from Eileen's article:

PIE fooled so many on the Left, within academia and in social work, because they adroitly hijacked the language of liberation

Inclusivity of all women, sure. Inclusivity of all causes... no. I care deeply about declining marine ecosystems, too, but I’m not going to start telling feminists off for being exclusionary about coral reefs.

If feminism is fundamentally about inclusivity, equality and empowerment

It isn’t. Its about women’s lib.

I see this tactic a lot. Start with a quick but false statement - then build argument. People then start fighting the ‘well of course I’m not what you’re accusing me of’ spiel when what they really should be doing is saying, ‘your definition of feminism is wrong. It’s not about inclusivity. Whatever gave you that idea?’

They push this mode of argument because it makes people accept the initial conditions and faff about trying to rebuff the wrong stuff. It’s the same technique as people use to argue ‘but would gender neutral toilets be Ok if.., (we had cubicles/blah blah.)

Look at the premise the argument is built in. Take that down. Don’t engage with the back end.

You can see this very argument type going in at the moment on the trans/thirdbsoaces thread.

‘Would it be ok if..?’ ‘What about if we..’

Stop engaging with these arguments. They all assume that we will accept the starting conditions -men in women’s spaces- what we need to do is say NO to that. It’s not the start of a negotiation

I agree Bowl Just shining a light, not engaging!

Oh totally! Not criticising you or anyone on here - just pointing out the technique...

Thanks for sharing that article. So many echoes
To younger people now, it seems incredible that Leftists once defended paedophiles. But, to their shame, and the continuing long-term harm of British children, many did. I know that better than most, remembering our anguished, earnest conversations

PIE fooled so many on the Left, within academia and in social work, because they adroitly hijacked the language of liberation. Little was known then or discussed about the extent or horror of child abuse. PIE members also portrayed themselves as “child lovers”, benign uncle figures who offered tenderness, not rape.

They claimed that paedophiles, like women, gay men and children, were “oppressed by the patriarchy”. Therefore we should all make common cause. Spare Rib, to its credit, refused to fall for this self-serving guff. But nor did we condemn it. I was the staffer delegated to read O’Carroll’s book, and I lacked the courage to be branded “homophobic” — as opponents of PIE were. So we just ignored it

No worries Bowl, wasn't suggesting you were. Always value your posts here - and always now visualise you with baby-sick down your shoulder as you do so!

Pams particularly this bit:
I was the staffer delegated to read O’Carroll’s book, and I lacked the courage to be branded “homophobic” — as opponents of PIE were. So we just ignored it

Younger staff members in so many organisatons right now, even though they may doubt the messages, be concerned how they impact on women and girl's rights, daren't be branded as 'transphobic'.

This movement has got everyone running scared. And, as a result, there is likely to a rerun of PIE. (To lurkers/screenshotters, that is not implying that the majority involved in this movement are the same, but there are some invaders to your movement who are keen for you to continue to act in the way you are doing so).

Know who else thought paedophilia was okay?

Sex-change pioneer John Money:

If I were to see the case of a boy aged ten or eleven who's intensely erotically attracted toward a man in his twenties or thirties, if the relationship is totally mutual, and the bonding is genuinely totally mutual ... then I would not call it pathological in any way

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Money

I think the term ‘feminism’ has been completely emptied of content.

We should go back (forward?) to talking about Women’s Liberation instead.

That makes me feel so ill reading that Aspie

If feminism is fundamentally about inclusivity, equality and empowerment
I'm I'm no way an academic but..nope. to me feminism is about women and girls having freedom and real choices.

We don't have to include anyone who isn't female-why would we?
And wtf is "empowerment? I never understand that term. Women need equal power, yes. Empowerment spounds like something someone else would allow you, not actual power.

That article about the left and paedophiles was really shocking. How could you be so anxious about being liberal that you advocate for child abuse? ??
Oh...wait. ..

what's the chance they'd just start claiming to be womxn's libbers themselves. I refuse to cede any more ground

We should go back (forward?) to talking about Women’s Liberation instead.

I agree. My feminism is for the liberation of women from patriarchy, not for the inclusion of the patriarchy.

Jeeze, every bugger loves telling women to be nice, don't they?

I’m just old enough to remember the PIE scandal break in the Eighties and I didn’t really understand it at the time but reading some history books about the Seventies brought it back.

It puts the Jimmy Savile and Cyril Smith stories into context. They were extreme cases of something which actually had wide support, not just on the Left but among Conservatives, Liberals and even members of the clergy.

Remember, this was the time pop stars would happily talk about having sex with underage fans and page 3 girls could be as young as 16.

The 1970’s equivalent of the ‘Woke’ really did think it was the next great progressive cause.