Navigating differences of opinion between GC women

[womanformallyknownaswoman]

I came across this podcast of Meghan Murphy and Phyllls Chesler. I don’t know the work of the latter but from what she says she’s been a tireless GC feminist academic and writer for many years in the USA. She’s also an Emeritus Prof. of Psychology as well as a psychotherapist. She refers in the podcast to navigating differences of opinions without severing the relationship altogether.

Given the recent couple of public conflicts between GC women - I thought it would make a great topic to discuss how to do that - not just in private but in public. How do you deal with a perceived betrayal when someone on your side unexpectedly criticises you in public? How do you contain the natural reaction to defend oneself and one’s reputation whilst making space to reflect upon the unexpected negative feedback, which, as luck would have it, invariably comes at times of great stress/ pressure? What are tips, techniques and phrases to use to navigate conflict? How do you deal with those who criticise the person with the dissenting opinion and cause a pile-on?

How do you discern between a narc rage attack with no self reflection plus DARVO tactics and a knee jerk defensive reaction? How do you stop mean girl playground gangs from unintentionally forming? How do you maintain focus and cohesion when people take different sides over issues?

Over to you....

We need to study maturity. Women are infantilised.
We need to study debating techniques to talk with each other, and debating tactics to talk to the world.

Well, I avoid playground mean girl carry on by not being in the playground any more. If I see it I ignore and go back to my adult life where I make real differences to real people's lives.

It is easy to think that the public fallings out are a big deal. Just like school mean girl packs used to seem important. The reality is nobody outside the bubble knows nor cares.

Bollocks to twitter and echo chamber squabbles. Judean People's Front anyone?

Ignore. Mainstream is where it is at. Results in real life is where the adult operate.

I agree - irrespective many won’t have the time or capacity to study anything else as they are propelled into the public eye with the imperative to take action quickly to stop disastrous and ill thought out legislative changes.

I’m thinking shortcuts/shared wisdom may be helpful.

One thing that occurs to me is to be really clear about what the focus of an intiative is and what it isn’t. Thus it seems to be the focus of the USA trip is about getting all women together but particularly those on the right to prevent federal legislation that once it gets tabled will be supported wholeheartedly by the Democrats. It’s also about challenging the freedom of speech issues around TG ideology and the erasure of women and their sex based rights and concerns but is not about reproductive rights etc

And so on.

I also like leaving public criticism unanswered. Several opinions stated. Left there for the lurkers / readers. They think. They draw their own conclusions. Arguing online tends to make one look like a petty dick imo.

Cross post

Social media can only offer a venue where identity without context forms tribs, wat we did worked because we used it to demonstrate not to organise. I accepted long ago that my perspective means I hit against power dynamics and narc rage doesnt bother me cos am not involved in it and its about the person raging and am used to it and expect it. It passes, it repeats. But that isnt the case fore everyone. Some people are really harmed by it. Also we are dfeined by women with caring responsibilities. I stay away from social media activism because of that narc reflex. Period. My interest is the rule of law around these systems, and that means marginalisation, it also means that political identity bounces against them. Social relations would always have reconstructed in any social movement and so would the behaviour that defines social media activism. Its up to women to know that someone shouldnt have their life destroyed for saying they wont stand with something they find repugnant, and a narcissist in my view never destroys anything of value, they do have an uncanny ability to exploit power dynamics and demonstrate weaknesses in your environment. I see narc rage once I note it, I stay away and I dont recommend other women put themselves at risk. I dont stand with people who will fly off in narc rage because views they epress openly are described accurately and Jean Hatchett should never have had to delete er twitter account for a political position which existed long before this movement. She has had to. Women have to decide what behaviour they see as ok. Pre-existing political positins and identities have shaped the response to this, shaped who has access to resources to speak and tribalism has already produced the same effect it produces everywhere else. I figure this happens within social movements and the question is how we learn from it., I have no intention of repeating the fake anti-cuts moevement or entering intoa fake movement where allegiance to these systems and lawds and women comes second to whatever personality is now the barometer of what women are allowed to say.

I think you need to maintain focus on what is meant by GC. For instance, you may want to form an alliance with right-wing Christian women (for whatever reason), but it does not help the issue to suggest that these people are GC. They are the very opposite. There may be a small overlap in purpose in that they oppose self-ID, but it is important to remember that they also oppose rights for other LGBT groups and also oppose the liberation of women generally. Therefore, even if you think that this is a good way forward, it is important to recognise and respect that many women are not prepared to enter into this union and that the basis on which you are joining hands is not on being gender-critical, but specifically on opposing self-ID.

Also, calling it a playground spat or falling out is very unhelpful. Even if there is a shattered friendship between two women within this, it raises a much broader point about the movement. Is it about gender-criticism or is it about opposing self-ID? You can then determine which is more important in terms of your own beliefs, while recognising that others may not reach the same conclusions.

And what about those women with a valid dissenting opinion, who aren’t as robust for various reasons as other women? I’m thinking here of survivors in particular who may have PTSD from male violence, who want to be part of and who maybe don’t have the resilience of other fighting fit women, through no fault of their own but through male violence.

How do we embrace and support them, given some vulnerability, ie making reasonable adjustment for - ensuring that they aren’t marginalised, dismissed and unheard as so often is their experience in real life? They can’t stay in the boxing ring as long as others but that doesn’t mean their opinions are any less valuable. How do we GC women do things differently from “out there” so survivors aren’t unintentionally excluded from the action because they can’t keep up due to injuries previously sustained?

Has any type of activism gone through the prism of twitter and not ended up this way? Any at all? Is there a singel example of twitter based tribes forming where this is not the case? I cant think of one. I genuinely think its the platform, brings out the worst and is structured for narcissism. I genuinely think twitter is just a demonstration of somethin important and tribes formed there should be bypassed always.

We don’t all need to have the same opinion to agree on some things. I know that’s blindingly obvious but it seems to need repeating.

How do we navigate?

*Acknowledge difference without criticism
*Stick to the shared issue as a focus
*avoid personal criticism
*dont engage with external critics on issues that are peripheral.

We do not all think the same, believe the same things or have the same opinions. And that’s OK.

Countries banded together to fight WW2. Against a common aggressor. They didn’t need to make all their laws and customs identical to do that.

We need to see diversity of thought as a plus - we need to pitch it that if women with such differing backgrounds and opinions are all saying the same thing, then maybe there’s something in it.

Is it about opposing self id or gender criticism

Or is it about confronting abuse of power in any context? (Can’t cut n paste on my phone for some reason to quote exactly)

Criticism accepted re descriptive terms - I didn’t intent to infantilise women - my mistake

So as an example, what are the focus of the UK initiatives now? I know those of WPUK whose focus is within the existing system to ensure the impact of proposed policy and law on women is mandatory, if I’m correct.

And Standing for Women is more about the attacks on free speech of women and the erasure of women, their rights, language, spaces etc

Whilst the USA focus seems to be about opposing self id - they already have freedom of speech enshrined in law. I also thought the focus of the USA was going to be about confronting tech giants but it seems to have morphed into a general anti self id

As I try to answer my own questions I realise there is a lack of definition around the different intiatives imo that can lead to confusion

Yes I get that we don’t all need to have the same opinion and there is no leader - however clarity is helpful

Those principles are great Bowl

Or is it about confronting abuse of power in any context?

I wouldn't say that this is the aim of either right-wing Christian groups or right-wing free speech movements, so I don't think it is the thread that hangs it together.
Right-wing Christians oppose self-ID because it goes against their belief in inherent gender-roles. Men who claim to be women are not conforming to what men are supposed to be. But nor are lesbians for instance.
Right-wing pro-free speech believes that we should be allowed to criticise and expose every aspect of the trans movement. But they also believe that racist and misogynistic speech should be heard and that women's concerns about male violence are overblown and might restrict men's rights.

So, the link there between GC and those groups is either discomfort with self-ID or the right to be able to say that you are uncomfortable with self-ID. But neither of those groups can be seen as gender-critical.

Acknowledge difference without criticism
Stick to the shared issue as a focus
avoid personal criticism
dont engage with external critics on issues that are peripheral.

This is great ^

There's a film called "The Chicago 8", about a group of counterculture activists who were charged in the late 60's with conspiracy, inciting a riot, etc, in reference to Vietnam protests. One of my favourite quotes from the film is from a defendant saying "Conspiracy? We couldn't agree on lunch!"

I think public disagreement with each other is a feature, not a bug, as long as we argue about the issues and don't slate each other. One of the things that distinguishes us from TRAs is that we reject the whole #nodebate nonsense. It's fine for us to disagree, argue, and either continue to disagree or indeed to change our minds. It's how we collectively develop our thinking on this.

*Acknowledge difference without criticism
*Stick to the shared issue as a focus
*avoid personal criticism
*dont engage with external critics on issues that are peripheral.

^^ agree this is great.

Agree Funky - the abuse of power was a steam of consciousness from me, not an analysis of what the common focus of the various “allies” is- I didn’t make that clear. I am obviously trying to work something out myself here ... but it’s unclear to me quite what - that’s ok - the clarity will come personally ....

Maybe the common focus is the TG ideology has got way out of hand and threatens the stability of our democracy and that of our neighbours. They have invaded too many jurisdictions now outside of their own domain - and need to be contained for the safety and security of all

I think difference of opinion and debate is great, esssential and accepted on here

• I also think that to get those onboard in the gen pop who aren’t engaged/aware of all the issues, the message to them needs to be clear, simple and concise - otherwise it runs the risk of being dismissed as irrelevant ramblings or the adverse profound impacts of some of TG ideology just not understood

As a side issue I think that whenever you fight for free speech and human rights you will inevitably end up being criticised for supporting the rights and freedoms of some unsavoury people.

However that is how rights and freedoms work - they aren’t just for people on the approved list.

But they also believe that racist and misogynistic speech should be heard

Yes, that is what free speech is. It isn’t “free speech for me but not for thee.”

women's concerns about male violence are overblown and might restrict men's rights.

ALL men, of whatever politics, believe women’s concerns regarding male violence are overblown. Because they do not navigate the world as women.

From what I’ve read, and not speaking of the alt-right here, but of the suburban Republicans who are the voters the Heritage Foundation came into existence to create, they do not want men in boys or men in women’s toilets or changing rooms, and they definitely do not want boys and men in girls and women’s sports teams. The men are coming at it from an urge to protect that is patriarchal in nature and, wrt to sport, with an understanding about fairness.

Be cautious about how very broad the paintbrush is you’re using.

At base, most people are going to resist, for very valid reasons, an ideology that insists they deny material reality.

It’s possible that the women seeking legislative assistance from Republicans in this issue may be saving the Democrats from themselves.

Remember that the US does not have a parliamentary system. It generally requires votes from different members of both parties to pass or stop legislation.

Bernie Sanders, right now, is the most admired politician in America. Why? Because he's been touring Republican states, listening to people there, and giving speeches drawing crowds if thousands. The right-left split is not as clear-cut in America and national media portrays. My very right-wing cousins, for instance, support Medicare for All, as do over 60% of Republican voters.

AnneHutchinson whether you want to call it 'the right' or 'the left' or whatever is not of major importance to me. I don't care if the left are even worse than the right. I know what my own principles are and it doesn't matter if they don't fit onto a political spectrum. I do not believe in unrestricted free speech, no, because it can harm women and minority groups. My concern about gender does not lie in the fact that I can't verbally insult people, so I am not fighting this on the basis of free speech. If you win the free speech battle, you also end up with racists and holocaust-deniers being given platforms. No thanks.

I am also deeply committed to ensuring female liberation from the patriarchy. Therefore, no matter what the left does, there is no way I can square in my head any sort of alliance with a group that wants the exact opposite. Oh and it is clear from Jean's post that the WOLF group paid for accommodation for a number of groups, so of course money is changing hands. The Heritage Foundation is minted.

For me, it's not about left or right, it is about principle. I am relieved that many of the feminists I admire agree with this.

Nobody is advocating free speech without any limits.

Nobody is advocating free speech without any limits.

Are you sure? Because that is exactly what the alt-right want. Or certainly the right to be misogynistic and racist where it suits them.

I think public disagreement with each other is a feature, not a bug, as long as we argue about the issues and don't slate each other. One of the things that distinguishes us from TRAs is that we reject the whole #nodebate nonsense. It's fine for us to disagree, argue, and either continue to disagree or indeed to change our minds. It's how we collectively develop our thinking on this

Yes I totally agree - as long as it is real debate with recognition of real issues and not just jingoisms being thrown and different personalities 'getting the numbers' to win.

Many of us have been here before and maybe we have learned to hear criticism without taking offence or being defensive. These issues raise strong emotions and there are many different ways of fighting for our rights. HOwever it must me recognised that divide and rule is and has always been a tactic which takes our focus away from the matter in question and men and men's right and trans rights activists will do this deliberately. Especially when we are pointing out the truth.