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....

I don't have a problem in debating with racists or holocaust-deniers. These views gain ground because they aren't publicly debated and are no platformed so the people with these views can see themselves as victims. Debate the issues and shed some light on them.
I don't think free speech means the right to threaten people with violence and to harrass them but I don't think any ideas should be thought of as too dangerous for rational debate.

You can’t ‘debate’ with Holocaust deniers.

You can tear their arguments to shreds in public for the benefit of an audience who might not be certain, but you can’t persuade anyone who would ignore the Nazis own testimonies as well as those of the survivors and the physical evidence.

Holocaust deniers aren’t ignorant; they are liars.

Funky, I meant nobody here, no GC women. The alt left want to deny free speech, the alt right want no limits. We should strive to work with both, in order to come to a reasonable and logical place in the middle. Refusing to engage at all with either, is a recipe for disaster.

First leader of UK Pegida was Tim Scott. If you've never heard of him it's because he had to stand down after one of his first interviews was a disastrous car crash.

Going down the no-platforming/ #nodebate route would have helped this guy as he could have all the advantages of portraying himself as someone THEY didn't want to speak whilst avoiding the questions that ended his nascent political career before it had even begun.

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/uk-pegida-leader-tim-scott-resigns-following-car-crash-interview-a6761611.html

Very good point, Freespeecher - and Anne upthread.

Sunlight really is the best disinfectant sometimes.

I think that is the one disagreement I find difficult to handle when interacting with GC women. I can accept pretty much any opinion, except the opinion that there are opinions that people shouldn’t have or voice. It is an alien way of thinking to me.

I am also perplexed why there seems to be so little interest in the libertarian (not Christian/heritage-focused) Right - who are genuinely GC and have no problem with gender non conformity.

Learning to not respond to personal criticism with an in-kind attack is helpful as is ignoring those who personally attack.

It's hard when the issue is very personal - I get that.
It becomes abusive when mobbing occurs from those who want to silence and who never own the harm they cause.

The policing of Freedom of Speech is fraught with simplistic thinking, for example, I want to be free to criticise aspects of the Israeli govt's treatment of Palestinians without being accused of anti-Semitism.

Also, misogyny and sexism is so ingrained and normalised that a good start point would be to highlight that at play when appropriate - whether under the guise of white supremacy or trans ideology.

Here are those guidelines again - seems to me we should be policing freedom of speech against these criteria and not simplistic "hate speech"

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

I'm adding in:

avoid demonisation.

I regularly get one word responses of "DARVO" when I disagree with people on here, and all it really means is that I have the opposite perspective and think they're wrong whereas they think they're right. Telling someone they're wrong isn't abusive. So it's great to discuss how to maturely disagree amongst yourselves and avoid demonisation, but do you think you might be able to extend the same maturity to people who disagree with you more fundamentally?

Depends whether the other party is posting in good faith and demonstrating in their behaviour the respect they demand from us - takes 2 to tango

Feminism is not a social club, it is not therapy, other women are not your mommy and we don't all have to be friends. Nobody is obliged to like you. Learn to work as team for common purpose. It is OK to state points of disagreement but set out your case rather than name-calling and pointing out an individual's flaws (we all have flaws). There is plenty of activism to be done. Do what fits for you, let other people get on with their thing. Take responsibilty for your own actions .