Posie Parker in the USA

[lucydo]

I am aware that there already long threads on this, but would anyone mind just giving me the basic information about what so many people are objecting to? Is it just that she has attended an event run by a Right Wing organisation? Or is there more?
It just looks like a pile-on by left-wingers on my twitter feed.
In all events, it's a TRA dream - divide and rule.
Again, before anyone flames me, I know that there are 2 long threads on this, but I gave up the will to read them after people going on about breakfasts for post after post.

Genderism privileges subjectivity over material reality. That is the antithesis of leftist politics.

That's the definition of 21st Century leftist politics.

And ... sisters .. may I remind you all of the history of women's struggles?

What is happening now is nothing more than what happened then ... ant together they won

www.bl.uk/votes-for-women/articles/suffragists-and-suffragettes

I'm so sorry to hear what happened to you, Oxy, and also sorry that you had to read such a coldhearted, dismissive response in a space like this where that really shouldn't be happening. Most of us care and understand why being asked to justify your discomfort around unknown males is so hurtful and so infuriating.

Still not indulging those who'd like to see infighting around Posie, or Jean, or anyone else. The tactics are obvious and I think everyone should be wary of taking the bait.

I was staying quiet as this thread is the only time strangers on the internet have genuinely upset me. There is no other word for what some of you have been than bully.

Trying to ostracise me and my experiences because I’m not ‘one of you’ It’s obvious and awful and a deliberate attempt to silence me.

I have had so many messages from people who have actually read the exchanges as they are written and not how they’ve been twisted around. People who aren’t on ‘my side’ who can see this twisting and turning and the deliberate bitchy behaviour. I will not be returning to FWR but I did not want to leave without letting you all that you are not as subtle as you think.

But yes, keep telling me i wasn’t nice enough I wonder if men are chatting about how little sympathy Dave gave Frank when discussing things? I somehow doubt it.

Responding to a post about someone’s trauma whilst saying they’re ‘sickened at my question’ with an explanation of why I asked the question initially is ‘heartless and cold’ etc but responding to my post detailing my personal abuse and assault with ‘I don’t care, so what’ even if she was not responding to the part about the abuse is acceptable?

FWR is not a ‘nice’ place, questions and debates are emotive and someone will get offended by pretty much everything that is said on that, on whichever side. I stand by my initial post on abortion/rape and think that difficult or emotional topics should not be avoided for the chance of upsetting someone.

Anyway - Enjoy rubbing shoulders with anti-abortion, anti- working woman, anti-contraception, anti-black/Asian organisations, I’d rather stand with TRAs than those assholes.

From Jackies link:
“In 1907 a split occurred in the WSPU, leading to the formation of the Women’s Freedom League (WFL). Unhappy with Emmeline Pankhurst’s approach – particularly the advocacy of violent actions – the WFL favoured peaceful lawbreaking such as demonstration, disruption and refusal to pay taxes and complete the census.”

We should consider refusing to complete the census, if this shit is still unresolved in 2021.

I have had so many messages from people who have actually read the exchanges as they are written and not how they’ve been twisted around

I haven't twisted anything around and neither am i a bitch

I am entitled to my opinion on posts

And anyone who is prepared to pm you support but is refusing to support you on the thread isnt really worth listening to

I suspect everyone else will have the good sense not to reply to your post

nymag.com/intelligencer/amp/2019/02/andrew-sullivan-the-nature-of-sex.html?__twitter_impression=true

@Annehutchison. Sorry, bit of a Mumsnet newbie so not sure how to reply directly. I'm not making a comment about what lefties should or should not think or how they should respond. I'm just saying that from a personal point of view I know this will make it harder for me to convince the people that I know.

@Rowantrees I am not surprised that the Twitter stuff got lost. I think that was completely predictable. The focus was always going to be on the right wing stuff. That's why I think it was bad strategy.

@jackholyoake Yes, I did see that comment. It still doesn't explain to me why it was a good idea to attend (from a UK perspective at least). I would be willing to bet £100 000 that not a single UK newspaper or TV programme will pick up on that woman's predicament. I have absolute sympathy with her but I still don't understand how PP et al being there makes any difference to that. And I don't believe for a second that the Heritage Foundation was literally the only place that would host such a meeting. Of course I understand why parents in the US want to draw attention to their plight. I don't understand how PP et al helps them or helps women in the UK. I think it's terrible strategy. It has set us back months. This is obviously a personal opinion and maybe I will be proved wrong. There is no right or wrong here as it's about philosophy, values and political strategy.

Yes, I did see that comment. It still doesn't explain to me why it was a good idea to attend (from a UK perspective at least)

keeponspinning Have a look at the Venice Allen's interview with Madeleine Kearns. She is a jornalist from Scotland, living in New York and has written some excellent articles including for the Spectator. She comes with a working knowledge of Safeguarding from her teacher training and has had contact with parents and doctors etc.

Madeleine Kearns lives and works in the US and she provides a really useful balanced description of the context there.

Venice Allen interviewed her just before they both attended the event so this may help answer some of your concerns.

there's a link on the thread:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3496764-Venice-Allen-interviews-journalist-Madeleine-Kearns-in-Washington

keeponspinning

"And I don't believe for a second that the Heritage Foundation was literally the only place that would host such a meeting."

What's that based on?

Did you know the Heritage Foundation hosted one two years ago? Different panel, similar thing.

www.heritage.org/gender/commentary/biology-isnt-bigotry-why-sex-matters-the-age-gender-identity

Posie et al did something very unexpected- it caught many by surprise. Some support them and some don’t. That ok - we don’t all have to agree on what other women do - we are not a cult nor hopefully men’s police.

Personal attacks are not helpful. Responding to a personal attack in kind is unhelpful - turn the other cheek, ignoring and rising above are a great strategy.

I’ll go find the navigating conflict guidelines Bowl came up with on another thread - we would all do well to heed them

Those guidelines:

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.

Greyhound, we"re on the same page in this thread. You're quicker than me.

"And I don't believe for a second that the Heritage Foundation was literally the only place that would host such a meeting."

keeponspinning We American posters and the women of Hands Across the Aisle have said this is the case. I'd be interested to hear why you think we're lying.

And I don't believe for a second that the Heritage Foundation was literally the only place that would host such a meeting.

It's possible it was. HRC is connected to the mainstream Democratic Party. Heritage is connected with the Republicans.

Right now, no liberal organization is going to take this issue on because there are so many other issues to tackle, half don't understand why women need rights beyond peremptory lip service anyway, and the opposition is well organized especially from inside the tech industry.

All that is true about RW organizations as well, except the GOP is losing women.

The GOP lost white women last election. They're still hanging on with the noncollege educated, but that's a major danger sign. Heritage's role would be to lure college educated women back without changing their anti-women policies.

When we say American politics is polarized, I mean it is so polarized that I could, say, point out that a speaker never introduces legislation. A person who kept posting that the legislation belonged to the speaker could claim that was a "personal attack" against the person simply because they have gotten used to standard practice for conservatives to blame liberals for everything they can in every piece they write.

What will happen now is that the GOP will now edge in to try to claim "real feminism" is "their issue."

Polarized, and Posie walked right into it.

Sorry if I sound angry, but I am angry. This is astroturfing done by the people who created the astroturf.

FYI: Sully is a conservative writer. His piece in NYMag, FYI, was well written, but probably won't be read seriously by the people who need to read it seriously.

I have only one thing to say about all this, which is the following - remember when that Emily person said they were planning to sow dissent and discord between GC women in an attempt to kneecap our ability to push back against TRA plans?

They told us they were going to do this, and even if they hadn't it should have been obvious. Why are so many people letting it happen anyway? We have to be smarter than this. We can agree to disagree without dissolving into paralyzing infighting.

The thing is, it doesn't actually matter, the word is getting out there angry people are talking, people know.

Mumsnet isn't exactly the central hub, although TRA's promoting the site has backfired, there's no organised movement, each individual is still doing their bit regardless of what's happening here.

And the same advice applies to offline activism too - agree to disagree, work strategically, hold your nose if you have to but do not allow yourselves to get distracted into fighting other women who you agree with on most things but vehemently disagree with on a few things. Eyes on the prize.

LangCleg

think I’ve found my breaking point now

You've found it quite a few times so far, yet you seem to mend pretty quickly.... <

Right? just has to keep posting to get the last word... more BS, more gaslighting, more gross insensitivity.

I don't post often but I do read veraciously.

So from one of the lurkers, thank you all for tirelessly and cheerfully and pedantically setting your stalls out. I do agree that this has been done to death, I also agree that the info is there so people who ask " explain it to me" should be directed to the threads to do their own labour.

As to where I stand - I DGAF about people's personal beliefs, beyond them operating from their own centre of integrity. That does not give them the right to impose it on me/ judge my behaviour as I am a private citizen. When my actions make me "public" so to speak, then I understand that I will be judged and that some people will find my actions less than what they wished for. So what - that is the nature of the beast. It matters less than what we are fighting for here.

So I stand with all the brave women who in whatever way they can are campaigning to keep women's sex based, hard won, rights

Keep on keeping on, I thank you all

Great post louise. Agreed.

And with that, having posted here first as materialist, then as Elizabeth Jennings, and now under this current name, I’m going to bow out. I’m angry too, and I think that’s best turned elsewhere.

I wish you would stay.