Appointing yourself to decide how people discuss inequality

[lisamuggeridge]

So with austerity, there was political consensus, rule of law was undermined for women and there wasnt a peep. In that time I also learned that in the UK very posh people, some of the most privileged eole in the country., have been 'identifying as feminist' or the left and thought that meant they were the peole who decided if anyone was allowed to discuss it. So quite a lot of people are dead and we still didnt discuss it. But there was a movement about those systems, and only a coule of months after the GRA deadline we appear to be having the same conversatoin.

Can someone explain how you qualify to be in this central authority who decides how people can discuss inequality and powerlessness? COs am quite sure it makes no sense for the entry to that to be an elite university, and being part of hte social network around the left.

Is there a way to bypass this cos I havent found it, and have never had any confirmation that this is an officially recognised layer in our democracy. So confused. I hd heard something about women standing u and being heard but here we are again..

The implications of feminism as a gatekeeper, which is what we are discussing, a gatekeeper to women discussing inequality are profound, when that gatekeeper is almost uniformly extremely privileged there would seem to be issues here about power we are not discussing when we ask how far Posie Parker should be wedged under buses.

This is a really interesting point

I don’t have enough background to fully understand this, can you state your position?

not being sarcastic there is just more background to this clearly.

Is the essence of your post an objection to statements of the “you are not a feminis5 if you do x?” variety?

What do you if you are poor and need to urgently discuss or organise to address actual inequality in your life if feminism is abot elite women deciding what is an acceptable way to discuss it? How do you get the rihgt to challenge your own oppression if no matter what you do you hit a wall of elite women saying they will decide how you discuss inequality, and their movement is about their social network that can only be accessed from elite institutions. Posie Parker needs to be denounced, so feminism ergo is a central authority with enough confidence to say Posie Parker needs to be denounced- what are the implications of that? What are the implications of a culture of hyper privileged women having posession of all political resources and them saying even protest is only open to you if we say so?

What are the implications of the most privileged women in the country appointing themselves gatekeeper to discussion of inequality in a period where between austerity and self id we have seen an attemt to decimate womens rights?

Also this is not academic. Example, if there is a response to a financial crisis that completely removes womens abioity to leave abuse, then makes a child protection system punitive so they can have their kids adopted, how do those women address that? Given no matter how far they get they will hit a wall of elitewomen saying you can only discuss this the way we want it discussed and if you fall outside our social network thats that.

“What do you if you are poor and need to urgently discuss or organise to address actual inequality in your life”

Ok,that’s important... you have my interest...

“ if feminism is about elite women deciding what is an acceptable way to discuss it? ”

Ok you are objecting to elite (Labour?) women judging Posie?

You believe this is wrong not just because of opinions you may or may not happen to have about Posie Parker but because you believe that it prevents the ultimate aim of helping women and girls ?

You believe this is a modern version of the deserving/undeserving poor trope? That there are people self appointing themselves to decide what kind of expressions of need are acceptable and what kind of people deserve help?

I get your point and I'm not sure of the answer. Was it Jess Philips who seemed to also be making this point this week?

Link to Jess Philips would be great.

Was that the speech about the ridiculously posh useless people?

Ok you are objecting to elite (Labour?) women judging Posie?.

Nope, I dont like Posie, she doesnt like me. I am asking about the power implicit in the demand she be denounced, denied a platform, be treated as a 'liability', her views on women and what women need disregarded because she doesnt fit with that. The pwoer being demonstrated with Poisie is power that is clearly understood to be held by these women, and I wanted to discuss the implications of it because noone will admit that this is an expression of power over resources to challenge actual inequality.

Which has not just been demonstrated with Posie. Its expressed as reflex, no thought required, ecause its just assumed that feminism is a 'we' with a tiny group of elite women at the centre. I can name them, the social network hasnt changed, it crossovers the Guardian, the Labour Party, the New Statesman, our trade unions, who by the prevented discussion of political consensus for eight years.

I never understood feminism as that and was shocked to find out such a culture exist, but how do you organise to address inequality if you are poor and what you have to say injures the identity of those women? How do women do that? I actually wouldnt stand with what Posie stands for, but that is not the same as me having the right to say she shouldnt e allowed to stand. And yet that right is assumed in the demands being made.

Could you attend a meeting chaired y these women and say the New Statemsan prevented us discussing austerity or discuss the implications of your trade union preventing anyone discussing austerty and its impact on women and kids?

What do women do when they need to discuss the role of elite feminism and Labour cultres in selling harmful policy? Cos at present it seems that any organisation resulting will end the same way.

I never thought I would ever say this but, maybe we abandon the word "Feminist" and replace it with Women's Rights? I am becoming more inclined to use Women's Rights Campaigner rather than Feminist, because of all this ridiculous superiority / inferiority hierarchy that has been fabricated.

Jacky I have LONG been of the opinion that feminist should be a verb or an adjective and the minute you make it an identity/career or have stuff dependent on maintaining htat image you will start fucking over women to silence them cos you have to/ Genuinely i elieve that.(By the way hi, I miss nattering to you so am saying hello here)

Ah thank you for explaining.

I don’t “see” an elite because for me feminism is this board. I have no idea who on it thinks they are important, etc.

.... has this “elite” sought to declare PP beyond some official pail? (I’ve been at work/with the kids....)

Are you talking about academics? I agree that it’s generally a profession for the elite.

I would take a bit of issue with what you’re saying though. Posie is not a downtrodden member of the working classes. She is firmly middle class, monied, white and university educated.

Women who are condemning her have their principles and her actions don’t fit with those principles. They are perfectly entitled to do so. She has also shown no interest in being involved in addressing other aspects of female oppression, such as austerity measures and financial oppression by the state. I don’t support her, but I know that many do. It’s not about throwing her under a bus- it’s that I have formed an opinion of her based on reading and listening to her over a period of time. The fact that she is a fellow woman doesn’t mean that I need to blindly support her and nor do any of the women who have spoken out against her.

Also, it’s not just elite women. Julie Bindel and Gill Smith have both publicly expressed disapproval and they come from working class backgrounds.

Hi Lisa .. sending love to you.

Yes .. I am beginning to reject "feminist" as a noun, as in "I am a feminist" .. mainly because of my earlier sense that a power hierarchy was developing [how patriarchal is that] and the realisation this week that it actually now exists.

I am deeply disappointed about that.

'
I would take a bit of issue with what you’re saying though. Posie is not a downtrodden member of the working classes. She is firmly middle class, monied, white and university educated''

Even if she isnt a poor downtrodden mother, she is a woman and that power is being expressed, do you think that power is reserved for only one women? And you recognise the culture I am discussing, because you mention names, you chose names but did not discuss the roles of many of the women existing, and how near they are to Guardian, the inner circle of trade unions, an existing political party ergo women with power- and as austerity was subject to ASOLUTE political consensus wherew would women discussing tht go to discuss the impact on safeguarding, our welfare systems, prisons, the systems covered by self id?

The discussion now is of a 'we' feminist movement which corresponds almost exactly to the political spectrum which existed before the self id crisis, and at the House of Lords meeting the speakers discussed at length that we have not addressed what these laws do at an elite level, that academia is a barrier, which evidencs the vacuum I am discussing but we are now at the 'we' must denounce x, y, z, cos what they say doesnt fit with how 'we' think. I am asking the implications by asking what can poor women do if what htey have to say insults or injures this 'we' with control over these resources?

I think I am sympathetic to what Lisa is saying but a bit more explanation for those of us not London enough to get the riddles and codes in these posts would help...

There is a big variation of levels of power between women and I think the main one is social class and access to resources. But I am not going to feel bad about being critical of someone who I disagree with. Nor should the academics who have spoken out. They are privileged in terms of being part of that system, but their belief-system obviously doesn’t chime with Posie’s. And that is fair enough I think.
As I have said on another thread, I think the self-ID issue really is a drop in the ocean compared to the many other structural problems that affect women. I will criticise anyone who thinks that stopping self-ID is the number one priority and so important that we can overlook other questionable actions such as teaming up with homophobes etc. I have as much right as anyone else to stick to my principles.

Posie has also said that she doesn’t identify as a feminist. In my view, the only true feminism seeks to challenge harmful societal structures but I appreciate that everyone has different definitions.

This is an interesting thread as I've been thinking about this myself this week. On social media I've seen quite a bit this week about a couple of women who I would say are feminists being demonised because they have associated with right wing organisations. Apparently you must be left wing to be a feminist. Frankly I think this is a load of crock - and I'm disappointed that the self-appointed 'leaders' feel that they get to dictate who is, or is not, a feminist. It's all a bit 'thought police' for me - and wouldn't the misogynists of this world think it was hilarious that we are so divided? It's no way for us to reach sex equality.

I dont think it is complictaed. Its about power and recognising when you have it. Its taken ONE year for self id, a movement about marginalisation of systems specifically around women, and violence, systems which compound around the poorest women, to become a carbon copy of a pre-existing political position. With women who had political power and resources using them and declaring themselves a gateekper. The discussions of feminism as a 'we' is acknowledgement of that.

Just FYI my problem is NOT with women like Jean Hatchett who said she wouldnt stand with Posie and why(I have also done this btw), but after one year of campaigns, we have elite women who had power, who have reproduced their identity, their social group, and are now expressing that as power. Consciously when its aimed at Posie, but that power is not only used with Posie, because there is a distinct lack of the people and specifically women who are disenfranchised in this discussion and when this discussion is framed as only acceptable if it massages the identity of the left or elite feminists, it actively prevents that discussion.

What are the implications of elite women declaring themselves a gatekeeper to discussion of inequality women live, on the basis of their identity and careers as feminists? Am not trying to talk in riddels. Am asking what someone would do in this contry if they needed to actually address something urgently? Like say a response to a financial crisis completely removing freedom from abuse, and our trade unions and newspapers like the Guardian actively working to prevent women addressing it to the point of a fake anticuts movement which put Corbyn where he is?

What are the implications for those women? And clearly this crosses academia, politics, policy making, lobbying and media. And that is what has reformd within the movement around self id. Wre now have tribalism following the existing political spectrum in a movement about women excluded from that spectrum.

lisamuggeridge "what can poor women do if what they have to say insults or injures this 'we' with control over these resources?"

Crikey! That is such a good and huge question.

And, of course, those existing structures are not communicating in a language that the majority can understand. Most women are not in academia; most women are not members of political parties; most women are not union members.

Maybe the answer is to deconstruct those structures somehow to make them more accessible to other women?

I suppose there are so many facets that can be discussed and the influence of such people as described by the OP means that their areas of interest get more attention. I'd suggest female representation on boards being an example.

Not that it isn't an issue, but there are more pressing concerns for the woman on the Clapham omnibus who sees at least part of the struggle co-opted to serve the interests of those with more of a chance of getting such roles.

(Which makes it sounds like I don't care about females representation on boards. Which isn't the case but... calling more erudite posters who can explain this better than I can!)

I know you don’t mean to be obscure but it would be so much easier if you didn’t phrase your position as a rhetorical question. How can normal people people answer you?

Here I am. Just a woman. Not in the Guardian or academia or whatnot. Asking you to state your position more clearly please. Don’t ask rhetorical questions, tell me what you think.