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.

A few days ago Jacky Holyoak posted this link about the difference between the suffragists and the suffragettes:

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

It makes me wonder wether the suffragists went about denouncing the suffragettes. Does anyone know?

I think the comparison is relevant as, as already discussed on the other thread, there are parallels to the current situation, where those supporting Posie on the whole seemed to be more supportive of a ‘whatever-gets-the-job-done’ approach.

Presumably the current gendercritical ‘denouncers’ must, on somelevel, be thinking that denouncing her helps the GC/anti self-id case, by showing themselves as ‘nice’, unlike that “violent” Posie.

I think they a utterly wrong and showing themselves as too far removed from the worst fall-outs of self-id to have fully graspedthe seriousness of the situation. -and they will not have understood the links to austerity (though to be perfectly honest, I’m mostly assuming that because it took me wathcing most of Lisa’s videos to grasp it myself

As for your question, Lisa

Its quite important to ask by what authority and on behalf of who, Posie is being denounced. And how is that going to be exercised when the Guardian goes under and wht is the cost of it being exercised now?

Obviously no idea about the answer to that, but it is what made me think of the suffragettes. They were doing their work at another timewhen the world/country was going through a crisis, and only a massive disaster paused their work, after which their demands where met. In my gloomier moments, I fear we may face something similar.
Unlikely to be a world war, but either austerity goes from bad to worse for the poorest women, or momentum and their totalitarianism comes into power. -or both, obviously.

I too gloomy, should have gone to bed!

Lisa you have asked questions of me and then answered them yourself so it is maybe not worth me replying, but, to be brief, I think you, I or others, do not need to feel so desperate that it warrants that kind of going nasty or attacking to exert that amount of control over a thread like this.

Its hard to have a discussion about those who shut down, exclude and control the narrative and how and why, if that is very actively going on on the very thread. Nastiness is a powerful weapon, just like any other boundary crossing tactic. Maybe some of 'the elite' are happy to also trample on people or attack if they feel it justified. God knows the TRAs do.

WFKAW I'm only thinking of what Datun often says, that we can post for the lurkers as much as those actively on the thread so we needn't feel too desperate if we there is some malignant derailing and we feel there is an important point to be made or discussed. Its a calming thought I think, and I am also very often just a lurker so have that perspective of wanting to give a simple thumbs up, thanks, or a like but can't.

And you are certainly shaping a discussion if you are trying to denounce a poster as a troll so that they go away or are discredited. The whole point of the thread I thought was about who gets to decide and control who takes part in a discussion and who is heard.

Not everyone has the ability (health, time, confidence etc) to post on these boards (MN, not an obscure corner of nowhere), so those that do have that advantage and that voice and that power to shape what is discussed. Its an inequality often caused by being ill, caring, being in crisis, poor education, poverty etc. I've wanted to say or ask so many things sometimes but couldn't and have been so relieved when someone else covered the point later on. But like with this discussion about political or feminist representation re inequalities, if you can't join in yourself, then you just have to hope that someone else will cover your points and maybe speak for you. But actually, maybe those with the opportunity just cover (and control) their own agenda and that's you left out or drowned out.

We need to find a way to move away from being on a hair trigger I think with all this denouncing etc.

Pomo what? I don't recall asking for any advice so I don't accept any of it.

It's curious -

It's very illuminating, as Lisa says, to see who appears on her threads...

I think it’s an interesting argument but as I said before, i am unsure why you have used Posie as some sort of example of this.

You are right - I confess looking back I conflated two issues in my comment - apols. The example wasn't a good one for the user focus and victims of poverty and austerity.

I think I had too much in my brain and needed to get it out - 2 issues - the first one re user focus and where are the voices of those dispossessed by austerity.

The second issue was why there has been an adverse reaction to the trio's trip

As for the idiot commenting about the generosity of the welfare state- fuck off. But this sort of right-wing view is becoming more and more common among posters on here. I think poverty is one of the biggest tools of oppression against women, not self-ID. So I take with a pinch of salt the feminist credentials of someone who is anti-trans but thinks it’s fine for women to remain in poverty or that it’s their fault they’re poor in the first place.

I agree with this. Many women are in a very precarious financial situation and it doesn’t take much to tip them over into needing help.

The political narrative is that paying the bulk of welfare to pensioners is ok but not when it comes to helping mothers and their children. It is a scandal and institutional misogyny.

when this discussion is framed as only acceptable if it massages the identity of the left or elite feminists, it actively prevents that discussion.

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.

How can a mother with children without those elite connections do that?

I'm working my way through this thread; these are key phrases, and littlebrowndog answered my thoughts, mumsnet is s place for this.

However - yesterday I went out for an afternoon tea with friends. One spoke about how her sister seemed to be behaving differently in her relationship (it sounded like she was fed up of the status quo) and I joked that it sounded like she'd spent some time on mumsnet and has some good advice. We spoke about something else relating to women asserting their rights/ lefty/ feminism stuff and another friend leaned in and said, well of course mumsnet can send people the other way - implying it was right wing.

I categorically know she's not here; but that got me thinking. That one comment, I felt, degraded all my posting and thinking on fwr the last 3 years or more under about 10 different user names. I can't now in her eyes talk about anything about what's being talked about here, without a lot of feverent free speech stuff first. That mn isn't affiliated to a political party or side. That women's rights aren't affiliated to a political party or side. The number of women daily told here they're in an abusive relationship and are helped to leave. That the Brexit boards are often equally split. Etc etc.

But even here is an issue. Many women are turned off or away from mn for a number of reasons. I've spoken to them. Fair enough. So I come here to exercise my brain. Exercise critical thought. Then go back out there and speak** my mind. My thoughts. And I thank fwr for showing me that I can think for myself, severed from a political leaning. I speak and think for women's rights.

And children's rights actually. A while ago I was struggling to find a way to match these ideas with the fact I have sons. And work with mostly young boys. And these specific gender issues affect them. Issues affecting women, affects them too. How they see an abusive father and can affect a son in different ways.

And yes, I'm using the word feminism less. Women's rights is more applicable. There's a power struggle over what feminism is. Who gets to speak about it.

I've been working professionally towards many of these aims at work without using the word feminism. Before I started learning about feminism myself. Being gender critical is an easier term as it is a verb and adjective rather than an identity.

I'm going to continue to work towards that.

Sorry, a bit long. A thought splurge.

I’m a working class single mother who lives in a Council house and earns 15k a year.

At the same time, last year, I asked both Julie Bindel and Posie Parker for assistance and advice. Julie met me, speaks to me and has worked her arse off. Posie never even bothered to respond.

We're describing these women as elite - but this is the internet - to a large extent, don't they only have the power we grant them? Can't we actually say 'no'? I realize that the issue then becomes resource though, because they have it.

But, I think some of this starts in the same way that (bear with me) I used to think that a buckinghamshire accent meant someone was posh, because that's what I had been taught, seen on TV - that accent meant you were posher than me. But then I went there, and it's not true. It's a snow job. They're like everyone, but, somehow, have convinced people that they're better, and it freed me to speak as I speak and not give a damn about trying to make myself sound posh (ie. Like someone from bucks)

Just to add, this thread challenges the upper levels of my thinking ability so apologies is my comments aren't helpful.

What I would say is that, on fwr, it is of the most use to keep talking, to anyone and any post. Disagree, reason, evidence.

Someone was talking on radio 4 today prog exactly about this yesterday morning, wrt the new free speech guidance. How do you deal with opinions or ideas you find offensive?

You keep talking.

FWIW, I don't watch dr who.

I concur with Boldy.

I'm trying to avoid getting into any spats with people I see as on the same side, so I'm not keeping up with all the bickering. I have seen some stuff though.
I support and appreciate the academics who have been working hard on this, however I don't appreciate being told how to act by people who have advantages and an audience that I don't have. This isn't just a debate between academics.
I don't think that what Posie and Julia did was wrong. I think that people should be put on the spot. I think of that American politician who was stopped in a lift by a woman protester about metoo and how thrilled everyone was and I don't see the difference.
We all have to use our own superpowers. Mine is being snippy on social media, sifting and pushing information around.
We all do what we can.
I'm not throwing anyone under the bus.

fallingirl. There's a series of articles on the British Library website about the Suffrage movement. This one seems relevant to this thread, but it links to the others:

www.bl.uk/votes-for-women/articles/women-quite-unknown-working-class-women-in-the-suffrage-movement

Ignore that last post, I see you've already linked to it 🤭

And yes, I'm using the word feminism less. Women's rights is more applicable. There's a power struggle over what feminism is. Who gets to speak about it.

I think this is a really important point and one I haven't given enough attention to.

Just to add, this thread challenges the upper levels of my thinking ability so apologies is my comments aren't helpful.

You're writing insightful, thoughtful posts, you silly!

I think what I see is that the grasping, power hungry individuals have seen that you can make pots of money and a name for yourself in movements/organisations/institutions that would traditionally have been for the good of others but can now be used as purely a source for narcissistic supply. It’s happened across what’s left of the public sector, charities, trade unions, politics etc etc. Thought used to be that people like that would excel in the business world but they decided they quite like the cosiness and perceived social capital of being seen to ‘do good’. In addition, they’re not very good at their jobs or hiding their shit, and on a level they know that, so they choose to promote people who cannot or don’t want to challenge them and it’s a system that starts to feed itself and cannot cope with difference or different thought and slowly dies from the inside.

Feminism is caught up in that. Even 10 years ago, feminism wasn’t something you could really make money out of or a name for yourself with, but now everyone’s parroting an acceptable capitalist version of it because there’s money and power to be made.

I don’t understand this desperate need for some women to police each other’s speech and views. Why? We will never be able to phrase things or live our lives in such a way that no one can disagree with them. That’s just how it is, hand wringing over what someone said once just means we end up all being represented by people who never say anything about anything in public.

And yes, I'm using the word feminism less. Women's rights is more applicable. There's a power struggle over what feminism is. Who gets to speak about it

This. Feminism sounds arcane, like you have to do the reading

We all understand what’s meant by women’s rights. I’m going to use that from now on, thank you

As for the idiot commenting about the generosity of the welfare state- fuck off. But this sort of right-wing view is becoming more and more common among posters on here. I think poverty is one of the biggest tools of oppression against women, not self-ID. So I take with a pinch of salt the feminist credentials of someone who is anti-trans but thinks it’s fine for women to remain in poverty or that it’s their fault they’re poor in the first place

So again, insulting someone and telling them to eff off for questioning a sweeping statement "welfare is collapsing". The figures do not show a "collapsing" welfare state.

Do please point out where I mentioned "generosity". The data says beenfits are capped at average pay nationally, not generous pay nationally.

Is right wing also an insult now? I am a member of the labour party. Is anyone posting data about public spending automatically "right wing"?

So I take with a pinch of salt the feminist credentials of someone who is anti-trans but thinks it’s fine for women to remain in poverty or that it’s their fault they’re poor in the first place

Have I said this? That's a lot of assumptions going on there.

Anti trans
Fine for women to remain in poverty
their fault the're poor in the first place

Who posted this? Or is it some a ficitonal feminist you don't like?

I was quite startled by how quickly some lefty GC feminists moved to denounce Posie. It was disconcerting to see academics, who are normally pretty keen on facts and sources, throwing around serious allegations without any attempt at evidence. And yes there did seem to be an expectation that we would all fall into line. That was another surprise as the feminism I grew up on didn’t have leaders, which I think can be both a strength and a weakness.

I know Posie isn’t exactly marginalised but she’s not in their club either. She doesn’t speak their language and in some situations she’s more effective because of that. There also seems to be some personal animosity going on that I’m not party to but I would have expected them to be big enough to get past that - and I imagine they would have done if she were one of them.

Trousering I strongly suspect that those figures include housing costs, most of which are inflated due to councils selling off their housing stock to private individuals. It’s totally ludicrous to suggest that those on benefits live on anywhere near the average wage. People are unable to feed themselves and their children you utter utter unfeeling person.

Floisme Dr Julia Long is in their club though and she was also condemned.

People are unable to feed themselves and their children you utter utter unfeeling person

Are you unable to resist insulting people? Reported.

QuietContraryMary

Thank you for your contribution at 01.28 very insightful and constructive.

I’m shocked at some of the earlier ugly remarks and name-calling on this thread. I don’t understand the response to a perfectly civil comment, which was in reference to something stated by the OP.