WPUK meeting in London 20 May with Meghan Murphy, Julie Bindel, Selina Todd

[PlonitbatPlonit]

Tickets on sale now for London meeting just announced. Looks like a great meeting.

www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/a-womans-place-is-back-in-town-tickets-59993907392

I believe that diversity of views here will make us stronger in the long term

Totally agree. But the WPUK perspective - according to Selena & Julie last night - is that any alliance with the Right strengthens the Right, and the Right always works against women's interests. So any short-term advantage of an alliance is outweighed by the longer-term undermining of women's rights.

I don't agree with them, but I do think theirs is a perfectly reasonable viewpoint: they aren't refusing to work with the Right because of ideological purity, but because they think the long-term downsides will outweigh any short-term gains.

Personally, I agree with Meghan that very few people actually think, act or vote in terms of Left or Right. However, as a socialist movement, I don't expect WPUK to believe the same.

I wonder if the recording is up yet? I'd like to hear their answers to the question again just in case I misinterpreted what they said but yesterday the message I got was that only the left can be the supporters of women's rights; only those on the left were/could be feminists.

Generally the Q&A period is not recorded for publication at WPUK meetings. It is only the speakers on the platform who are published via video. This is an issue of consent for participants and rightly so.

And, yes, I am forming the same impression of WPUK about the position of the political 'Left' in relation to feminism. The fact is nothing could be more misguided since it is the so-called political "Left" which is propagating the transgenderist ideology and practice with most enthusiasm.

You only have to observe the Labour Party's response to those who oppose transgenderist ideology and practice because it is in direct conflict with the legal rights of women and children to see that 'left-wing' politics and radical feminism in the UK are in opposition here. [Never mind the Green Party!]

they think the long-term downsides will outweigh any short-term gains.

[the Right always works against women's interests]

Hmm! I don't think we should trust UK "left-wing" politics here in terms of working in favour of women's interests currently, given the recent history of the Labour Party. Why have so many women resigned their membership over this issue and Labour's response to it?

I think none of us women can trust any existing political party right now to act in our interests.

choosing that question was unnecessarily divisive for everyone aware of the (very recent) rift in the GC community

I don't know anything about this. Much as it might explain a little of what happened last night, can I get by without knowing or is it a context that is useful? (Like many people, I've currently lots of friends and family in need of support; lots of commute and travel for work. No time. aka modern laments.)

I like the manifesto but I think it's a distraction from GC activism at the minute, if I'm honest. And if the idea is to persuade the Labour Party to get on board so that we can all vote for them...

... well, I'm afraid the entire Labour hierarchy is going to have to do a massive mea culpa for its behaviour towards women and the safeguarding of children before I even begin to consider voting for it again.

One socialist feminist slate in competition with the rest of the slates in the party won't cut it for me. Sorry (not actually sorry at all).

That said, I agree with PPs who have said there is room for all. We can all find a place where we're most comfortable. Those of us who don't give the chuff from a flying monkey (reference intended) about purity politics or who doesn't like whom or who said what about whom and when, can just support everyone!

There are plenty of strong personalities involved and they all seem to be giving as good as they get. I wish they'd all stop taking pot shots at each other and remember the FWR motto: no GC woman under the bus.

About Posie Parker, Julia Long and a few others speaking at an event in the US hosted by a right wing organisation. For ages after there were awful divisive and never ending threads on here and attacks on twitter about whether such allegiances could ever be justified

Sorry I should have clarified - my previous post was for Arran

And a reminder of Selina Todd's fabulous book, which is right up my alley because she elevates the voices of ordinary people instead of the great and the good, and is eminently readable:

www.amazon.co.uk/People-Rise-Working-Class-1910-2010/dp/1848548826?tag=mumsnetforu03-21

Only £3.99 on Kindle!

I wish they'd all stop taking pot shots at each other and remember the FWR motto: no GC woman under the bus.

Lang ... my sentiment exactly.

We women are all we have got.

Thank you MrsJemimaPuddleduck! I'd no idea.

Selina Todd's speech from WPUK in London 20 May:

womansplaceuk.org/2019/05/21/feminism-postmodernism-and-womens-oppression/

We women are all we have got.

Yep

I thought it would a brilliant evening (and afternoon)
The speakers were entertaining, inspiring and informative. I may not always agree with everything but that's ok, I do feel like we are all on the same side.
It was amazing to meet so many of you. We had a good crowd in the pub both before and after the event.

I've just read the WPUK manifesto and think it's a shame they've gone down that route. They sound like they're trying to compete with the WEP and become a left wing political party rather than representing all gender critical women. The women who left Labour may be happy with it though.

The welfare of right-wing women matters just as much as the the welfare of left-wing women. Nobody's opinion has more merit than anyone else's. And nobody's rights are worth more than others.

It's a shame that Posie had her event in a right-wing building. Maybe next time, the left wing may like to host? Oh wait...

Also,

Meghan Murphy has had rape and death threats from the left wing. What is she supposed to do? Curl up into the fetal position and be at their mercy?

The left wing have advocated violence against us. I am pissed off with them.

I don't think there's enough wiggle room for dwelling too much on political divisions. We have plenty barriers as it is without creating bigger ones for ourselves. One common goal. There's more than unites us than divides us.

Yes, I realise this is probably naive but that's how I feel about it at the moment and focus needs to be on achieving objectives and the bigger picture. We need cross party support in any case, or as much as we can realistically get anyway.

Looking forward to watching the video! Sounds like an amazing crowd.

I just wanted to chime in on this:

About Posie Parker, Julia Long and a few others speaking at an event in the US hosted by a right wing organisation.

and this:

It's a shame that Posie had her event in a right-wing building.

There was much confusion at the time, and the history still seems to be getting mixed up (even by those who support Posie & Julia). To be clear, the event that Posie moderated during the week of action in Washington, D.C. was at the PUBLIC LIBRARY. On a different day, she sat in the audience for a different event hosted by the Heritage Foundation but organized by parents of ROGD teens and featuring US radical feminist speakers and others. I wouldn't have blamed her (or Julia Long) one bit for speaking at that event either, but the fact is they didn't.

I don't know any of the women involved, but I was really impressed with and grateful for their week of action in my country. I tried to keep track of the events in this thread:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3490776-Women-Stand-Up-in-Washington-D-C

I tend to think that issues around women's rights won't really be resolved unless other larger issues are resolved, things like how we think about work, how we think about the way we categorise and value people, how we think about nature.

So to put feminism in the context of a larger political movement makes a lot of sense to me. In fact, I think a problem in feminist thought can be that by focusing too closely on women, it can miss that some issues are actually reflective of much larger social problems, and by only looking at certain parts of the problem it is misunderstood. Maybe even made worse, which I think has happened with the question of work - looking at women as workers just like men hasn't really done much to solve the problem of alienation from our labour. It's just dehumanised us all the more.
But I also think the identification of women's rights with the left may be a problem. The dismissal of women who are apolitical, or see themselves as on the right, is a problem for feminism. There are as many women there as there are on the left, and you can't claim to represent people's interests when you dismiss them.

Grinitchspinach (great name btw)

Your clarification was useful - thank you

Goosefoot - I very much agree with this

But I also think the identification of women's rights with the left may be a problem. The dismissal of women who are apolitical, or see themselves as on the right, is a problem for feminism. There are as many women there as there are on the left, and you can't claim to represent people's interests when you dismiss them

yes, I really agree with this

If WPUK want to be a political party, that's fine, but they need to be aware that if their primary focus is socialism, then it isn't women's rights.

I've got a lot of respect for fair play for women - apolitical and with laser like focus.

I'm coming full circle from paid up Guardianista round to nigh on despising the left so WPUK's loyalty is a frustration to me. But for them it's probably far more than politics - the left will be their life and their family. It's up to them as long as they don't annoint themselves the leaders of women or try and destablise work by women who choose to do it differently.

I think selecting the questions for an event you've organised yourselves is controlling but it doesn't cross any red lines for me. And quite honestly I don't see much wrong with that question. It's topical and pertinent. If the whole panel had been in agreement then I would have found it troubling but they didn't so if WPUK were trying to stage manage it then it backfired.

Nor do I think it's created division - that was there already and I think trying to paper over it would be a mistake. Dissent and asking awkward questions are how we got here in the first place, otherwise we'd all be chanting TWAW.

On a more constructive note about left/right wing positions and ideologies, I think Selina Todd's speech was a tour de force. In accurately locating postmodernism/queer theory as the social push of neoliberal Thatcherism - there's no such thing as society, we're all self-interested individuals and nothing more - she exposed the contractions in the IDPol iteration of the progressive left.

If woman means nothing any more, for these people neither does left wing. What is left wing about a hyper-libertarian, ultra-individualist, change yourself not society, ideology such as extremist genderism?

The answer is: nothing.

Another link to the text of Selina's speech:

womansplaceuk.org/2019/05/21/feminism-postmodernism-and-womens-oppression/

Extracts:

Suspicion of feminism owes much to postmodernism, which began to prevail in British and US universities after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. Dressed up as radical, it is really the acceptable face of neoliberalism. Many students were and are taught that people cannot break out of the confines of capitalism – though this is a strange form of capitalism, in which language, rather than money, makes the world go round. People cannot change the world, but individually they can alter their relationship to it, through their self-description and performance of gender. No reality exists other than self-description.

Over the past thirty years, students have studied collective movements less, and individuals’ identities, emotions and desires more. While individual choice is celebrated, the very notion of collectivity is deemed oppressive. Revealingly in our neoliberal times, socialist, labour and feminist movements have been most strongly attacked. The leaders of feminist movements were, it is claimed, attempting to dominate those they purported to represent. The world was and is a collection of self-interested individuals seeking to dominate others or avoid domination themselves. In the words of that great postmodern theorist Margaret Thatcher, there is no such thing as society.

In accurately locating postmodernism/queer theory as the social push of neoliberal Thatcherism

No, this is certainly not wholly correct and does not explain why the left has so whole-heartedly embraced such things as the transgender ideology which is a distinct product of the breakdown of the faith in human reason that is the hallmark of postmodernism.

Some neo-liberals and libertarians embrace it because it will allow a radical form of eugenically - produced social-Darwinism which they use to explain their own self-defined superiority and justify their control of the process.

Those on the left embrace it because it will, at last, (in their view) allow us to produce a scientifically-ordered highly-collectivised society in which an elite Party will preside over a subordinate underclass. Humanity will have wrested its destiny from the randomness of nature or the judgement of God and taken control of its own destiny (in reality the control of the "party" and the scientific corporate elite). If you doubt this look at the hive-minded group think that is currently rearing its head in the face of any reasoned debate.

Individual self-definition is an illusion and tightly managed via social media and the like. In fact transgenderism is the most tragic evidence of the illusory nature of this self-definition - pathetic men modelling and mutilating themselves according to a ridiculous parody of womanhood. And all of this backed by Conservative, Labour, Liberal and the rest.

To argue that this is an outgrowth of Thatcherism is outrageous - its roots go back to the temper of the French revolution, to Sartre, Derrida and Foucault; the hubris of John Stuart Mill; the dreams of Marx and Nietzche; the brutality of Stalin and the power-hungry blood lust of Mao. Thatcher is an ant in comparison.