In-fighting within the GC feminist movement

[GlitterToast]

I've been following/ participating in the GC feminist movement for about a year, which makes me a newbie compared to many of you.

One thing that stands out uncomfortably is the constant and prevalent in-fighting. This refers to both the men and women in the movement.

I know that none of us are doing this professionally, so we don't have to act professional. I also think that everyone is entitled to their personal opinions, and they can express themselves however they wish.

But for me, the in-fighting is really off-putting and upsetting. It makes me want to step away from the whole situation.

I won't name names/ organizations as I don't want this thread to become a "he said/ she said". I started this thread to see if anyone else had similar feelings and wanted to talk them through?

I really should give up Twitter but the courage of the women I follow I find inspirational.

Anyway, I guess you are referring to Jean H and Joani. Don't know why they fell out but it's turning rather unpleasant.

The only other falling out I hav seen involves a certain Dr tweeting something about women running off with women as their husbands are crap. Taken by some as lesbophobic. Robust discussion ensued.

I don't feel equipped to have an opinion on either as I know have all the facts/am not a lesbian. However, the second example gave me cause for thought.

Focus on what you can do, not what you think everyone else is doing wrong.

A-fucking-men to that.

@Qcng is right, there does seem to be a fair bit of falling out at the moment.

OP - what I try to do is stick to the message, encourage each other & not engage with the unpleasant comments. It's a shame people want to have a go at one another, but I don't want it to detract from the real issues.

OP I've been following GC discussions for s similar period and don't recognize conflict as 'constant and prevalent' as you describe. If anything it is pretty harmonious and respectful compared to issues like abortion and surrogacy which understandably become far more heated in all forums. There seem to be key areas of consensus and concern... Maybe I haven't seen what you have. Am I missing something?

What Janes and Yoba said.
I have never known any political group without infighting- the strong feelings of wanting to do something about whatever it is, that drew you together in the first place, are likely to lead to equally strong convictions of how that should best be done. But that’s just people being people really. Most healthy gatherings of humans will eventually disagree on something or other. It’s OK and better that, than the authoritarian alternative.

It's not constant at all, but when big things are happening there are inevitable disagreements that play out in public. At the moment it's the American funeral parlour case - Cathy Brennan and some US radfems are very angry with some UK radfems for joining forces with some US right wing orgs to protest something she thinks they have got very wrong, and it's creating a lot of friction. This always happens when something significant is happening.
It's not 'in fighting' or whatever you described it as, it's people passionately defending their views and sometimes disagreeing. It's life.

GlitterToast anyone who says there's no infighting is either being disingenuous or hasn't been paying attention.

I'm not going to name names either, but yes, I know what you mean. I can think of several (unnecessarily public IMO) spats of fighting, between several different GC figures.

It's largely a massive waste of energy and could be better dealt with behind the scenes IMO.

'dealt with behind the scenes'
The problem is there are no 'scenes' to go behind. It isn't a movement. It's a lot of disparate people and groups who have reached similar (but not identical) conclusions about being GC.
Of course there are differences and discussions. People may agree on x but not necessarily on y,z,a,b. And as time goes on, new issues and questions arise which different people address in different ways.
I can see how it may be 'upsetting' for people who aren't used to coalitions or campaigning but it's a strength that lots of different groups are GC, not a weakness. I've worked on lots of massive campaign coalitions over the years. I can't think of one where there wasn't discussions and disagreements. If you didn't notice them, it's either because you weren't paying close enough attention or because they all signed up to one memorandum and used one pr spokesperson. But that level of cohesion only comes with funding and dedicated staff.

Of course there is in-fighting. But I think, so what?

It's usually about working with right wing groups. I don't care myself; I will join forces with any other GC person because the issue is. so. fecken. important.

There is also disagreement about some feminists being happy to work with TRA's. Awful ones IMHO. But I just let them get on with it. I don't have to join in.

This issue is of monumental importance.

What exactly are people fighting about? I haven’t seen any disagreements about anything actually.

I don't quite understand how people can't grasp it isn't a movement, it's not organised in anyway, it's many people doing separate things, there's no leader, there's no behind the scenes talking or anything.

It's many different people doing their own thing.

Everyone is trying to achieve the same goal. Women disagree about how best to get there.

All of these debates have happened for millennia. It's just a bit more public when social media is thrown into the mix.

And the only people who care about it - or should care about it - are the people trying to throw us off course.

The problem is there are no 'scenes' to go behind

The people fighting publicly either know each other already or are well aware of ways to contact each other privately. They know how to pick up a phone, or send an email, PM or a DM.

But they choose to have it out in public instead via Twitter, Facebook, YouTube or blogs.

Having been involved with various GC groups for years, I wouldn't assume all the individuals know how to contact each other privately. Plus, they might want to make a public point that they don't agree with x about y even though they agree with them about GC. That's ok. It's perfectly fine for them to disagree on other issues and on methods and on alliances. None of it changes where they do agree which is on being GC.

But they choose to have it out in public instead via Twitter, Facebook, YouTube or blogs.

And you care about this, why?

Can women only have an argument in private?

And the only people who care about it - or should care about it - are the people trying to throw us off course
Yy and we're going to be inundated with them again atm because they're annoyed that MN didn't cave to Flora and that we didn't all cry about Flora's ill-researched statement.

I can see how it may be 'upsetting' for people who aren't used to coalitions or campaigning

Patronising, much?

Personally, I've been involved in campaigning my whole life, pretty much. My parents and their friends were political and dragged me along to all sorts of stuff. I can't remember a time when I wasn't involved in campaigning about something. And yes, other movements have infighting too, of course. (Left wing factions fighting brings back childhood memories. Green issues infighting sometimes makes my eyes roll so hard I think they're going to roll out of my head).

But, it doesn't mean I can't be fucked off (not "upset", note) with grown ass, intelligent women airing this kind of drama in public, unnecessarily. It's the feminist version of willy waving. (What should it be called?) I don't care if all the other movements do it too. It's still bullshit.

And you care about this, why?

Because it's such a waste of energy, and it provides ammunition for the TRAs, and give a bad impression to people we need to peak trans.

It's a massive diversion from our collective aims.

But they choose to have it out in public instead via Twitter, Facebook, YouTube or blogs.

And?
They are doing their own thing, not reresenting a company or political party. If they want to argue about it let them.

I'm going to back out now. We're arguing about arguing, which feels absurdly meta.

I was directly quoting the OP who said she found it 'upsetting' hence the quotation marks. And I was directly referencing that she said she was new to this so isn't used to campaigns and coalitions.

I also disagree that it's drama. It's disagreements about methods and policies and personalities. All very valid. And as long as those people are putting their heads above the parapet to have those conversations in public, I think they've absolutely earned the right to do so whether it upsets anonymous posters on a forum or not.

To be clear, by "in-fighting", I am referring specifically to personal attacks not debate/ disagreement.

Debate/ disagreement/ discussion is healthy and should be encouraged.

However, I do find the small amount of personal attacks upsetting and off-putting. As others have pointed out, it may be best for me to step away from Twitter.

Second-wave feminism was a hotbed of furious dissent, from some of the most famous feminist thinkers to local consciousness-raising groups.

If you accept that the only commonality women have is their biology, then of course there will be differences of opinion, arguments, radical re-thinks and disagreement.

Women may be in broad agreement about what they want (or not), but in active debate about how to get there.

This call for unity is a very male-centred thing. Politicians are always calling for “party unity”, because if they can get everyone to fall in line, it sends a message about strong leadership. And strong leadership is all about authorityy and dominance.

In other places I’ve argued that anxiety over climate change is creating this urge to authoritarian leadership (daddy fix it), in many parts of the world. Toril Moi wrote somewhere about the masculine being a drive for centralism (you can insert your own penis jokes). We’re so used to a masculine model of leadership that we don’t necessarily recognise what it looks like when women organise collectively. We’re so used to the authoritarian model of leadership, the lack of it can cause distress.

Women don’t usually have the power to create those kind of authoritarian organisations; we’ve always done better as collectives and splinter groups and committed individuals. Unity requires hierarchy and hierarchies require centralised organisation. Once you have centralised organisations you’ve lost agility, flexibility and diversity of opinion. I think the GC movement is probably stronger because we don’t all need to believe the same thing in order to fight.

Women are people; we’re going to argue and disagree and say rude things and slam doors. Holding women to a higher account than men is pretty much what this fight is all about; the expectation that women would continue to behave well and be polite and give up their spaces without argument.

GlitterToast

It can be upsetting if certain people resonate profoundly with you and then go and act all human.

But that's all it is. Don't dwell on it.