Ruth Serwotka & Glass Houses

[Lucky222]

Ruth Serwotka of WKUP recently published this, womansplaceuk.org/2019/10/15/turbulent-times-ruth-serwotka/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
criticising WOLFs decision to create alliances/organise a rally with Conservative American organisation/s. The screenshots are of the trans policy of the union of which Ruth's husband, Mark Serwotka is General Secretary. Is there a level of cognitive dissonance or hypocrisy going on here or am I missing something? (Like for example information about Mark having battled his union on this issue?) Ruth is standing up for standing with leftist men, whilst her own leftist husband co-signer the end of women's sex based rights. How does this work??

WOLF have published a response, which I will get & publish below.

WOLF response: womensliberationfront.org/for-being-trans-a-note-for-ruth-serwotka-and-others/?fbclid=IwAR3lxaK2ICd8RjZAwsW1skoNtugZXrJikUWak9yKLVasNF1S-vSaNCyhXJg

I wholly support WoLF, it is the only organization that consistently fights for females in the U.S.

Ruth Serwotka, we have enough shit to deal with here without you shouting down the one organization that is dedicated to preserving the few rights we have as females as well as endeavoring to gain more for our actual liberation (as human females not commodities; female biology and oppression is not a costume or capital good). Yeah I don't know what Ruth's angle is but she obviously does not get our civil rights laws and appears to be "sleeping with the enemy". We don't need you here Ruth we have enough "feminist" TRAs and civil unrest as it is TYVM.

I do need to state that I have found WPUK to be a good resource. However, I think one of their founders coming and shouting down WoLF and basically siding with TRAs is shitty behavior.

Just goes to show everyone has a blind spot.

I can imagine few things more sexist than believing a woman is responsible for her husband's trade union's policy.

Ack. Socialism comes first for Ruth, it always has. I see no problem in her setting out her stall for the socialist wing of UK GC feminism. I think her piece was aimed at discouraging UK feminists from bipartisan work, rather than interfering with what Americans decide to do.

Non-prominent US feminists also take different positions on this as I've found out on Spinster over the last few days.

As I've said elsewhere on here, I''m not for political purity on this - largely because it involves child protection as well as feminism.

These detransitioned young women have also been told they mustn’t ever talk to the ‘scary’ conservatives at the Alliance Defending Freedom, who would actually help them. Having lost their “transgender” friends, they now must fear to lose their left-loyalist friends if they speak with probably the only lawyers in the country who will not be frightened away from working on their behalf.

Meanwhile, the Human Rights Campaign, which has the backing of the Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers, is going to be swimming in pro bono assistance from six of the US’ top law firms to (no doubt in part) make sure that our 50+ pediatric gender clinics are full of patients to experiment on, destroy privacy rights for every schoolgirl, and ensure that the severest reprisals will be taken against anyone who tries to fight it.

This is a massive child safeguarding violation, and the people who will not stand up against it shouldn’t be surprised if they’re counted as having been complicit someday.

Them's the facts on the ground and them's the reasons I'm all for bipartisan alliances in particular areas where feminists think they can they can have practical results.

Some of us won't ever want to have anything to do with anything of the right - hi, Ruth! - and that's fine too. But I think those women should just get on with their own priorities, not try to persuade others out of theirs. Particularly with regard to child protection.

Women of good conscience can disagree!

Ruth isn't responsible for her husband's policy, but you would think it would cause some friction, no?? It does make her position about who you should and shouldn't collaborate with as a feminist activist a bit odd since she is literally sleeping with the leftist enemy.

I would say the only women who have no influence whatsoever on their husbands are those in abusive relationships.

I can imagine few things more sexist than believing a woman is responsible for her husband's trade union's policy.

I don't think anyone said or implied that "a women is responsible". Being somewhat or wholly complicit is different than being responsible.

If my partner was actively working to remove sex-based rights for women at his workplace I don't think he and I would have much left to talk about. I wouldn't be responsible for his work but if I stuck around I'd be at least somewhat complicit by emotionally supporting, sleeping with, sharing finances and household with a person that is.

It isn't sexist to say that partners are at least somewhat complicit (IF they are aware of the behavior). People (women/men) that support their partners (with knowledge of) during/after they rape their children are complicit in the rape, people who stay with their partners when their partners psychologically abuse their children are complicit. Many people stay with partners that are bad for them because of a blind spot that may or may not be detrimental to them personally.

Denying that is denying that cognitive dissonance is a part of many romantic relationships.

It's kind of like how my mom stays with her husband even though she claims to be finished with the marriage - he has approached me sexually and called me multiple times attempting to talk to me about their sex life (but this doesn't truly impact her decision). He is a racist, a sexist, and a classist - and yet she still attempts to coerce me into having dinners with him and engaging him. She is aware of my experiences and yet pushes me to put my own experience to the side to make him feel welcome. She is complicit.

Facts are facts sometimes they hurt sometimes they're really shitty but they are what they are and denying them is denying the truth.

And as an American who grew up here I have a right to say that Ruth shouting down the one organization that fights for my rights and the rights of all women and girls in the United States is detrimental to our cause. WoLF has been and continues to make positive headway for women. What has Ruth done for the U.S.? Not a thing IIRC and I don't expect her to but I do condemn her shouting down the one group here that actually has a positive impact for females in our judicial, legal, and social systems.

The UK is a much different place than the US. Our country is in toddler development stage (has been as long as I've been alive) and appears to be regressing back to the womb. The U.K. is a much more mature place then the U.S., thus, the U.K. can afford more nuance in debate. Muddying the waters of our U.S. female liberation only serves the TRAs and mysoginists.

Bipartisan alliances for a good cause is always a good thing IMO, I don't disregard anyone because of their political or religious affiliation. Our country is very divided between party, class, race, and religious lines. Regardless of the right-wing conservative or religious right perspectives on women as a whole it is possible to find common ground and when we find it we benefit from reaching across the aisle.

Both sides of my family are incredibly religious and right-wing - devout you might say in religion and conservatism (not fundamentalists - they aren't extremists). I'm an atheist, I am politically homeless, and considered to be extremely liberal by my families. These are BIG Baptist and Catholic families (in my generation I have 34 cousins on Catholic side with 47 children). They're mostly military many of them have served more than one tour overseas in military conflicts as field medics, pilots, ground troops, etc. I love them I have meals with them I share my concerns for females and while we don't agree on a lot of the elements we all agree that women and girls deserve dignity and privacy. They stand with me on dignity/privacy and can't bear the thought that their daughters could be subjected to the crap we have going on right now.

SCOTUS refuses to support girls/women in regards to dignity and privacy. WoLF is doing everything they can to get SCOTUS to open their eyes.

So Ruth, please keep your shouting down of WoLF away from the steps of SCOTUS and please do keep up the genuinely good work with WPUK. We have enough extreme liberals/fundamentalist conservatives (they are almost the same thing in regards to women's liberation now) our approach must be more moderate to support/protect females.