Issues of poverty are being neglected by social justice movements because of the overwhelming focus on sexuality...

[MaryRoseSatOnAPin]

...a comment heard at a conference today.

Would you agree? The person who made the comment was speaking from a Latin American context, criticising the Western focus towards the developing world. Has the West disappeared down a wormhole of LGBTQ+ rights whilst people in the global South, ignored, continue to starve?

I'm an avid lurker on the feminism boards, but haven't posted before. Asking here because you are a knowledgeable bunch - someone, somewhere must have written articles on this, but I can't find anything! It is a controversial viewpoint, but I'd be interested to read more.

If women as a sex class no longer exist, women's issues won't exist either.

Vicky's post describes how what is happening in international aid is mirrored on this board, and across the left and anyone who is ostensibly fighting the 'good fight'.

It's all about fashionable causes- not those most in need.

The more the good guys ignore the people in need, the more attractive the bad guys will become to the people in need.

I do feel the left has totally lost the plot.

Isn't part of the problem though that internationalism doesn't work well if your domestic focus isn't in order? And that in fact internationalist focus can easily become almost a deliberate distraction or excuse for not doing more in your immediate environment where it would possibly have the greatest consequences? An international focus is great if you don't want to deal with those.

In light of that I can see why someone might say leftists need to refocus closer to home. There is a sense where that is where a real reckoning occurs, and that is where you learn what it means to work at a grassroots level, how political action really works. That's where it is difficult to hide agendas and consequences, because you can see them.

This kind of problem happens in socialist institutions a lot. I've recently been involved in some food bank governance at a national level in my country, because I'm in involved with a small, neighbourhood/grass roots/church based soup kitchen. It's run in an inner city area for many years. It's really shocking in some ways how out of touch the top levels of the national organisation are. Not only are they increasingly being led in terms of policy by the needs of corporate donors, they are increasingly into value added services - things like a yoga class for those who attend a food bank or soup kitchen.

Connectivity to roots is primary and internationalist action has to always come out of that kind of experience. If the former is lost the latter will be ineffective or worse.

The concentration on trans and gender issues does seam to be fixation which excludes time for us to look at other issues that really are higher in most women list of priorities.

If we cannot define women and girls as the set of people whose reproductive organs and capabilities are exploitable (by the state, businesses, men, and even occupying armies intent on genocide), are used as grounds for adverse treatment, and can be weaponised against them through rape, then we've lost our ability to state why "high priority" issues are important to women.

When an educated well-paid white woman is denied a promotion or project that she's easily capable of because "she's at that age where she'll be thinking about children", she has been discriminated against because of her reproductive capacity. When a girl in an Ethiopian village is kept out of school by her parents because they don't see a point in educating someone who will be married by age 13, she is being discriminated against because of her reproductive capacity. When the same girl ends with obstetric fistula because she was pregnant far too young, it's because her husband was trying to exploit her reproductive capacity, with the collusion of her parents who arranged the marriage.

I've deliberately used a "first world problem" and a "third world problem" as examples to show the common root cause: adverse treatment based on reproductive capacity. If we can't name that common root cause, we can't fix any of the "high priority" problems.

If we look at the actual dangers as opposed to the theoretical I think may be we could rebalance.

On this board now, from memory:

• J "wax my balls" Yaniv has harmed the livelihoods of self-employed women in Canada, causing an "actual danger" to their businesses as well as stress and expense.
• Two women, one in the UK with children and another in the US, who cannot use DV shelters because of their fear of men, causing "actual danger" to these women's safety and mental health.
• A certain TW cyclist who is winning Masters races, causing "actual danger" to the sporting careers of women.

"The concentration on trans and gender issues does seam to be fixation which excludes time for us to look at other issues that really are higher in most women list of priorities."

It appears my previous comment has been deleted. However, onwards.

haXXor makes the point that unless you can define who is a women then you cannot tackle the issues we suffer.

I hold that the concentration on the inclusion of 0.6% of the population is holding us back from looking at issues:-

Such as the withdrawal of all funds for the women shelter in East Sussex by the council - you will notice that whether the shelter is trans inclusive or not the actual issue here is that the shelter will close unless we highlight it.

I hold that equal pay affects those who are or are perceived to be women, as per the equality act, and that fighting for equal pay for all women means actually we are fighting for equal pay - not spending time trying to exclude 0.6% of people who are women.

I hold that fighting FGM and forced marriage has no transgender cross over but is not being covered here in a "feminist chat".

I hold that benefit cuts have disproportionally affected women - but agains not seeing that here.

I hold that brexit will disproportionately affect women - but again nothing here on that.

So while some may see the need to spend all their time here creating a definition of women there is another thread of mainstream feminism that is getting on fighting for all these things.

And who know this post may also be deleted - we can only try our best.

Agree. When I was in the SGP "social justice" mainly involved the LGBT movement, especially the most persecuted of all mortals the Ts, and stopping illegal immigrants being deported. Poor working class Scots got very little attention, what with all their white privilege, especially the male ones. Although I'm on FWR I have developed a dislike of all identity politics and the privilege poker that goes with it..

I hope you start threads on those issues and encourage others to support your work for women in those areas, Vicky. There's plenty of room for women to fight for women in the different ways important to them.

I've always found that the left focuses on frilly nonsense while ignoring poverty, disability, mental health, physical illness, class issues etc ie the stuff that actually impacts the majority of people. It's definitely a case of living in an ivory tower.

As usual we have people coming on telling women what they should be concentrating on, while they make no attempt whatsoever to start those discussions themselves.

Saying that sex related issues are a distraction as isn't necessarily identical to saying that they aren't necessary to deal with when something like the definition of woman is under fire.

It's the fact that a response is necessary that makes some of them them such a powerful distraction.

I hold that the concentration on the inclusion of 0.6% of the population is holding us back from looking at issues:-

Have you started threads here about the issues you listed?

Have those threads been ignored by the other posters?

Constantly mentioning the 0.6% makes it sound like a tiny problem but it isn't is it?

Creating and keeping safe spaces for women affects ALL women (and children).

That's 51% and when you factor in children it's a huge amount of the population.

If we can't sort this out we are fucked.

As usual we have people coming on telling women what they should be concentrating on, while they make no attempt whatsoever to start those discussions themselves

Ooh I’ve not posted any of these for a while

THE RULES OF MISOGYNY

1st rule of misogyny: Women are responsible for what men do.

3rd rule of misogyny: Women speaking for themselves are exclusionary and selfish.

5th rule of misogyny: WATM! Women and Feminism must be useful to men or they are worthless.

9th rule of misogyny: Men always know the "real reasons" for everything women do and say.

Eleventy-seventh bollox rule: anybody with an opinion that you don't like, must be a man, probably stupid and out to enforce the patriarchy...

The concentration on trans and gender issues does seam to be fixation which excludes time for us to look at other issues that really are higher in most women list of priorities.

Most women should come here and start threads then. Where are they? Who's stopping them?

..anybody with an opinion that you don't like, must be a man...

Yeah. Or one of those "special" men.

whether the shelter is trans inclusive or not the actual issue here is that the shelter will close unless we highlight it.

If it stays open but the conditions of funding mean that it now has to welcome adult males, then it might as well be closed for all the good it will do for Childrenandhomeless, Detroit, and no doubt countless other women who haven't made support threads. In which case, you might as well close the shelter and use the funding to pay for flats for homeless women fleeing DV so that they can at least have somewhere to stay without being housed with penishavers and retraumatised by that.

It's not the opinion so much as posters who relentlessly bang on repeating one point over and over without being able to move the discussion on, or respond to what others are saying in reply. Which is tedious and people lose interest and patience. Labour Party please take note.

Eleventy-seventh bollox rule: anybody with an opinion that you don't like, must be a man, probably stupid and out to enforce the patriarchy

Because blaming women on this board ( while absolving yourself of all responsibility ) for all the mistakes of left wing politics isn’t misogynistic at all.

conditions of funding mean that it now has to welcome adult males

If it welcomes/provides for adults born male then its funding is not in any danger: adults born male get their needs met. Local Authorities will line up to do it. I'm more concerned about the women who won't go to those places because males are there, and so now have nowhere to go and are left with truly appalling options.

Signal of the truly oppressed: funding isn't there for them, funding is constantly diverted away from them, and it's considered wrong even supposed to talk about them and their needs because they're so obviously unimportant compared to other groups.

Even if you stop looking at the Emperor, the fact doesn't change that he's still stark bollock naked.

tumble anybody with an opinion that you don't like, must be a man

Where did 0lga say that? We are well aware here that women can and do uphold the rules of patriarchy. We call them "handmaids".

Let's put it this way:

Some of the posters here have clearly never experienced the life long oppression of being female and it really shows.

the cry went up from tumble

'the left is in crisis, someone should really do something about that'

tumble appears to have chosen us to both hold responsible and to act on their behalf

I'm just not too clear why and they don't seem to want to explain

and I think I agree with the people who say that to an extent the left was ever thus

the left in this country were galvanised by the second world war I think, and have slowly been unwinding from that position ever since