Posie Parker. For women and children. I adore her.

[Backinthecloset123]

That's all.

And if her husband loses his job she's fucked. From a feminist POV it's a shame she's in such a vulnerable position and so reliant on a man.

You're not even trying now.
It's a bit desperate.
But great insight for those new to FWR.
Thanks for the training. Saves us rad fem school fees for newbies.

There's freedom of speech and there's aligning oneself with a neo Nazi white supremacist by appearing in a video with him

Appearing in a video with someone is not ‘aligning’ oneself with them

This is really tedious

And your disdain for the value of caring for children is fucking awful

Sapphos, your repeated use of a logical fallacy (look this up if you still can’t grasp it) to smear a SAHM or anyone else cuts no ice with me. As I have said, Maya Forstater lost her job and that has escalated the freedom of speech threat to the front page of The Telegraph et al. You don’t seem to have the faintest clue what freedom of speech means

What I've seen is Posie expressing concern that all the free childcare that the political parties are currently proposing will mean that more, and increasingly young children will be being cared for outside the home for a large proportion of their time.

My view is that one parent (male or female) should also be supported to stay at home while their children are young, if that's what they want to do. The free childcare money could be paid to the parents to either put towards childcare so they can work or to support one parent staying at home.

In my feminist utopia, parenting would be valued just as much as working.

And don't assume every sahm puts herself in a "vulnerable position reliant on a man" - my position isn't at all vulnerable, I've made sure of it.

That assumption that every sahm is "vulnerable or "dependant on a man" is a sexist assumption in itself.

And if her husband loses his job she's fucked. From a feminist POV it's a shame she's in such a vulnerable position and so reliant on a man.

I was reliant on a man for many years when my children were growing. A wonderful time it was. Not only was I able to play a major role in my children's lives and guide them through their developing years as the stable core of their lives (and still am, now that they are adult); I used the time to build my own free-lance profession in an area totally unrelated to my former job.
I ended up earning more than my husband and still, as a retiree, have a good income from my self-employment, better, actually, than my pension.

I could never have done so had I rushed back into a rather boring desk job. I consider myself immensely lucky. Not only could my husband afford it, we lived in a country, Germany, that makes this choice financially possible.

Being a SAHM can be a wonderful opportunity for women to find latent strengths and skills. My own daughter is going this route and, well, who knew she was so talented!

Posie would never have been such an icon and force for change, looked up to and admired by now thousands of women, had she gone to work.

There's freedom of speech and there's aligning oneself with a neo Nazi white supremacist by appearing in a video with him.

Um, firstly that IS freedom of speech.

God only knows where this idea that freedom of speech can only be applied to issues are that you agree with, or really aren't that controversial.

And secondly, going on his channel to talk about her issues, her campaigns, and her activism isn't aligning herself with white supremacy!

🤣

I wish you would just come out and say what it is you don't like about the woman.

Instead of all this jumping the shark nonsense about her hair, her career status and why she's only allowed to talk to people who agree with her, but when she does that she's still wrong because it's an echo chamber.

And while we're all labouring under 30 pages of misdirection about Posie - SHE'S KINDE KIRCHE KUCHE! SIX DEGREES OF SEPARATION GUILT BY ASSOCIATION! SHE DYES HER HAIR! MY RADICAL FEMINISM SCHOOL SAID ALL THE GOOD MEAN GIRLS HATE HER! I CAN'T KEEP MY LINE OF ARGUMENT STRAIGHT BUT YOU MUST HATE HER ANYWAY! - the actual political movement she is opposing is publishing its plans to literally steal our children, via extra-legal, extra-democratic means. That well known far right extremist James Kirkup (if only he'd go platinum blond it would be easy to recognise him) sums it up here:

In a democracy, we are all free to argue for whatever policy or position we wish. But normally, anyone who wants to change the law accepts that to do so they need to win the support or, at least, the consent of the people whose authority ultimately gives the law its force. The approach outlined, in detail, in the Dentons report amounts to a very different way of lobbying to get the laws and policies you want. Even more notably, it suggests that in several countries people have been quite successful in lobbying behind a ‘veil’ and in a way that deliberately avoids the attention of the public. That, I think, should interest anyone who cares about how politics and policy are conducted, whether or not they care about the transgender issue.

So perish the thought we give any oxygen to Posie, eh? Perish the thought that she is able to say what she sees in a way that a) everyone understands and b) cuts through the bullshit.

I see we’re back to that Canadian (?) bloke no one can name. As stated before Sapphos - modern trans activism often alludes to supremacism.

If that doesn’t bother you, why does Posie’s foray on YT? Unless it’s just a useful tactic to discredit her?

[For the record, I reject the racism of the Canadian bloke and of the “TW are just like Black women” crew]

Further to Lang's post, here is the link

blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/12/the-document-that-reveals-the-remarkable-tactics-of-trans-lobbyists/

*In the words of the report:

‘It is recognised that the requirement for parental consent or the consent of a legal guardian can be restrictive and problematic for minors.’
You might think that the very purpose of parenting is, in part, to ‘restrict’ the choices of children who cannot, by definition, make fully-informed adult choices on their own. But that is not the stance of the report.

Indeed, it suggests that ‘states should take action against parents who are obstructing the free development of a young trans person’s identity in refusing to give parental authorisation when required.’

In short, this is a handbook for lobbying groups that want to remove parental consent over significant aspects of children’s lives. A handbook written by an international law firm and backed by one of the world’s biggest charitable foundations.

So when Posie says they are coming for your children, she is not spouting hyperbole, she's not being dramatic, lying, fear mongering, or panicking.

She is nailing it.

She's a nazi and a 1950s housewife who is utterly reliant on a man, and is ineffective in the persuasion stakes, but has the uncanny ability to amplify the platform of a white supremacist purely by sitting next to him.

I find it so strange that Posie is only supposed to talk to the correct sort of people. How on earth will that get the message out to the whole population of the UK who don't know what's happening to women's rights?
Did St Paul, the Pankhursts, George Fox, Germaine Greer (to name but a few) only talk to the right sort of people?
The answer is NO!
Posie wants her message about the abuse of children and erosion of women's rights to have the widest audience possible and I say Brava!

One of the most mystifying aspects is the speed and success of a small number of small organisations in achieving major influence over public bodies, politicians and officials

Datun, the Spectator analysis reveals the profoundly anti democratic threat this aggressive niche lobby group presents. These radical policies are being imposed by stealth, with no democratic mandate and their proponents are trying to criminalize not only dissent, but discussion

These radical policies are being imposed by stealth, with no democratic mandate and their proponents are trying to criminalize not only dissent, but discussion

Hence 30 pages attempting to characterise Posie as Public Enemy Number One. Don't look over there!

Posie is magnificent, riding into battle for the rights of women and children. And she gets to places many of us wouldn't.

Because as we well know, feminist thought has always had a lot of traction. Everyone wants to hear what feminists think. It's not as if we need a wide variety of women (even those who say they're not feminists) to convey the message.

Genderist ideology is an existential threat to women's rights, even our very existence as a defined biological class. And the potential harm to children and young people of medical transition is spine chilling.

Posie gets this incredibly important message out to places I never would. And I salute her for it.

Having a judge point out in court that freedom of speech doesn't guarantee only the right to say uncontroversial things like "kittens are cute"* seems to have left some not fond of freedom of speech people awfully rattled.

*Why thank you (preens)

unhinged

Isn't this the worry? Irrational policies always embolden people based on their particular psychology. Then we all become caught up in nightmare structures that have the power of the state behind them in which the most unhinged are promoted to positions of power.

Sane and rational people cannot survive in structures like this even if they manage to stay hidden.

This is not my overactive imagination. Read Solzhenitsyn for a much better description than I can give. Then we have the Moscow show trials and the Cultural Revolution. I am often reminded of these catastrophes when I see the twisted logic that is employed by some posters who come on here attempting to defend the indefensible for their own psychological reasons.

In some respects it doesn't matter what issue is used to pervert human reason - it is perverted and twisted human reason that leads to human catastrophes.

What is interesting is that it is often people who are psychologically drawn to these twisted ideologies that become their first victims because they have no real understanding of what they are dealing with. I don't think Lenin ever used the term 'useful idiots' but it has entered into modern language because it describes a real phenomenon.

The hatred thrown at Posie Parker is actually very illuminating.

So when Posie says they are coming for your children, she is not spouting hyperbole, she's not being dramatic, lying, fear mongering, or panicking.

Her ability to see this, speak about it and more importantly, be listened to is why she is getting disproportionately attacked.

It's not that she's doing feminism, women's rights or activism wrong - why would anyone care? The problem is that she's shining a light on the situation.

Freedom of speech does not equal freedom of consequence from speech.

As for this What I've seen is Posie expressing concern that all the free childcare that the political parties are currently proposing will mean that more, and increasingly young children will be being cared for outside the home for a large proportion of their time

As someone who was nearly forced into being a Sahm, despite me not being very good at it. Help with childcare costs is desperately required.

How many men do you think say ‘oh if I go back to work after baby is born, I’ll only have x amount left after childcare’

They don’t. And as much as women shouldn’t, we do.

It’s also very easy to preach that kids should be home with their parents when you have enough money to not struggle and fill your days with endless activities.

Government providing help with childcare is a very feminist issue.

Slight derail there but it’s something that I’m very passionate about.

I think everyone well acquainted with, say, the Cultural Revolution, is looking at recent developments with a great deal of concern. If Posie continues refusing to make a self-criticism despite having been declared an Enemy of the People then what's next? Going after her husband's job, apparently. Which I suppose is more restrained than what some people would like to do to her (give them another few years...)

And if her husband loses his job she's fucked. From a feminist POV it's a shame she's in such a vulnerable position and so reliant on a man

And if a single mum loses her job she’s also fucked.

Your feminist analysis is bollocks.

I was a SAHM and I loved it although financially it was a struggle and we couldn't afford paid for activities. I would have appreciated money to help me stay at home. I felt strongly that I was the best person to raise my babies and that they needed me.

I think everyone well acquainted with, say, the Cultural Revolution, is looking at recent developments with a great deal of concern

Absolutely. It’s the Year Zero impulse and its inevitable totalitarian manifestation. Compelled speech and the explicit attempt to criminalise discussion This is the hallmark of an ideology which can’t handle exposure or challenge