Squeamish about far right hangers on

[pawpawpawpaw]

Where do you stand on signing a petition for single-sex spaces which has among its signatories/co-authors a number of far right Christian and anti-feminist groups (Independent Women's Forum, Richard and Helen DeVos Foundation, Concerned Women For America, Family Research Council)?

Not shit stirring, I'm genuinely finding my way on this.

Jayne Egerton writes 'Woman’s Place UK has consistently stated an opposition to working with, or supporting the work of the religious right': womansplaceuk.org/2020/06/18/womens-rights-under-attack-hungary/ On international GC matters (like the Olympics) I suspect they'll be difficult to avoid.

I will always align myself with radical feminists, but I approach GC organisations with caution because of the overlap with other less-desirable causes.

I understand why you're squeamish. People want to sign this document for different reasons, but it's not that unusual. For example, it's perfectly possible that someone from the far left might agree with someone on the far-right regarding something to do with the NHS.

I don't trust the people on the right at all - some of them are mainly interested in all of this because they're the type that think that men should be men and women should stay in the kitchen. They happen to agree with feminists on the same goal, but for totally different reasons. The reason why these two groups are so prominent is because they're the only groups with enough internal backing and support around them. Plenty of others agreee too, but are too afraid to say anything.

Hitler was a vegetarian

I don’t 100% agree with feminism. It doesn’t stop me from supporting policies they have that align with my opinions. I’m not sure how extreme these organisations are but unless they’re terrorists or oppose a view that is very important to you I wouldn’t think it would be an issue to unite over a single issue.

I don't trust the people on the right at all - some of them are mainly interested in all of this because they're the type that think that men should be men and women should stay in the kitchen

That's a pretty big ad sweeping generalisation, which assumes certain things which are not necessarily true at all.

Left/Right can, simply. be seen as different economic vision/systems .
Left/ Right can also be seen as the group versus the individual in which left sees society in terms of groups acting in favour of their own interests, and the Right seeing society in terms of the individual acting in favour of their own interests.......and so on.

'The American narrative' seems to have truly taken over and informed much of the discourse on the Left in Britain these days......so it's all 'Right Wing fundamentalist/evangelical Christianity versus Democratic Urban Liberalism.

@Justhadathought I wrote that badly, but not having an edit button I left it. I think that women' issues are beyond left & right politics. I believe that women's issues tend to be trampled on when something more important comes along, or women's issues are only used to further a different goal - not as a worthy cause in its own right. I believe there are plenty of people on the right who want to maintain safe spaces for women. It's important to keep an open dialogue with people with different political viewpoints too.

My scepticism comes from the fact that I have seen (mainly men) on the right, proclaim some kind of newfound interest in feminism and women's safety when it comes to the Bradford grooming cases (when, shock horror, it's non-white men who are the criminals), yet I can bet you that those same men show zero interest or even hostility to women's safety or issues otherwise. I see a little correlation here - some of those on the right or religious groups have an interest in this issue, not because they particularly care about women, but because this issue fits into their larger world view. A sometimes relkgious world view where men are macho and women mostly subserviant and stay at home and the sexes are very much seperated. Those same people would normally have no interest in many of the things that concern feminism - it only interests them now because it challenges the more conservative world they want to live in, and that may have little to do with actually caring about women.

I don't trust the people on the right at all - some of them are mainly interested in all of this because they're the type that think that men should be men and women should stay in the kitchen

That's a pretty big ad sweeping generalisation, which assumes certain things which are not necessarily true at all

It's a huge generalisation and pretty closed minded. I'm politically on the right- I don't think that.

Still on my NC here, but:

It's a bit of a misnomer to refer to "left" and "right" here - mainly because it leads to the confusion that's come up several times already on this thread, i.e. the economic vs. the social spectrum of positions in politics. Here, we're clearly looking at a "social conservatism" vs. "social progression" axis though. They are, of course, not entirely independent variables. As in: it makes sense that someone who supports ideals of equality would inevitably realise that their vision is not particularly compatible with unfettered capitalism - and vice versa.

Still, it's an important distinction to make in this particular context, because what's actually happening is an internal rift in the socially progressive camp with both sides' stances also being partially shared by social conservatives:

GC feminists and conservatives will generally agree that biological differences between men and women are real and matter - but this tends to be viewed in the context of it being a source of oppression by feminists and as a normative statement by conservatives ...

... who also very much tend to believe, however, that gender is very real and matters. And should be part of determining the manner in which an individual's life is lived. And this, again, is obviously a position very much shared by TRAs (but not by GC feminists). This is very much also the reason why social conservatives are by no means unified on trans issues either. If you look at countried like Iran, I think you'll find it rather hard to argue that their trans policies are informed by abundant wokeness - rather, they're just so dead-set on ideas on gender that they're happier to throw biology under the bus if push comes to shove.

As for the question in the OP: my personal litmus test for working with the "dark" side is usually women's reproductive issues and homosexuality. Hence, I've generally no problem collaborating with the most rabidly neoliberal "women in business" outlet imaginable - but any organisation associated in any way shape or form with "pray the gay away", foetal heartbeat arguments and the like are out.

That's fine @DidoLamenting. I am happy for my view to be challenged and am also open to the idea that some people on the right, such as yourself, do not think like that. If I met you in 'real life' I would not dismiss you because of my earlier post. I would hear you out and get to know you and your personality beyond labels such 'left' & 'right'.

Just look at the number of lifelong labour voters who were effectively disenfranchised at the last election.
There has been an awful lot of soul searching and much distress and I think it will continue for a long time.
The irony of the current government and the communist party being the only parties who know what a woman is!

I believe there are plenty of people on the right who want to maintain safe spaces for women. It's important to keep an open dialogue with people with different political viewpoints too

Of course we musn't forget that the British Tory party has now had two female leaders......and the Labour party, which specialises in the advocacy for equality struggles has yet to have even one.

Sometimes you looked at Jeremy Corbyn's front bench and it made you think that some people were there purely on their equality tick-box credentials rather than on ability or talent.

And one of the only MPs to actually stand up and speak on behalf of the retention of single sex spaces, before the consultation on the GRA closed, was a male Tory MP ( David Davies). Not one Labour MP did that - either male or female.

Some of those on the right or religious groups have an interest in this issue, not because they particularly care about women, but because this issue fits into their larger world view. A sometimes reilgious world view where men are macho and women mostly subservient and stay at home and the sexes are very much separated

I don't recognise this portrayal in the contemporary Conservative Party at all. It seems to be a vision that comes straight out of contemporary American politics and divisions - not British ones.

Those same people would normally have no interest in many of the things that concern feminism - it only interests them now because it challenges the more conservative world they want to live in, and that may have little to do with actually caring about women

It's odd to find myself having to defend the British Conservative party ( having been a life long Labour voter - until the last election when in spoiled my ballot), but 'conservatism' can mean different things. It need not mean being backward and 'traditional' or anti-feminist at all.
It can simply mean working/progressing within existing structures, and not feeling that that society has to be radically re-structured in order to achieve progress.

Conservative can also simply mean that you don't end up having to throw the baby out with the bathwater. That you retain what's proved workable, good or essential, and make incremental changes, instead

@bishopgiggles

I think people can agree on one thing and not others, but you're right in that listing one's own name among those opposing your rights in other areas leaves a bad taste. If it was an anti racism petition I still would sign, albeit after carefully checking everything the petition said!

The trouble is, I don't agree with the religious right on this issue. For me this issue is so bound up with wanting to break down gender stereotypes, so I do not have a common cause with those that want us all back in the right box. I think we'd be worse off if they had control of the discourse than we are at the moment.

@Justhadathought

I'm not sure petitions are really effective in the first place, even as they seem very popular these days. They create a feeling of political action where there really isn't any.

However, any movement at all, does, & will, bring together all sorts of people with different backgrounds and wider intentions. That's the nature of mass democracy and certainly of issues around which many coalesce.

I think petitions have a place in more local politics, but at larger scales they are losing it as it becomes easier to set them up and circulate them online. I certainly would not tend to put much weight on anything like that, even stupid ideas can get a lot of signatures.

@SpartacusAutisticus it isn't dim to have principles and stick to them.

It's a tricky one. The thing is, believing male and female are biological concepts is pretty mainstream. It appeals to everyone from the far right to the far left, from trad wives to radical feminists. That means people of all kinds of political backgrounds find themselves uneasily agreeing - just like they'd have to agree water is wet.

This depends whether you call yourself a feminist or not. What would feminists have in common with the far right who are intrinsically against women's social and political freedoms from the oppression of men? Also they are racist and feminists oppose that. Don't they? So. Nothing. What would they have in common with right wing parties who deliberately target women with policy designed to harm them including austerity, rape clauses, the slashing of women's support services etc etc? Nothing. There's not really any hand wringing to be done. You are either willing to look the other way on racism and misogyny or you aren't.

GC feminists and conservatives will generally agree that biological differences between men and women are real and matter - but this tends to be viewed in the context of it being a source of oppression by feminists and as a normative statement by conservatives ...

This kind of thing points to a problem I think with the idea that GC feminists/the left are pro-equality and conservatives are not.

The idea that male and female bodies have significant and largely unchangeable differences is objective fact from both positions. The conservative position tends to say that this fact tends to lead to different outcomes and choices for women on the whole, but that is ok. Most also agree that this may require certain protections for women. The feminist position tends to say that these different outcomes are a problem and we need to adjust society in order to make the outcomes the same, as well as women requiring special protections. The underlying assumption tends to be that without social oppression on top of the biological differences, outcomes would naturally be the same, but that's an ideological rather than an evidential claim.

But is the feminists' view really more committed to equality? I don't think that's the difference there at all, in fact you could argue it both ways, you could say they are trying to force women's choices into the same model as mens choices which shows lack of respect for women as women. It comes down to this judgement about equivalent outcomes. Which interestingly looks a lot like the identity politics approach.

These kinds of questions are the very ones that seem to be in real flux now in terms of how they operate on the political spectrum.

I was deliberately avoiding making this a TAAT, but the petition is by Save Women's Sports and I agree that men should not compete in women's sports. (Also I agree with PP that I'm not going to blow up the world by signing a petition.) The organisations I mentioned in the OP include American Christian/Evangelical groups with extreme agendas (not Tories) so yes, this is not specifically about the UK, it's an international issue with signatories from many countries.

Thanks for replies, I've only skimmed but will go back and reread later.

@pawpawpaw what's TAAT?

Aren't they supposed to be funding UK feminists? #StillWaiting

TAAT is a thread about a thread.

Aren't they supposed to be funding UK feminists? #StillWaiting

Yes, where's my two dollars?

Goose, I don't see feminism as trying to force equality , although I agree that inequality of outcome is often used as a metric for want of a better understanding of the impact of biology on a persons instincts

I see it More as trying to ensure that opportunity is not denied on the basis of sex, trying to avoid artificial limitations and restrictions

So conservatives seem to think that any differences natural, whilst ( in my feminism) I can see that many differences are not natural but forced , that predujuice is rife. Because I have experienced it.

And my feminism also wonders about how the differences should be acknowledged. For example, is it right that men have a larger voice in government because its natural that women focus more on the family, or should society listen to all voices and therefore ensure that women with children are accommodated? What is reasonable? We no longer accept that the man who punches hardest rules , we have moved on since the Stone Age.

I'm not sure petitions are really effective in the first place, even as they seem very popular these days. They create a feeling of political action where there really isn't any.

This. We are better off writing letters, visiting MPs, speaking to women in real life and organising within our natural habitats (whether that be left or right, political party or trade union, school governing bodies whatever) than we are signing a petition anyway.

Bear in mind that some people who are branded as ‘far right’ might well not actually be far right at all eg Boris Johnson (a libertarian conservative). In the current political Climate simply saying ‘humans cannot change sex’ can get you denounced as a Nazi.