Women's Place UK: Filia event: the elephant ignored yet again

[pattihews]

I attended the WPUK event at Filia yesterday and came out feeling disturbed by what struck me as a very heavy-handed event designed to avoid talking about the elephant in the room. For what it's worth, I've voted Labour at every election since 1979. I imagine 90% of the audience had a similar track record.

Put briefly, we had 90 minutes of:
Feminism=socialism and if you're not a socialist you can't be a feminist and if you're not a feminist-socialist you're the enemy.
The right is sly and will lie and try to draw you in (illustrated with a video from the US about the right-wing origins of many apparently liberal groups, including the Heritage Foundation) and you must resist any temptation to get involved with them.
The way to do it is to join unions and change them from within, hold socialist women's salons to recruit and inform and get involved at grass roots level.

There were also regular warnings about racism, which seemed odd and extraneous because WPUK is all about gender ideology.

And then the penny dropped. Though her name was never mentioned, I suddenly realised that the whole tightly-managed event (no talking unless you're holding the microphone) was a warning not to fraternise with Posie Parker.

At lunchtime I encountered several other women, all of them furious about what they'd sat through. Furious in particular because of course the elephant in the room was the fact that the Labour Party, to which WPUK is loyal to death, is the biggest threat to women's rights in this country. And they'd used PP to deflect from that.

I'm not a Posie fan. Posie's clear she's not a feminist. She says things that make me cringe. I have doubts about her motivation and we wouldn't be friends in RL. But I went to one of her events when she came to my area and she can mobilise women the left will never reach and for that she's important and valuable. When I go canvassing for Labour I meet working-class as well as middle-class women who vote or have voted Conservative. They include aspirational minority ethnic women. They have their reasons, and some of them I can understand.

A woman I've never seen before and may not see again joined my table for lunch and explained why so many women were feeling really disturbed. These are TRA tactics.
The huge issue that concerns so many of us (should we vote Labour?) was avoided and we were instead lectured on how to be good socialists and feminists.

Was anyone else there? What did you make of it?

*@Terrielynn
*
*Ah, so the opinions of the domesticated zombies aren't worth your time.

OK.*

I haven't said this. It is a very very long thread and I've read a lot of it and a lot of it is the same. "Head girls" "elitism" etc. Why would I read thread after thread of stuff that's just bashing women from anonymous accounts? I've dropped a speech in because that's what you're talking about. But it isn't is it? Or it wouldn't be a problem to put it here?

so, you’ve not read the thread…

Because the thread has become really long and repetitive.

Yet you then say this…

I'm not lecturing. But it is fair to look at the thing you're criticising isn't it?

That, in a nutshell, is what us Domesticated Zombies dislike about WPUK.

There is room in this fight for everyone, but I’ve decided not to give any more of MY money to the org that refuses to see why women are fed up with it.

Jean, you didn't think that Pragna's emphasis on including black women and being actively anti-racist felt like a fairly heavy-handed warning not to associate with racists? There are women of various ethnicities, colours and cultures in the various groups I'm involved with so that message felt a bit unnecessary.

I was left sitting there wondering why anyone in that room might be racist and why that appeared to be the take-home message from Pragna's speech, confirmed by Christina Rosetti upthread. It strikes me that one of the last places on earth I'd expect to encounter racism and racists is Filia.

I had a dim memory of KJK being accused of racism but I couldn't remember why. And the next thing up was the video mentioning the Heritage Foundation. And I thought 'Ah...'

You know when we're sitting there listening to speakers? We're not just listening. We're thinking. We're wondering why a speaker has chosen a subject or has chosen to say this thing and ignore that thing. Why they talk about the historical difficulties women have had with the left, but not the current problems. We're thinking 'Is that really accurate?' We're critically engaged. We're not just sitting there like empty vessels to be filled with words of wisdom.

Ali Ceesay referred to the faction issues on social media in her speech. It was right there at the end.

Does any one know much input did she have in created the Kellie Jay Keen sin page linked on the Brighton Feminist web site ?

So, it doesn’t matter how many any of us say ‘there is room for many voices, can we just be treated with respect’, can we not be treated by some groups as resources to be tapped into when something is needed and then put down when we are no longer needed til next time, we are to be reminded that we are anonymous accounts, and that our words are to be considered ‘bashing’ .

Ok. Happy to have that clear.

I don't think it will be a surprise to anyone to know that I had no idea of Ali Ceesay's history or views. But if what's being said about her is even halfway accurate, surely scheduling her to speak on the panel (she gave a prepared speech about her volunteering work with female asylum seekers/ refugees in France and about her socialist/ feminist salons) was a massive provocation. I'm amazed that those in the know in the audience kept their responses so low-key and moderate in the circumstances. No wonder the atmosphere was so uncomfortable.

I've picked up her involvement incorrectly - I thought she spoke in the Q&A. If she was on the panel then clearly her involvement was agreed (and approved) beforehand!

Yes, the subtext that you picked up on was clearly palpable. It's astonishing to me that Jean is still trying to peddle the line that you imagined the undertones, that you've misrepresented the event or that you have your own agenda at play.

It's quite something to witness tbh.

She was a panelist, yes. And she referred the dissension between feminist groups at the end of her speech. And referred to the far right.

And I did not realise that Sisteroutrider / Claireshrugged added comments at the event too about abuse. I don't agree with anyone being abused. So we can be clear, is comparing Kellie Jay to a steaming pile of dog shit abusive too?

So partly, those saying the sessions (and yes, I have listened to all the panel's speeches) were not about continuing the in fighting about who are the feminists and who were not. Yet the final speaker from the panel, in the final moments of the sessions did reference the in fighting.

And a woman spoke of her abuse on twitter while playing down the nature of their posting history.

Seems to be a whole lot more clarity coming through now. It may not have been the intention of the session, but then some aspects have led to a feeling of judgement by some women and of some women feeling unwelcome.

The issue is to stop denying that it happened, to acknowledge that that was not the intention but maybe it did come through and to move on with the lessons.

GrumpyMenopauseWW, that make me think of the furious woman I met at lunchtime who talked about WPUK using TRA tactics. Difficult to remember quite how that conversation went in detail, but she felt we'd been gaslighted and was sure they'd sent out a message about KJK in the session. I presume she knew about Ali Ceesay and assumed I did too. Little did she know she was talking to possibly the least well-informed woman there.

Was it @Christina Rosetti on here who was calling the audience disingenuous? The cheek is pretty breathtaking. You put up a speaker who has (allegedly) dissed other women's groups and thinks anyone who isn't a socialist is racist scum to talk about something so anodyne that no one could take offence. And then you complain because only KJK critic Jeni Harvey in the front row asks what you deem to be a relevant question.

There's definitely disingenuousness afoot, but it's not coming from you OP.

@pattihews

*Jean, you didn't think that Pragna's emphasis on including black women and being actively anti-racist felt like a fairly heavy-handed warning not to associate with racists? There are women of various ethnicities, colours and cultures in the various groups I'm involved with so that message felt a bit unnecessary.

I was left sitting there wondering why anyone in that room might be racist and why that appeared to be the take-home message from Pragna's speech, confirmed by Christina Rosetti upthread. It strikes me that one of the last places on earth I'd expect to encounter racism and racists is Filia.

I had a dim memory of KJK being accused of racism but I couldn't remember why. And the next thing up was the video mentioning the Heritage Foundation. And I thought 'Ah...'

You know when we're sitting there listening to speakers? We're not just listening. We're thinking. We're wondering why a speaker has chosen a subject or has chosen to say this thing and ignore that thing. Why they talk about the historical difficulties women have had with the left, but not the current problems. We're thinking 'Is that really accurate?' We're critically engaged. We're not just sitting there like empty vessels to be filled with words of wisdom*

Patti, the overwhelming message from Pragna was about forging a path that is autonomous to left and right but is aware of the threats on a number of fronts to women including black women. She chose a specific example about anti-abortionists utilising the struggle of black women. No one called KJK a racist.

No one as far as I could see was "filling up empty vessels". You can see at the beginning of Pragna's intro Dani Ahrens calls for debate and discussion whilst knowing how hard it is when social media is so divisive. It was a small space in a large conference for women to air grievances. And they did! Kara Dansky, Kate Grahame and the woman from WDI UK were some of the key speakers from the audience and very forthright. There were lots of interesting things to consider from their points too. None of the panel attacked KJK. In fact one of the audience speakers Sian said that of course she would be welcome to buy a ticket and come like any other woman there. You can't automatically expect to be platformed by Filia. But you're welcome to attend. I had a Posie supporter in a t shirt ride with me on the annual ride for Murdered women this year. I didn't tell her to bugger off. Why would I? The event was trying to bring women together who don't agree on anything to see what the issues are. Hasn't it done that?

The event did address Heritage Foundation and ADF and others in Katherine Acosta's video. Those were issues to be discussed because they are relevant. Again - not revolving around one woman but the ugly head of the extreme right and the problems they pose for women. Isn't that in the title of the event? What were you expecting?

My apologies. I still can't work quoting on Mumsnet after years of trying!

The plausible deniability card, eh, Jean? We know no one on the panel mentioned KJK, there's no need to keep repeating it.

I don't know who you think you're going to persuade. Those of us who were there, even those of us who knew nothing of the background, were aware of something going on. And you can't stop. You're like the TRAs because you deflect, talk down to us and don't listen.

not revolving around one woman but the ugly head of the extreme right and the problems they pose for women.

Katherine Acosta's video opens with very short clips, spliced together in quick succession, of specific women: Jo Brew; Sheila Jeffreys; Kara Dansky; Linda Bellos; Lierre Keith; Kellie-Jay Keen. It then jumps to an extended history of the rise of the evangelical Christian Right in the US.

I can see why Dansky and others felt this contribution addressed them personally.

And I did not realise that Sisteroutrider / Claireshrugged added comments at the event too about abuse. I don't agree with anyone being abused. So we can be clear, is comparing Kellie Jay to a steaming pile of dog shit abusive too?

Just adding this:

"Given the choice between the women of BLM and a certain racist masquerading as a radical feminist, I'd choose BLM every time. Mind you, that's not saying much; l'd choose standing by a steaming pile of dogshit over getting anywhere near Pse Prkr.". Sister Outrider 1:56 PM · Aug 31, 2020

I had a very poor view of the video and it was mainly audio-only for me. I imagine very few women would have been able to see it clearly. Thank you for the information.

The event was trying to bring women together who don't agree on anything to see what the issues are. Hasn't it done that?

Jean, if you'd read the thread, you'd see that no, it's not done that. It's not even come close.

Please tell me how sincere the aim is to 'bring women together' when Ali Ceesay was on the panel? She clearly has the full support of WPUK & is an approved feminist. Does that approval extend to the misinformation she's currently spreading on twitter? Do you support her tactics Jean? How is it even possible to claim to want to 'bring women together' while the WPUK panelist Ceesay is still engaging in the tactics that multiple posters here have said has sickened them, has turned them off WPUK & ended even financial support being given to WPUK in some cases?

We've mostly all said no one here has an issue with WPUK drawing their own boundaries, doing their own thing & just getting on with their aims. It would be fab if they'd extend the same courtesy to others. But that's never going to happen, is it? Not while they platform a woman consumed by the desire to destroy another woman doing her thing, and don't bother to make that clear to the audience who turned up to listen their event.

I've said it earlier & I'll say it again. The comms/PR coming out of WPUK/WPUK affiliates are woeful & are worse than I realised (having previously thought Ceesay spoke in the Q&A). WPUK wide eyed innocent 'who, us?' schtick really is laughable while they platform Ceesay - still narrating online over SFW activities with lines now being used by US based TRA to harass women attended the US SFW events.

We aren't buttoned up the back.

I am reminded of that infamous Guardian staff letter, and how at least one signatory insisted it couldn't have been about Suzanne Moore because it hadn't mentioned SM by name.

You can see at the beginning of Pragna's intro Dani Ahrens calls for debate and discussion whilst knowing how hard it is when social media is so divisive.

Isn't Dani the author of the Brighton feminists we hate Posie Parker page?

has turned them off WPUK & ended even financial support being given to WPUK in some cases?

And I've spoken to a lot of women who have started subscribing to WPUK since the event, and this thread. So 🤔

🤷🏻‍♀️

And?

The hypocrisy of WPUK re: the bullying behaviours of their founders and closest associates has my eyebrows reaching my hairline.

my mood 🤨
my tone 😑

There are threads and threads of this behaviour now and it’s unique to WPUK - none of the other orgs (FPFW, KPSS, Sex Matters, FWS, SFW, Filia, Make More Noise et al) behave in this manner.

Thank fuck there are lots of ways to be involved without engaging with WPUK - the purity spiral stuff is a condition of the modern day left and it’s hollowing out Labour and the TUs until there is nowt left but a dried up husk, WPUK are either a casualty of the phenomenon or a driver of the phenomenon, it’s hard to tell. Same result either way though.

@Jeanhatchet I know you are not lacking in intelligence but if you can read that and still think that the session, the general superior attitude displayed and the sneering, nasty comments on Twitter by members of WPUK is a win for WPUK then you must be being wilfully obtuse.

If WPUK and you only want those deemed pure enough then fine come out and say it explicitly and don't ask or expect money or support from those not deemed clean or pure enough. You won't though will you? You are more than happy to use other women as resources for cash or support whilst sneering at and being dismissive of those very women. That shows an alarming lack of honesty and integrity.

Carry on with your purity by all means but don't have the gall to expect the plebs to pay for it.

@GrumpyMenopausalWombWielder

I'm not "comms" for anyone. I have spoken for WPUK and fully support what they do. I campaign all over the place and always have done. I'm a pain in the arse and do my own thing.

The event "began" the discussion which is continuing here. In that way it has done a job of opening up things. However it is clear that it's hard for women to talk properly about painful things on social media. I tried to ring Terftalk Tuesday to speak to KJK at her open invitation and couldn't get through. But I will try again when she's back from the states. Social media isn't always useful for uniting women or even have them skilfully disagreeing without ripping each other to shreds.