Standing for women - Portland rally cancelled over violent threats

[ArabellaScott]

Not quite sure what's happened - seems there were credible threats to women's lives over these protests.

twitter.com/StandingforXX

Now it seems a few women went ahead and met up and were attacked. (Nobody seriously hurt as far as I can tell)

twitter.com/ReduxxMag/status/1585012546766966784

Hoping everyone is safe and well.

I don't understand how countering male violence with the threat of more male violence furthers the cause against regressive gender stereotypes and gender ideology that's all.

Is it ok for police to wear guns? No? Why?

yes, up until Chicago, at ONE event straight after Portland and Tacoma it was organised to have a professional security firm used. In a state where it is legal to carry guns with a permit.

Has there been one used since? I have not watched anything since.

In Chicago, on the footage I have seen, and there could be more out there that I have not seen, the woman themselves are standing stoically against the crowd. And from comments I have seen, been punched and assaulted doing it.

Are you going to discount a tour based on one single event where a security firm was used?

Did Kellie Jay even organise these events herself, or are local women's groups doing the organising?

Let's keep bringing this back to the essence of the issue:

Women are being threatened for standing at a microphone and talking in a public space where they are legally allowed to do this.

crossed post with Arabella.

This is it. Regardless of all the sparpling about men with guns, who is even listening. This is the point.

Yes, I have been one of those women who have met, submitted consultation responses, written to MPs, marched, campaigned, distributed leaflets etc etc.

Most of us on this board have, I expect.

And yes, comparing the UK to pretty much the rest of the world, the collective actions, some public and some private, of hundreds of thousands of women has been incredibly effective.

There are scores possibly hundreds of women's organisations and goodness knows how many private WhatsApp groups and the like.

So there are other ways that women can effectively use their voices without needing to be protected by armed men.

That's my observation. The hyperbole of am I writing KJK's tour off is missing the point but does seem to be the response that anything other than unquestioning support of every aspect of KJK's tour seems to elicit from some quarters.

Again, just an observation.

Of course women should be allowed to speak. Whether this should be conditional on them being protected by armed men or being assaulted is another question.

I think that you are basing your observations on the stage we are here in the UK and not where the relevant other countries are.

I can tell you with confidence that Australia for instance, is still behind the UK in public knowledge and women understanding the issues at hand.

We have posters from the USA telling us similar things in their posts.

How do you build those networks of women? One way is via these meetings and inspiring brave women to form their own groups. One of the most openly accessible (ie. for women who don't feel comfortable attending 'feminist' groups) is the shoppers network which has really only gained momentum here.

So, I feel you are mistakenly believing the USA has something similar. I think you are forgetting just how different it is there culturally too.

Just my opinion, but I don't think you can confidently say that the USA has networks up and running to the degree that the UK does.

And I also think that you miss the point, most of the women I meet up with have at one time or other gone to a Speakers Corner event and connected with others there. That is how important they are.

And while these events have been horrendous to watch in terms of women experiencing violence, to say they shouldn't be run is also continuing to miss the point that they should have been able to run without any violence or any threat at all to women. That has happened at the start in California (happy to be corrected), but the issues have come after.

Of course women should be allowed to speak. Whether this should be conditional on them being protected by armed men or being assaulted is another question.

Okay. Well, I don't know much about the US but it seems the situation with arms and guns is rather different than it is here. So - I'd say it was up to the women in the US to decide whether that's appropriate or not.

Sundaymorningtoday · Today 11:30
Yes, I have been one of those women who have met, submitted consultation responses, written to MPs, marched, campaigned, distributed leaflets etc etc.

Right, so you will have an idea of quite how nerve wracking that was in the beginning.

Meetings that were held in public places where women were sending each other private messages on here, trying to meet up beforehand, and hoping against hope that they were messaging a bona fide Mumsnetter and not an undercover TRA.

Where venues were kept secret until the last minute. And even then sometimes had to be changed due to pressure brought on the venue itself.

At the meeting in the House of Commons, the women, for a change, actually felt quite confident, because of the high security at the House of Commons.

if we had gone with your philosophy, women would've stopped. Every time they were met by masked men screaming in their faces, or spitting, or kettling them on stairways, or threatening them with bombs, they would've just stopped.

These threats are done for a reason, and that reason is to stop women talking.

That is as much part of the issue, as what the women are actually talking about.

And KJK is reaching more and more people. If she was reaching fewer and fewer, you might have a point. But she's not.

She's on TV, radio, she was on CNN, and more and more women are taking heart from her unflinching stance.

And in a country where arms are completely legal, she's going to face a bigger threat. So she has to protect herself.

Or stop, of course.

Or stop, of course.

yes. And we know that there are many posters who want just that.

We are very aware of all the reasons why too. It used to be just extreme trans activists.

I was talking about the UK, saying that the US hasn't built up a network of women's organisations in the same way, certainly not those which have influenced policy and prompted investigations into dubious organisations.

Yes, obviously up to individual women if they want to attend etc, although stepping back and looking at from a wider lens, creating situations where women need to be protected by men with guns, use spray to prevent being assaulted or be assaulted it looks to be amplifying patriarchal control over women, not challenging it.

Again, just an observation. I have no criticism of how women choose to be active and organise and think that all women who put themselves in the public eye deserve public support, even if accompanied by private unease.

creating situations where women need to be protected by men with guns

by suggesting women meet in public and talk about women's rights?

It just needs to continue to be repeated.

Just like it needs to be repeated constantly, that the groups doing the threatening and attacking are the ones that claim to be the most 'tolerant' and the 'kind'.

Yes, I do remember how scary the situation in the UK was.

But we didn't stop. That isn't/wasn't my philosophy and I'm not sure how you deduced that from what I posted.

Lots of UK feminist events have security. I am surprised KJK did not organise proper security in advance. There was a lack of advanced planning here.

Although the numbers at events have been very small. There were only 10 women at Los Angeles. And this was before any violence had happened. America does not seem that interested in KJK after all.

Why this desperation to put these women down? These events are intimate, small group open mic events. Obviously the violent male thugs has a chilling effect too.

*the presence of violent male thugs

I simply think it is sad that so much money has been spent on events attracting a tiny number of women, when the money could have been used to support local feminist activists who could reach far more women.

You could say that about most protests or talks. Many more women (and men) watch online. It's good to see resistance to this ideology being expressed so clearly. I just have just watched the video of the Austin stream and it was inspiring to see ordinary American women fired up by anger and female solidarity.

I think it's about how effectively protest highlights an issue, personally.

The response to tiny groups of women meeting to talk in public is illustrting the issue very, very well.

"Small' numbers? the numbers at the London events started 'small' too.

Who is to say that now each of these locations will not continue to have these events. That Kellie Jay Keen's visit there was not the impetus those local feminist groups needed to form and continue the events.

If you don't like Kellie Jay's actions, that is fine. The continual undermining of her efforts will not stop her. I think it is important to separate the bias someone may have due to their personal feelings about Kellie Jay and stop the ad hom attacks.

As KJK seems to be ‘tanking’ in US and drawing Sauron's eye, please let me know what initiatives you are involved in that support local (where are your local activists, and how do you define ‘woman’ - don’t want to ‘waste’ my (husbands) $¥€£ ) feminist activities?

cheers

Because you said So there are other ways that women can effectively use their voices without needing to be protected by armed men.

I took 'other ways' to mean 'not that way'?

This is what I meant. I haven't put KJK down, nor made any attacks or criticised what she's doing.

As I said, I believe that all women putting themselves in the public eye should be publicly supported by other women, even if they feel uneasy in private.

Does the issue of men wanting women to STFU need further highlighting? I'm not convinced.

Yes, lots of UK events have security, usually Liane and her team of women. They are ace.

But it doesn't seem possible to question, in good faith, the purpose of this tour without being accused of attacking the person running it. I don't think it's me who is caught up in my personal feelings about KJK tbh.

Five minutes ago you said how concerned you were over the potential effect on you and your life, because she said something about Donald Trump.

Whilst simultaneously claiming America isn't interested in her.

damn she's good.

What do you think the purpose of the tour is, in that case?

The purpose of the tour seems to be to promote KJK.

I understood the tour had been planned with WoLF, who were interested in the Let Women Speak events and wanted some more insight into how KJK had set them up. Admittedly that's via Twitter but WoLF have been retweeting SFW so it sounds plausible.