Is it okay to work with groups whose principles you dont share as a feminist, but there is a common cause?

[IwantToRetire]

Education not indoctrination
The events was organised by a coalition of groups including the Christian Institute, which opposes abortion, same-sex marriage and euthanasia, Stand By Me Scotland, which opposed the wearing of facemasks in schools during the pandemic, Academics for Academic Freedom and For Women Scotland, which opposes Scottish government plans for people to be able to self-identify their legal gender.
www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/education-not-indoctrination-tickets-426737442177

Glasgow venue cancels booking for cancel culture conference
www.thetimes.co.uk/article/04e3fa4a-6696-11ed-9c3b-2d9184d0076f?shareToken=4ffe4f56d755905a476b686c75b65dd0&fbclid=IwAR1UHupPu9Xu4bD_gF0JoJb0A9u-bE2RDTcRqmbt9c8bpRUird9JTGbG8o8

I am clearly using "collateral" as a turn of phrase to demonstrate that feminists who say "yes it's okay" to the OP as essentially saying that yes, it's worth attending these events to support the no self ID part even if it's borne of conservativism (and so also supports those antifeminist views mentioned earlier) because in their view the self ID bit is more important than those other issues, even though those issues are also very damaging to women.

Thanks for your explanation, However, I've said a few times that yes I would be happy to attend this event. Not sure why you think I'm trying to hide that? I've made it super clear.

Where we disagree is your idea that to attend this event means "supporting" other views on other issues. You have not yet given an explanation as to why that should be the case.

I actually have explained why I feel that way, in several of my earlier posts.

Are you really that dense?

Why do you keep insulting people?

Again though, there is a huge spectrum of morality between "purity politics" and using your critical thinking and nuance to reflect on the context your beliefs are existing in.
It's very nice to acknowledge that holding x view doesn't make one a bad person, or that it's the only view they hold. But you still have the responsibility to not go too far down that path. In my personal view, no it is not okay to nurture a political relationship with groups that represent ideas that I cannot abide. I can respect everyone's right to personal belief especially over emotive issues like abortion.
But I cannot respect or abide anyone who feels that it is okay to try and legally remove other women's right to choose. Any sort of collusion with those groups (groups are not individuals subject to the same nuance as a human being and therefore do not need or deserve the same empathy as a human).
You also can't conflate political groups with individuals for the above stated reasons - being emotive about how it's not right to judge people and it's denying their free speech blah blah doesn't cut it when what you are actually talking about is rejecting an organised group pushing for certain policies

I've copy pasted my point here which i feel address the why. I have to leave the thread now at least for a while as my children are home.

Are you really that dense?

No, you actually haven't. And you haven't explained why it is that you coming to FWR and discussing issues with women here is fine and doesn't mean you're aligning with anyone else's views or supporting them, but a woman going to this event would be aligning with and supporting views of the other attendees.

You have no idea what my views are on anything. You are engaging with me but how do you know you're not engaging with someone who has views you would totally disagree with on other topics?

Can you please explain why you think sharing a space or even a platform with someone means you're supporting and aligning with them?

Because I'm expressing anger at feeling deliberately misunderstood and taken in bad faith.

Yes. Anyone who wants to avoid associating in any way with groups whose views they don't share 100% on every issue are going to end up quite isolated.

It must be very hard to find a venue, staff, sponsors, organisers, participants and attendees with whom one accords completely.

with respect, you are attributing bad faith where there is none.

It's quite possible to express anger without insulting people.

I actually have and I have explained that bit about why posting on a feminist forum online and attending an event in person organised by pro life and anti gay marriage at an evangelical church is different in my eyes.

I've even copy pasted a post from earlier. I don't know what else you want from me. You should at least read my posts before you tell me I haven't responded. Just because it's not what you agree with doesn't mean I haven't addressed it.

I don't think a single person here has adequately addressed why it is not antifeminist and immoral to attend the event. But I don't keep badgering you for your views, I am simply explaining my own as best I can.

I'm happy with how I've conducted myself on this thread thanks.

... so if you have any issues report them.

I've tried hard to understand you, Dream. You have not expressed yourself very clearly and you keep moving the goalposts and refusing to answer questions.

I expect the frustration you're feeling is a reflection of the fact that you're struggling to express your viewpoint. You feel you're right, but you haven't got the reasoning for it, so people are making you angry with their requests for reason and logic. But you have to appreciate that this is what you need to bring if you hope to persuade anyone to your point of view.

Lol, that's really not the case.

What I've been saying isn't hard to express nor to comprehend.

I've explained what I don't think is okay.

I've explained why.

I'm not the one who has been moving the goalposts and moved the conversation from a specific issues to general free speech whataboutery. In fact I am the one who noted the goal posts were being moved much earlier in the thread and attempted to stay on topic.

All of this "poor you, you're just angry cos you don't know what you're talking about" is very transparent and tiresome.

I don't think a single person here has adequately addressed why it is not antifeminist and immoral to attend the event.

It's not antifeminist because attending or not attending events has got nothing to do with feminism. It's not antifeminist to go to Sainsburys, where many anti-abortion people also shop. It's not antifeminist to discuss ideas or listen to people who have different views than you do. It's not antifeminist to discuss ideas with someone who isn't a feminist. It's not antifeminist to talk to someone who's an outright misogynist. It's not antifeminist to marry someone who thinks abortion is murder. None of these things make you against feminism. How could they?

It's not immoral because the idea that it's immoral to talk to people who don't share all your same opinions is frankly batshit crazy.

Dream many of your posts have been hard to understand. I've done my best to engage in good faith, but it is hard, and you do seem to leap about from topic to topic.

It's still not an adequate explanation in the actual context of the OP though. It just isn't. Because it's not a case of simply interacting with random people in that example.

That is actually in response to people asking specific questions though, IMO of which many are deliberately obfuscating the issue.

Of course someone engaging in good faith over so many posts will be addressing many different things.

Well, some of these issues are quite complicated! There is nuance required. Freedom of expression, thought and belief is a big subject.

You asked for an explanation of why it wasn't antifeminist and immoral to attend the event. I gave an explanation.

Now you are, yes, moving the goalposts. You say no, it's not about interacting with random people. Who said it was?

Okay, so. It's not antifeminist to discuss 'education not indoctrination' with people who belong to different groups, some of which allegedly espouse ideas that some feminists don't agree with. It's simply what happens in politics. People come together to discuss ideas and if they have a common goal they can help each other out.

If there's a cross-party committee on, say, child poverty, it doesn't mean that the Labour MPs are saying they support the Tories about their tax program or immigration laws. Same thing here.

This is a really tough one.

I think in general most causes have some questionable groups, and it depends on whether their voice takes over and our participation is seen as promoting what we do not believe in.

Lie down with dogs, you'll get fleas.

This is a meaningless platitude.

It has a nice ring to it. It almost sounds profound.

But it says sweet bugger-all.

Just putting this out there to the people who subscribe to this thinking.

Are you opposed to All Party Parliamentary Groups?

Are you opposed to peace talks?

Are you opposed to the exchange of ideas?

Thing is, if you actually engage with the dogs you get the opportunity get rid of the fleas and many other things that make them easier to live with. You can learn about the dogs and coexist better.

If you insist that all engagement is endorsement and collaboration you’re never going to find out. Much easier to decide their views are unacceptable and shun them, while congratulating yourself on how strong your morals are.

Many years ago everyone in my workplace had to pull together and organise together to take on our employer in order to get justice. In he end we went on strike, and we won.

We had nothing else in common. My workmates were Christians, Muslims, Sikhs, atheists, Catholics, Jews and Hindus. They supported opposing football clubs; they voted for opposing political parties; they were male and female, and many of the males were raging misogynists. They were gay and straight, and some of the straights were homophobic.

If we had not put ALL our differences aside and worked together we would have lost.

You also shut down the debate to the point that you’ll never learn that good people can hold, for example, pro-life views. And that some aspects of their views may well cause you to reconsider your own in some way.

Together you might find that there’s an area in which you can find enough consensus to move forward.

And people will probably discover that their own position is probably less representative of society as a whole than they might imagine. It’s not always easy to guess or categorise peoples views.

I also notice that there is a lot of conflating going on. For example. If someone believes in the sanctity of life, and the sanctity of a union between a man and a woman because it can create life, it is not the same as saying same sex couples are ‘an abomination’.
I see real parallels between efforts between trying to force everyone to believe humans can change sex, with trying to force everyone to believe that there are no significant differences between a same sex and opposite sex coupling. There will always be people who think creating life - making babies - is sacred - and believe that that is what marriage is all about. The fact they don’t recognise gay marriage doesn’t mean they hate gay people. I don’t get why it is so important to some of these feminists that religions should change something which is a pretty core belief.