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

In my personal view, no it is not okay to nurture a political relationship with groups that represent ideas that I cannot abide.

I realise the conference under discussion is a political one, but I still find the idea that a group sponsoring a conference must be considered to be “nurtur[ing] a political relationship” with the other sponsors.

I go to a lot of conferences which are sponsored by various different groups, for example some have been sponsored by pharmaceutical companies. I never once assumed those sponsors were nurturing a relationship with one another. Indeed sometimes they are competitors. I assumed those organizing the conference asked different groups for sponsorship and received some from groups that perhaps hoped to have some influence by way of advertising their existence, but not necessarily by directly influencing what was said during the discussions.

I presume then, that “HandsUpScotland” wanted to organise a conference on this topic and then made requests for sponsorship from groups they thought might feel it was a useful discussion to have. There may be strings attached to the sponsorship, but I wouldn’t presume so, unless there is direct evidence of that. Even if there are strings (e.g. if each group gets a chance to provide a speaker) that doesn’t mean the entire conference is somehow tainted. Even if you choose to go to that lecture to see what the person says, that doesn’t mean you support or agree with their ideas. It means you want to hear what they have to say on a topic that interests you.

And yes, it is completely normal for diverse groups to come together to campaign on single issues. That’s politics for you. Very few issues are pushed through by small numbers, unless they have huge sums of money behind them. If a wide variety of groups all agree that one specific situation is morally wrong and they are willing to fight for it, they are much more likely to win that particular debate. Most political debates are won, in the long term, by persuading people your position is justified. If wider society believes that a law is unfair and unreasonable, the powers that be will ultimately not be able to enforce it, though driving changes, even to unjust laws, will generally take some time.

I also find it odd that you believe the pro-life stance is inherently anti-feminist. Feminism is a broad church. This idea that every feminist must have alignment of thought on every single issue affecting women is what puts many women off feminism altogether.

Apologies for the first paragraph. It should have said something like….

I realise the conference under discussion is a political one, but I still find the idea that a group sponsoring a conference must be considered to be “nurtur[ing] a political relationship” with the other sponsors….. is fundamentally flawed.

It's perfectly fine to have that belief and people should respect that.

But it doesn't mean in practice this belief should mean gay people are excluded from getting married?

PriOn1 what you are saying makes perfect sense. It sounds reasonable, reality-based, a tone based in experience.

I think the groupthink purity police are a superficial lot. United in their shared feminist identity by a regular two minutes hate of ‘those who are not them’.

It reminds me of the joke where a guy gets rescued from years spent alone on a desert Island where he had built three huts. He explains “That one is my house and that one is my church” and the rescuer asks “and the third hut?”. “THAT’s the church I DON’T go to”.

The belief in practice is unlikely to mean much more than that they don’t recognise gay marriage as being a ‘real marriage’ and are unlikely to marry same sex couples in their church.

But it doesn't mean in practice this belief should mean gay people are excluded from getting married?

Gay people can get married. My, your, or anyone else's opinion has no effect upon their legal right to marry.

The issue is more you're saying we shouldn't share a platform/attend an event with people who don't recognise gay marriage, because you believe that only one opinion on the topic is acceptable. And pp on the thread are arguing that it's irrelevant, because the event isn't about gay marriage. (Or abortion, or whatever else you're disagreeing about.)

It's perfectly fine to have that belief and people should respect that.

Agreed. So if I collaborate on, say, a campaign to fund fistula surgeries, with a Catholic who's pro-life and doesn't believe in gay marriage, that's okay with you? Because the whole thread you've been saying that would be antifeminist and immoral.

The issue is more you're saying we shouldn't share a platform/attend an event with people who don't recognise gay marriage, because you believe that only one opinion on the topic is acceptable

Attend an event for a cat sanctuary fundraiser? Fine. Attend an event to discuss the reasons why gay marriage shouldn't be legal, paid for and organised by an evangelical church who actively opposes gay marriage? Not fine to me.

How about, to discuss education in schools?

That's not okay to me though. While I understand people may feel differently and I wouldn't denigrate someone for holding separate views, I would speak out against the issue (not the person) if it came up. I wouldn't join them in a congregation at their church if their Church were known to exclude gay people and demonstrated that by say, voting against same sex marriage or clergy.

Is that really that unusual? I watched a video where Ben Shapiro was talking to his mate who is gay and he said due to his faith he wouldn't be attending his wedding.

Is it only okay to do that in the name of conservative values then, and not progressive ones?

Attend an event for a cat sanctuary fundraiser? Fine. Attend an event to discuss the reasons why gay marriage shouldn't be legal, paid for and organised by an evangelical church who actively opposes gay marriage? Not fine to me.

How have you come to the conclusion that is what the event is about?

I study history and social sciences where you are constantly taught to evaluate the source of things, so for me personally, no I wouldn't be interested in attending an event set up by the people mentioned in any way. I would find it in conflict with my beliefs. I would not find the information provided by these people to be non biased and without an underlying agenda, and agenda which I already know I don't agree with.

Now I've had time to step away from the thread and take a breather, I'm confused about why my opinion is so controversial.

I haven't. It's an example to show that the type of event and the content of it is relevant.

What about this event, though? Since this is the one we've been discussing. Or even just answer the question I asked you.

@Dreamwhisper Is it only okay to do that in the name of conservative values then, and not progressive ones?

I think that is a really interesting and valid question to ask. My own answer would be, no it isn't valid in either case. A friend is a friend, you go to his damn wedding. Sometimes, a friend might ask you to do something uncomfortable. You do it cos they are your friend. I am a vegan. I have many many friends with whom I could find offence. I choose not to. I choose the friendship. One day they may see my point of view. I understand that at present they do not. I still see the humanity in them first and foremost.

Okay so you would share a platform with an anti gay marriage Christian if it was to raise money for a cat sanctuary. But not to discuss issues in education.

I feel that's a bit hypocritical tbh.

Agreed. So if I collaborate on, say, a campaign to fund fistula surgeries, with a Catholic who's pro-life and doesn't believe in gay marriage, that's okay with you?

Do you mean that question? I answered it, I just used my own fictional example instead of your one. The context of the event matters is all I'm saying.

Would I go to a pro lifer's fund raising afternoon tea to raise surgery funds for their dog's knee replacement? Yes. Would I go to a pro lifer's afternoon tea to organise picketing at an abortion clinic the following week? Of course not.

The context matters, I don't know what else to say at this point?

Why can't you let go that I see things different from you?

In the real life example of the OP, no I wouldn't go to that event because it's clear as day to me that those are all conservative view points I don't agree with. So even if one theoretically overlaps with a feminist view I may share, I know that the attitudes, and reasons for reaching that shared view point, are completely different to my own. Those completely different motivations absolutely matter.

It's not a debate. I'm not interested in attending as I would not be gaining anything. I wouldn't want to (bringing it back to the OP again) "work" with people who had reached the conclusion of being against self ID for transphobic rather than feminist reasons.

I thought it was nuance and not judging someone solely by their views and respecting other beliefs?

I think it's fine for you, Ben Shapiro, me, anyone to make decisions about their personal life. It's valid, even if you would make a different decision.

It's also completely different to saying women shouldn't collaborate with any groups that don't hold certain opinions, even if those opinions are irrelevant to the proposed collaboration.

It’s your personal choice. I wouldn’t go to like one of those mass Moonie weddings or something else where I was scared my friend was being drawn into a cult. But I would show up and and share a joyful occasion with anyone of any denomination if it didn’t give me the heebie-jeebies.

I don’t think there are many occasions where I have needed to enter a place of worship though. So it is not an issue for me. Also, in my experience, people are pretty quiet about their religious views, so there isn’t that cause for me to have a discussion about it. I think it’s best to let other people get on with their own religion and attend their own church and not stress about where their beliefs might differ from mine.

How do you know these people's beliefs about education conflict with yours if you are not willing to attend the event and find out what their views are? Or have you already read about their beliefs about education?

Can you be more specific? What beliefs about education do they hold which conflict with yours?

And is it the beliefs of For Women Scotland that you disagree with? Or the Christian Institute? Or Frank Furedi?

Here's the full list of speakers.

Professor Frank Furedi, Sociologist and author, books include Paranoid Parenting and Wasted: Why Education Isn't Educating

Catriona Taylor, Retired Headmistress, Edinburgh, Leave Our Kids Alone Campaign

Marion Calder, For Women Scotland

Ciaran Kelly, The Christian Institute

Dr Jenny Cunningham, Retired Community Paediatrician

Alka Sehgal Cuthbert Don’t Divide Us

Richard Lucas, The Family Party

Stuart Waiton, Sociologist and journalist

Stuart Baird, Secondary School Teacher

Absolutely. FWIW, I think Ben Shapiro is a pathetic ass hat and the fact he had the gall to say that to his long time friend and supporter was just another mark on the long list of reasons why he is a pathetic ass hat.

I feel it's hypocritical to say you would work with these groups on something as relatively trivial as a cat sanctuary, while condemning women discussing with these groups the topic of education.

Maybe hypocritical is the wrong word. Confusing. Doesn't seem to follow any logic that I can see.

@beastlyslumber yes sure. I was answering in a personal capacity. But that attitude towards personal affairs will colour how I would feel generally about groups talking cross party as it were. The principle remains - see people as people first and foremost. Everyone has a story behind the views they hold. It is the old "walk a mile in someone's shoes before you judge them harshly" principle. I use it in life a lot.

But how can directly antifeminist beliefs be considered irrelevant?

You may be able to compartmentalise that, but I definitely could not separate out the fact that my peers at an event were advocating for pro life or anti same sex marriage rhetoric.

As much as these personal choices are valid, my disagreement is equally valid as that is my personal choice as you said. So why do you feel the need to constantly convince me that actually it's all fine, these events? You feel they are. I don't!

Speech doesn't destroy people, MyLovelyPen. Acts of violence (such as those so lovingly depicted by transactivists against women) destroy people. Forcing people out of their jobs and their livelihoods can destroy lives. Encouraging young people into a lifetime of harmful surgery and wrong-sex drugs could destroy their lives.

Speech may offend people. Telling them facts that they do not want to believe may offend them. But as George Orwell said, if liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.