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

Indeed. My problem is that you spent much of this thread condemning women for taking part, accusing them of aligning with antifeminist beliefs and supporting the ideas of the events' sponsors by virtue of attending the event.

It's your assertion that these groups hold certain positions on certain topics. And you assert that these positions are somehow dangerous or antithetical to feminist principles. Yet there's no reason to assume any of that is the case.

Moreover, the event is on a specific topic which the speakers are each qualified to talk about. They are not there to promote their other political or ideological beliefs but to talk about a topic of shared interest.

It's your right to not attend. My argument with you is over your assertion that it would be wrong for others to attend. Antifeminist and immoral, as you put it.

Which of these groups advocates for pro-life or anti-same sex marriage?

For Women Scotland? No
The Battle of Ideas? I don't think so
Academics for Academic Freedom? Unlikely
Stand by Me? This is a group focused on the wellbeing of children
The Christian Institute? Possibly, although I can't see anything obvious on their website. I'm sure you can provide some links if this is their view.

Well I do believe that. Just by reading these threads over the years I do believe that there is emerging a cross over of conservative beliefs which are antithetical to feminism into feminism itself, with the centre of this crossover being the trans debate.

You can disagree of course, I don't know you as an individual. But yes personally I do maintain the belief that feminists willing to stand shoulder to shoulder with people the groups attending and organising this event is evidence of that belief.

And while as you as an individual don't believe that, I also don't believe you can automatically write off my assertions as untrue.

Whether people see that as bashing them or condemning them, I can't change the fact that that is what I believe based on what I have seen.

The Christian Institute? Possibly, although I can't see anything obvious on their website. I'm sure you can provide some links if this is their view.

This group belief in the ... I forget the phrasing, sanctity of life from conception, or similar. So they're anti abortion. I put a post upthread that gives more info on all the sponsors, this was in there, I think.

Thanks for expressing that better than I could, Beastly.

there is emerging a cross over of conservative beliefs which are antithetical to feminism

How do you mean? Which beliefs?

Anti abortion beliefs? How is there a crossover? I am pro abortion. Me reading about The Christian Institute is not going to magically make me anti abortion. Talking to members is ditto.

You think beliefs are somehow infectious? We use reason, rationality and evidence. Critical thinking. We assess beliefs and decide if we wish to adopt them or not. Bar brainwashing, but I actually think listening to a wide as variety of beliefs as possible is probably more likely to guard against brainwashing than somehow trying to seal oneself off from the existence of competing beliefs.

Yes, you're right. So one of the five sponsors is anti-abortion, but the other four aren't as far as I can tell.

www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2020/02/07/radical-feminists-conservatives-transgender-rights/

bylinetimes.com/2021/09/30/the-far-right-co-option-of-the-transgender-rights-issue/

www.politico.com/newsletters/the-recast/2022/03/08/politics-transgender-health-care-feminists-religious-conservatives-00015307

I am concerned about this "alliance" and its wider implications on the future of feminism. It's bigger than individual beliefs.

Also, posters scoff at beliefs being "infectious" but peoples political ideology and social outlook absolutely can be changed and influenced? It's not really something to joke about to be honest.

I guess I am extremely uncomfortable with the fact that the trans debate has caused more radical feminists to sit a lot more comfortably next to conservative politics as their voices are more accepted there.

I find it concerning because the very people who support you most in your fight against trans ideology are the very people who would advocate for a very "Handmaid's Tale"-esque future if they could.

It's playing with fire and I stand by my reservations and condemnation of it. MN is probably not the best place to express this as it leans towards an older, more MC and conservative demographic anyway. But it just doesn't sit right with me at all, alarm bells are ringing.

And the consequences are real. There is real conservative traction moving in the US. Abortion rights are being stripped away. Female prominent politicians are advocating the evangelical Christian view of women being fragile, inferior beings. In 2022. It can't be ignored.

Ah. So you are smearing these groups with the accusation of being "far right".

Receipts, please.

The message of the OP was,

would you work with people who don't share your principles to further your common goal. The very article the OP linked stated that one group out of 4 is anti abortion and gay marriage, and is being hosted by an evangelical church. Is that genuinely not seen to be conservative enough these days?

And to answer her question more generally, no I would not, and the above I just posted is the reason why.

One group out of five is anti-abortion. So the other four aren't. The anti-abortion group is a tiny minority of the participants.

The evangelical church stepped in to offer to host the event after the other venue cancelled. So they are showing a more liberal stance than the original venue by offering to host an event which includes organisations such as For Women Scotland, with whom they no doubt disagree about numerous topics.

TRA will work with anyone if they think it will advance their cause

they’ve absolutely no problem politically with cosying up to the crispin blunts of this world for example

and even more so they’ve absolutely no problem standing alongside men who send death threats to women, say that women who disagree should die in a grease fire, who posted gleeful pictures of facing skeletons when Magdalen burns died & turn up at womens meetings screaming abuse & physically threatening them

ill not be lectured about who women are working with when you look at who TRA are working with

But who women are working with will directly impact the course of feminism. This is a really serious issue. Never before has feminism so directly aligned with groups that are directly antithetical to its cause.

I don't see how or why the fact that TRAs are also lacking principles make it any better?

I have to just hope that these views really are as niche as they are portrayed online and that the only things that will gain traction are not too damaging. It's a sad state of affairs though.

I’ve noticed the crossover between radical feminist and religious conservative concerns for years and it has been of great puzzlement and interest to me.

Anti-prostitution.
Anti-gender identity ideology.
Anti child abuse.
Anti-surrogacy.
Anti-slavery and exploitation.

There’s loads more.

i concluded that some things are just wrong and people organise to abolish them, whether they are coming at it from a religious or political perspective.

I also realise that moral notions of ‘equality’ actually stem from religious beliefs, like ‘we are all equal before God’, which are sharply contradicted by the wild variance in fortune and misfortune between people in reality, so even though feminism is secular, its ideal of ‘a better way’ isn’t. So that’s why feminists and religious people keep bumping into each-other when we pursue our causes.

Tbf I have noticed a shift on MN away from Radical Feminism, to this kind of new ‘Mumsnet Feminism’ though - Second Wave ideas which are updated by the way our lives have changed eg- being online more, and how we consciousness-raise through it, that kind of thing, and what we’ve learned from the implementation of earlier feminist ideas.

I think the gender crap has definitely changed me too, made me more open-minded and tolerant. I used to be more intimidated by and deferent towards feminists who want us all contained in a left-wing silo and now I think “ah fuck off with your tribalism”.

Also, I have noticed more right wing women feeling comfortable in FWR - iirc it was lasswithadelicateair who was pretty much alone in these parts for a long time.

Overall I see things have evolved and shifted, but in a good way, and not towards anything antithetical to feminism.

Never before has feminism so directly aligned with groups that are directly antithetical to its cause.

What do you mean by this? Are you referring to the sort of "feminists" who say TWAW?

Same sex marriage is no longer up for debate. Nobody is campaigning for its repeal, not least because it would be unjust.

I think it’s ironic that some feminists have taken on the role of the Inquisitors in that views on marriage and abortion have become moral litmus tests and what was until very recently, mainstream Christian thought, has become heresy and ridiculously labelled as an extreme hard right view.

Have a religious view about marriage? You must be homophobic and hate all LGB people. Want to protect unborn life? You hate women, think they are breeders and want to enforce stereotypical gender roles.

Its no different from the TRAs who yell ‘hateful transphobe’ at those who want to protect women and children.

While I’ll admit my experience has coloured my view of many TRAs, it doesn’t mean I believe that every single transgendered individual is an inhabitant of a town on the west coast of Scotland.

It is entirely possible to hold divergent views on contentious social issues without hating or wishing harm on others who make different choices. You can want to build a pro life culture without hating women or wishing to harm them, just as you can hold a Christian view on sex and marriage without hating on gay people.

The trans issue is about a clash of rights and responsibilities that affects everyone.

But then I’m not a political feminist and not desperate to be validated or accepted as one. My philosophy is that female flourishing can take several forms.

Want to be a SAHM? Fill your boots. Want to be a career woman? Marvellous. Want to have children and nurture them and also have the opportunity for a fulfilling career. Brilliant.

Female biology should not limit or confine us BUT every woman will at some point in her life have to grapple and come to terms with her female fertility, whether that’s in terms of wanting to achieve or avoid conception and whether or not she can, or is able to, birth and raise children. Female fertility will dictate a large path of a woman’s life and what choices may or may not be open to her.

Equally female biology will always put women at risk of sexual exploitation by men. In most places in the world, poverty has a female face, as it is predominantly women who are tasked with caring responsibilities for the most vulnerable from the womb to the tomb.

Those are the points on which every woman ought to agree, irrespective of which political label she applies to herself or, has applied to her by other women who think they know her better than she does!

I think you are a bit of a bigot, Dream. You say you won't associate with conservative women and worry they will somehow taint your feminism. Yet you don't have any interest in knowing what these women think, what their values are. You just put a label and a judgement on them. I really don't respect that.

That's really interesting. I hope you are right. The whole world seems propped up on needle stilts right now though, and I do worry that these alliances over issues could be used to betray us one day. Perhaps I worry unnecessarily, and it's hard to articulate because I'm tired but I even worry that all of the trans debate and constantly pointing out the differences between men and women has been picked up and fetishised by these far right people and used to further push their own patriarchal gender roles - e.g. Lauren Bobert coming out and saying how women are naturally inferior creatures.

I know we aren't aligned on everything, I just worry that in years to come it may be a "boiled frog" type situation.

Not at all. I reject conservative values that doesn't mean I believe all people are the same.

If you come to me as any human with any views just wanting to be friends or chat or need help I'll be there. I'll advocate for womens rights even if they are conservative women.

You're conflating my disdain for ideas with disdain of groups of people and trying to use that to paint me as a bad person.

I'm not a bad person. I'm not bigoted.

Are you in Scotland? Any experiences with some of the more trad/conservative Scottish churches? Because Scotland isn't the US.

But you don't understand any of the ideas. You refuse to listen and you condemn others who do want to listen. So you'll understand me thinking it's simple prejudice on your part.

FWIW, thanks for coming back, arguing, and not backing out, Dreamwhisper. Always interesting to hear from another point of view.

Off to bed for now.