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 understand your fears, but I can’t help noticing that we are far more persuasive than incels or whathaveyou, and that is why there has been such huge investment in trying to stop us.

Dreamwhisper, could we please stick with UK politics? The USA is different in many relevant ways, not least the existence of a popular, rightwing, strong and well-funded fundamentalist Christian movement which has no equivalent over here.

I have come back hoping to here from others about working cooperatively but feel no one really wants to talk about that.

As feminists we have really got to work out a way of practicing our politics that will achieve our aims. Much as I appreciate that being onlines allows us much easier ways of communicating, it also has had the stultifying effect of the medium becoming the message (or whatever that old slogan was).

And, sorry if this sounds rude, but as someone who has been a long time reader of FWR, but only recent participant, the one part of the forum that works against it, is when threads go into a loop of only 2 or 3 participants going back and forward. The end result is that even if others later on add contributions more directly linked to the purpose of the thread, the majority have given up and gone away.

Maybe there should be if not a rule but a general agreement that when a thread gets into a ping pong there should be a cut off point, and if those who really want to go on and on can "take it outside" and have their own thread.

There is no drift to the right.

This arguement has been used over and over again on just about every thread.

The appearance of feminism going to the right is more accurately the abstaining if not direct undermining of the left and liberals in failing to support women.

If more people who claim they are concerned about women's rights actually did so instead of sitting on the side lines sniping, feminists would have no need to form working relationships, get published in, those perceived to be on the right.

The issue isn't some sort of interesting after dinner topic. This is about women's rights being taken away. This is about young people being captured by an ideology that harm them and further push the reality of women's sex based discrimination into the margins.

This keeps coming up on threads. And for others who have seen me say this, it is a bit like being constantly shadowed by the pernicious poison of Actual Gender Critical Left that is a group that has no ability to actually contribute anything meaningful but spends its time stalking other women's groups and then trolling them with a litany of their crimes for not having organised in the politically pure way they deem acceptable.

More and more this strand of thinking is beginning to feel like an coordinated attempt to stop women doing anything about women rights, and pushing them into thinking they shouldn't prioritise their rights but go back to being dutiful handmaids to the left.

So now think this thread should have been why aren't the left and the liberals supporting women? Is it any wonder that the vaccum created by the failure of the left liberal axis means that women have had to look elsewhere, even if only to make a temporary common cause.

So the answer to my own OP isn't is it okay, but that it makes double the work. Not only having clearly defined positions within the work alliance, but also wasting hours dealing with accusations by those doing nothing that you are a political traitor, or actual intimidation

I think it's actually pretty clear why Dreamwhisper and her supporters can't wrap their heads around this.

They actually believe that people who have these different views, who are on the other side, think that way because they are hateful and are looking for a method to strip other people of their rights. There is no reason, no argument, no belief about reality, that underpins these people's different standpoints. If they don't believe in allowing clergy in same sex marriages, that is simply because they hate gay people. If they don't believe abortion should be without restriction, it is because they want to control women. Etc.

There is a bit of a bump with trans issues, because in that case some good people have issues that are ok, but the people on the other side just hate trans people, they aren't worried about their kids or the safety of women. Because obviously they all hate women.

I suspect that's why many of those women struggle so much finding themselves "on the wrong side', they are unused to seeing that there can often be compelling arguments for other viewpoints.

It's actually quite a good example of what happens if you don't ever talk to people with different ideas than your own.

I also find it odd that you believe the pro-life stance is inherently anti-feminist.

Wow, I've heard it all now.

@MangyInseam that is rather patronising. Of course people understand that there are theological or other theories underpinning ideas the views of others. But we also understand that those belief systems are often based on a view of woman or of gay people etc. These are not different things . There is reason to talk to people and learn more about others but I still think if I worked with others with hateful views about other issues my judgement on the shared issue would be called into judgement.

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.

Surely this goes both ways though? Women with different beliefs meeting together for discussion might both learn from the experience and come to have more nuanced views on the other’s position, even if ultimately their opinion doesn’t change. Unless these views are so utterly abhorrent that it’s impossible they might be driven by a different understanding (for example, a group that is arguing for genocide would fall into that category) I don’t think we should fear meeting them, especially if we are discussing a different matter. And I can’t see how being pro-life falls into the “utterly abhorrent” category. I can easily believe that a group that is pro-life might be arguing from a position of compassion because the question of abortion is definitely one where there is a clash of rights, where different people could draw different conclusions.

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.

And this is one of those bizarre jumps where I feel you are catastrphizing. Conservative values might be pushing to take us back to a time when women were considered “helpmeets” within a marriage, and thus perhaps second class citizens, as it were (though I can also see that there was also a feeling then that women had to be looked after and nurtured, which is paternalistic and somewhat demeaning perhaps, but not necessarily done out of cruelty). But it’s a huge illogical leap to suggest they would be pushing towards a dystopian system like that in the Handmaid’s Tale. This is why discussion with these groups IS important, because without it, you may jump to conclusions about their views and hopes that are completely without foundation.

So you believe that any woman who is pro-life cannot be a feminist? You think that there is no nuance around this topic and that any woman who agrees is anti-feminist? I note you did not argue your point, but simply pretended mine was so ludicrous it didn’t deserve a response.

@PriOn1
Any one who thinks woman shouldn't have autonomy over their own body is not a feminist. Not saying it is not complicated and not uncomfortable or there isn't a clash of rights but this is the bottom line because how do you enforce the other stance ?

So your opinion is that any woman who is pro choice is inherently anti-feminist?

Apologies, pro choice should have been pro life.

how do you enforce the other stance ? Can you explain what you mean here please?

So you would be happy attending an event and campaign with people who hold homophobic views (against gay marriage and clergy) and don't think women should have a choice as to what happens to their own body (anti-abortion)?

I mean what else? are you going to also buddy-up with racist organisations because they might share your views on a particular issue?

Grim.

The obvious panic when women find ways of working that actually work.

The organisations and speakers for this event have been detailed more than once on this thread. None of them are homophobic or misogynist or racist as far as it's possible to ascertain. So what is the objection?

Genuinely, is the objection that it might actually help achieve something?

This is feminism 101. By "enforce the other stance" she means if you're not pro choice, what does that mean for women?

It means removing their right to abortion. Which is the material reality in plenty of places.

So yes, being pro life is directly antithetical to feminism, whether that is intended or not.

Regarding the OP, I think there has been a lot of cooperation between right and left and religious and secular groups behind the scenes. However those of the left cannot be ‘seen’ to do it, because the annoying, controlling drama llamas and idiots on the left will make life very difficult for them. It’s all pretty hush hush.

For example, you need signatures for a petition on abolishing prostitution. You go through your ordinary secular channels and get hundreds of signatures. However, if you collect signatures outside a mosque on Friday or a church on Sunday and your signatures will suddenly be in the thousands.

I would argue that it is extremely important for feminists to give the feminist perspective and have a presence to better inform people from the religious right. For example, if Christians want to provide a meal for the homeless, then feminists can advise them to have a women-only sitting first, otherwise the women are likely to get sexually assaulted and bullied or even pimped out by the men.

Religious groups tend to have a lot of goodwill and financial clout, but they really do need the knowledge and expertise of feminists when the rubber meets the road like that.

You can obviously get into difficulty with an issue like services helping women out of prostitution or for those within prostitution, because those of a religious pro-life stance are going to advise against abortion for women in prostitution. In a case like that, feminists will want to get them information on how to access abortions. Even so, if there was an initiative to, say, close down a website and get police to prosecute men were boasting about dangerously abusing women in prostitution and egging each other on to abuse those women, then the shared knowledge and experience of both groups are going to be powerful in combination. I still think the feminists would be having to watch their backs though, from the left trying to sabotage their efforts for having been ‘seen’ with those terrible pro-lifers.

I appreciate that and I see you are coming at this from a genuine place.

It is a massive oversimplification though to assume it's just those pesky, nagging left wingers hand wringing or vitue signalling.

There are genuine social issues with supporting or collaborating (since this is now what we're talking about) with those groups.

Take your example of getting signatures for a petition abolishing prostitution, and how you'd get thousands by approaching religious groups. Great on the surface if those are your aims, but I'm studying criminology right now and the focus is actually on sex work, and one woman who has done extensive study on the issue of minorities being stuck in sex work due to the shunning they face from their religious communities.. It leads you to think, while these people are happy to "abolish prostitution" and put their name to that - what does that materially mean for the women involved in prostitution in that area?

Are they lifted out of their situation, accepted and supported, or are they shunned and people are signing those petitions because they want the dirty sex work to be gone. Does "abolishing" i.e. criminilising prostitution actually push women further into the underground because what they're doing is illegal (clue - the answer is yes this does happen)

It's similar with the religious right pro life argument. These groups may scream outside of abortion clinics, but do they vote for policies which support the families of the children those unborn babies become? Absolutely not, if they are voting conservative, those policies do not favour those families at all.

I don't have all the answers, but I believe my concerns are valid and self evident when you put them in context of how society is working.

I still think the feminists would be having to watch their backs though, from the left trying to sabotage their efforts for having been ‘seen’ with those terrible pro-lifers.

This is the irony for me. Together, those groups can potentially do a lot more to help women than those who insist feminism must be pure.

I found myself wondering whether all the suffragists and suffragettes were pro abortion. If they weren’t, does that mean they were not feminists? I realise that term hadn’t been coined then, but I don’t believe that there should be an inner group who decides what is feminist and what isn’t and excludes other women from feminism or fighting for women’s rights on those grounds. Opinion on all subjects must have space for nuance.

Still, as we see with KJK, some of those fighting most successfully for women’s rights self-exclude from feminism, presumably because of its puritanical leanings.

The reason I chose those examples is because signatures on a petition are simply signatures on a petition. It doesn’t matter what the rationale for getting them, they greatly bolster the feminist aims of the petition and come with no strings attached.

It might even be the case that whilst collecting those signatures, feminists get to provide the feminist perspective and give the signatories a more nuanced view. Double the value there.

As with ‘abolishing prostitution’ there is obviously an argument to be had and the religious idea of ‘fallen women’ and ‘temptresses’ which underpins crimes of soliciting can easily be argued against, for any person with a conscience. Focus on the crimes of exploiting and abusing women- focus on the buyers, the pimps and the traffickers, decriminalise the abused and exploited. That way both the religious people and feminists can be working together with the same aims.

It is a massive oversimplification though to assume it's just those pesky, nagging left wingers hand wringing or vitue signalling.

To be honest, I used to feel much more inclined to listen to them and tread on eggshells for fear of their wrath, but now I give much less of a shit. I’ve seen so much of it is egoistic bullshit, territorial arseholery and deranged fallout from personal histories, whereas I once thought it was all robustly underpinned with solid theory and acquired experience. Now I trust myself, my own mind, my own knowledge and my own experience - I’m not taking any more of my fucking cues from them. It’s a big fuck off and no thank you from me.

The reality of groups working together though is not as separate as signing a petition though. If you're rallying a group to get on board with you, they will either expect input, or be putting their own input on the issue.

It's simply not the case that feminists should be sharing the majority of views with the religious right as they are simply and demonstrably not feminist, and they will inform the opinion and action of these groups.

Criminalising prostitution damages women, there's lots of material out there to support this. You're wrong to assume that the right and especially the religious right view women who do sex work, or are addicts, in a sympathetic light. It may be an easy answer but it's simply not true. Women who have been trafficked from countries where religious views are strongly held literally can't go back, because they will be shunned by their families. For being trafficked into sex work.

This is the reality that we are dealing with. It might be a nice ideological one to assume these don't matter, but you have to look at where the evidence takes you. How can conservative views that believe women are naturally inferior to men, who should serve their husbands, who are pro life, ever deserve to claim to support the feminist cause?

It's just such mental making peace with glaring truths that I'm uncomfortable with. As a left leaning feminist I've been accused of acquiescing to mens' opinions and putting them above womens' if I support any aspect of trans "ideology". It feels ironic (but not in a funny or scathing way, in a worrying way) to be told this by feminists so comfortable and companiable with these right wing skewed ways of thinking.

The thing is left leaning feminists would say the same about TERF style feminism.

Instead of allying with damaging right ring rhetoric, perhaps we should be allying with each other.

There are genuine social issues with supporting or collaborating (since this is now what we're talking about) with those groups.

What do you see as the genuine social issues around working with different groups who are all concerned about education @Dreamwhisper? This is the issue that the event in the OP is about. What problems do you see arising from these diverse groups coming together to discuss indoctrination in the education system?