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

Thanks to @EndlessTea @OldCrone @Helleofabore for their comments and those who have given examples from other political spheres about co-working for a specific aim.

But this endless back and forth about our own perceived virtuousness is exactly what seems to me to be the problem I was hoping we would address.

ie how can we in the here and now, as feminists actively move forward. Is it, as reams of this thread have been taken up, that rather than prioritise putting our feminism into action, we prefer to just theorise and never actually do anything.

If there was a local issue that particularly impacted women, it seems insane to say I am not going to support actively campaigning about it because women from certain communities have a belief system that I dont accept.

When did feminism become so precious that it thought retaining purity was better than actually achieving a step forward for a women's issue or for a women's rights.

Radical feminism is about putting your feminism into action. It isn't about having your feminism curated for you by special interests groups or to be the consumer of feminism at an event someone else has organised for you.

And just to repeat I really think that those that want to endlessly go on at each other should have the good manners to set up their own thread to do that, and allow existing threads to be about the original op.

And I am suspicious about this concept of political contamination coming up on every thread. It just seems part of an attempt to misdirect our time and energy into something that is about little more than making sure we do nothing.

At this stage of the thread we could by now have got an idea of how many thought it was okay and those who thought it wasn't.

And those who thought it was could have moved on to discuss how to maintain feminist principles within that working situation.

And those who thought it wasn't put forward ideas of how feminists can contribute to an issue such as education from a lone position.

Part of me thinks that maybe FWR could adopt the old CR rule that we each get given x number of times we can comment on a thread, and once you have used up your quota you cant contribute any more.

Absolutely. I've worked on (my role was simply proofreading, nothing academic) several journal papers about conflict resolution in different settings (gangs and paramilitary groups in South America, religious and tribal conflicts in India and Africa, etc.) and none of the participants or facilitators would have made any progress if they had thought that some of the others taking part were beyond the pale or had approached the process with closed minds. After all, you don't negotiate peace with your friends.

I do sometimes wonder if this is the real fear of those who want to maintain ideological purity. to the point where they won't even engage intellectually with certain people.

They don't want their views challenged. They don't want to think that others might have reasonable views. That there might be elements they hadn't considered. They want to maintain the illusion that "those people" are evil.

And they don't want anyone else to have those experiences either.

At this stage of the thread we could by now have got an idea of how many thought it was okay and those who thought it wasn't.

Agreed. Is there anyway of adding a vote to these threads like on AIBU?

FWIW, I'm happy to work with anyone who shares a common cause.

But this endless back and forth about our own perceived virtuousness is exactly what seems to me to be the problem I was hoping we would address.

I'm not sure what this means. I think if you want a specific outcome or kind of discussion on a thread, you need to make your OP really clear and specific.

If many women who were feminists were listing to the arguments of conservatives on various issues, and came to see some of them as relevant to their feminism, do you not think that might be because the arguments were in fact compelling?

Is your position that other people are incapable of evaluating ideas, unlike, presumably, you are? That women today are somehow different than the women who defined whatever it is you think "feminism" means?

Because what it sounds like is that you believe that you get to define feminism, and you are desperate to stop other women from hearing ideas they might find compelling, but which you know to be somehow wrong.

That is actually trying to control thought. You are telling people it is wrong to listen to those who don't say the right things, because you don't want them to think about those ideas. That is the essence of totalitarian thought control wherever it occurs.

If you really think that is an ok approach, own it.

100%.

I do agree with this Arabella.

I think that while it was not quite what OP expected, those reading along can see the interplay between the concepts.

One that seems to be a mature self reflective approach of hearing and interacting while also understanding that those interactions may even bring a previously extreme view more onto a feminist perspective. and one that feels that isolation is the key and protection against impurity.

I think that readers are getting a better sense of where they are comfortable the more they see what is posted.

I had thought we were having a possibly useful discussion on working with 'groups whose principles you don't share'.

But fine, I'm quite happy to fuck off.

Well that doesn't really contradicted my statement, you are basically just saying what I said in a different way, which suggests that you don't actually know what the reasons for those views are.

I thought it was a good discussion, too. Sorry if it wasn't the discussion you wanted, OP, but to be fair, your OP didn't give much guidance and then you left the thread for most of the discussion. Maybe try again with something more directed, that you can be present for?

However, I think this is the discussion that we need to have and we're going to keep having as various people work the issues out and end up either in separate warring factions or - hopefully - in a loose coalition of women striving for the same end goal: the preservation of our rights and the protection of children.

I keep coming back to this idea of assumptions about the other side. I think it's important, but it's not always ideological, it's also factual issues.

It was mentioned earlier about religious groups shaming prostitutes and drug addicts, or pro-life groups doing nothing to help pregnant women or struggling mothers.

While there are all kinds of people across the political spectrum who do not put their money or efforts at the service of their ideals, it's simply untrue to say that these groups do not act on those issues. There are many many religious groups involved with supporting people who are addicted, or women in prostitution. There are all kinds of evangelical or Catholic groups that are significantly involved with care of mothers and babies. In fact in all these cases these kinds of groups prioritize these kinds of action.

If people are learning in their university courses that these things don't happen, they need to start asking some pointy questions of their professors.

This.

Catholics don’t dislike prostitution and surrogacy because of ideals about the family but because they undermine the inherent dignity of the women involved.

Yes, and similarly, the reason Catholicism doesn't support gender ideology isn't because they hate trans people, it's because they think it's not true that people can change sex, that sex is an accidental characteristic, or that you have the soul of a man in a woman's body or vice versa. All of which reflect Catholic theology around material reality. You could say similar things about some other religious groups.

This thread is over for me but I do need to address this.

You do really need to get over yourself with this pile of nonsense.

Having a view point and being willing to defend it does not mean I'm trying to "control your thoughts". Please grow up and understand how debates work.

If you're disagreeing with me, and saying my thoughts and feelings on the subject are wrong, are you trying to control my thoughts too? Of course bloody not.

Stop throwing your toys out of the pram because someone has different beliefs than you, I'm saying I think it's wrong to do what the OP suggest, and question if certain views and actions go against the feminist cause, in my opinion. Feminists are not one homogenous group, please don't pretend that any discourse is "totalitarian thought control" that is so absolutely eyerolling. 🙄

You say you're 'willing to defend' your point of view, but you don't seem able to explain it. Perhaps this is because it is a point of view based on belief (the word you used) rather than one you have come to as a result of thoughtful analysis of the available information.

You made this comment earlier in the thread: "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."

This doesn't seem to be an opinion based on any sort of evidence. Do you really think that Christians in the UK see a dystopian future as portrayed in the Handmaid's Tale as in any way desirable? Do you think Christian women want to be stripped of all their rights? Do you think this is the world Christian men want for their daughters?

You seem to view religious people as inherently bad people who can't possibly have good motives for doing anything, simply because some of them disagree with you about issues like abortion and same-sex marriage. Perhaps you should try talking to some of them (which is what this whole thread is about). Ask them why they hold these views. But first you need to be open to the possibility that they may be decent people who just hold different beliefs from you. Just making the assumption that they are inherently evil people because you believe that they believe certain things gets you nowhere.

I don't understand your unwillingness to discuss and debate with people who don't share your point of view. You seem determined to put people in boxes of "good" or "bad" without recognising that the reality is far more complex.

You're the one who doesn't seem to understand how debates work. It's not a case of saying "I'm right, these are my beliefs". You need to construct an argument to support your point of view. To do that you need to analyse your own position first. Have you ever stopped to consider why you hold the beliefs and opinions you do? Is it an entirely faith-based position or one you arrived at by weighing up the evidence?

How many times on this board do we see a poster who has a tightly held belief who cannot show anything but emotional manipulation and fear of being ostracised from the community they cling to as a support of that belief?

Or the fear of being mistaken as one of ‘that’ group ? A group with some sort of undesirable belief, perceived or real? (How often too is ‘that’ group the demographic usually ‘thrown’ at this board - middle class, ‘older’ ?)

Rather than a belief that can be reliably explained, shown and evidenced?

In some posters cases (again this is a general comment) they have to rely on the ‘good’ versus ‘bad’ dichotomy to distance themselves from ever being mistaken as being associated with the ‘bad’ group.

We see this all too often with regards to the ‘speakers corner’ rallies. People cannot conceive that just because someone turns up and speaks that the group is not ‘working’ with, not ‘standing shoulder to shoulder’ with.

The fear of taint of just letting someone speak is overwhelming for some people from what I have seen.

It boils down to the question how pressing the issue at hand is for you. Black Panther Fred Hampton certainly did not condone all opinions held by the Young Patriots, and yet he forged a coalition with them, because he considered the improvement of living conditions for Black people paramount and urgent.

I literally have explained my reason of thinking, it's just silly ill thought out dismissal to say "evidence" something as nuanced and nebulous as, does working with conservative views when you're a progressive feminist help and hinder the cause?

I actually have provided plenty of reasons for feeling the way I do. You seem to be confusing your need to agree with those reasons for me not providing them.

And also in terms of "explaining my views", I will always feel reservation over the legitimacy of the people I'm talking to who claim to be feminist but also claim to see absolutely no issue with these types of coalitions.

Let's have a reality check here, no one here has provided any convincing arguments in support of the OP, quite the opposite, the issue has been obfuscated and oversimplified, comparing it to attending a church toddler group and the like, with absolutely no exploration into the nuance of why it might be dangerous, and then the subsequent explanations to back up why it's actually okay.

I completely agree. I actually feel rather offended @IwantToRetire that I have engaged thoughtfully, and because I had a bit of time on my hands I get scolded for talking too much. To me, the OP looked like it was trolling for a bunfight, and I am still unclear about what you were actually hoping to achieve by it, even after you clarified.

So are we also being scolded for using the internet to chew the fat and wrestle our opinions too? We are wasting our time ‘theorising’ when we should be out there doing stuff? I don’t feel like I am part of an ‘I’m better/more virtuous than you’ contest. This thread has been really valuable and interesting to me and I feel that this issue of feminists being ‘tainted by association’ clearly needs a lot more discussion, judging by the way it keeps coming up, and a cohort of feminists believe very strongly and passionately that an deadly infection of right wing ideas and people is an ever-present danger.

I believe we are in a very exciting time for feminism and these mumsnet discussions, thrashing out ideas, is part of it.

I.e., if you can't even accept the potential issues in the first place and just write it off as "oh it's just an educational event with a diverse groups of opinions" , then don't expect people to take your opinions on the question of whether it's an issue or not, seriously.

Dreamwhisper, I appreciate you have stuck things out on the thread. But you give a feeling of ‘clinging’ to something to me.

To use another Spinal Tap thing, your explanations/justifications come across as robustly as Nigel Tufnel justifying that his amp is louder/better because it “goes up to eleven”.

Yes, you think that feminists cannot work with, talk with, appear with, or be seen to work with, talk with, appear with, people with certain religious beliefs.

You seem to think that by doing so that makes them, by definition, not a feminist.

But you haven’t explained why. It seems like a gut feeling or truism for you.

And this gut feeling and truism seems to bind you too your comrades, perhaps your real life friends, who share the same gut feeling and truism, so exploring it makes you defensive, as though thinking for yourself will make you disloyal to them.

You haven’t really stopped clinging. At one point you seemed to loosen those knuckles, but then came back swinging, perhaps after you had a wobble about your loyalties, I dunno. But you haven’t explained or justified anything.

What bad things do you think will happen as a result of joining with other groups to discuss a shared topic of concern?

Or do you think that the discussion itself is the bad thing? If so, why?

absolutely no exploration into the nuance of why it might be dangerous

I think this is the key point that people are disagreeing with you about, Dream. You claim it's dangerous for people from different groups to meet and share a platform. But you have not explained why that might be the case. You can't expect people to make your argument for you. And if you don't make an argument at all, then you can't really complain that people aren't adequately addressing your argument. We are trying our best to work out what you mean and respond to that. You could progress the discussion by explaining your points, backing up your assertions with examples e.g. of historical coalitions that have been bad for the progressive part of the coalition, or with logic that shows how meeting together could lead to one group being overtaken by another. Try to persuade people using logic and evidence, instead of repeatedly stating your belief. And then try to answer people's points and questions by showing how they're wrong - not just stating that they're wrong, but showing it by way of exposing flaws in their reasoning.

I’ve read the whole thread now and I’ve had a think and I can kind of see both sides. The problem I have is, if groups all refuse to engage with each other and just stay in ‘bubbles’, how can those groups reconcile. I always think of the Northern Ireland peace process and how, if those groups had not sat down with each other and been willing to listen and compromise, we’d still be having IRA attacks on a regular basis and more people would have been killed. I wouldn’t say either side ‘brainwashed’ the other. I think they realised a common goal was more important than perceived differences.

I agree with all of this. I'm not sure how we're meant to actually do anything on FWR other than hash these issues out and hone our thinking, so being scolded for doing that seems a bit off. I think it's an interesting issue and not one that's going to be solved with a simple show of hands.