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

"Rather than telling them their value systems are wrong.

Right, you may have expressed that it a way that I have not understood.

Do you believe that KJK is telling women that their value systems are wrong?

I would ask - who has the arrogance to tell any woman that her values systems are wrong?

KJK seems to be asking women to come up to the microphone and speak. Let a Woman Speak.

The fact that her campaign has got so much violence from men, just proves she's on the right track - for women.

She's telling men that they have their value system wrong, and it's true. It has been true for centuries.

"Do you believe that KJK is telling women that their value systems are wrong?"

I think what MangyInseam is saying is that KJK's critics give her flack because she does NOT tell them that their value systems are wrong,
ie. her critics believe

1. that the value systems of those women are wrong
2. that this is because they are misguided and they need correcting or educating
3. that KJK is therefore wrong to talk to them as if they might know their own minds
4. that what those women think, what is in their minds, is wrong, not worthy of respect and should not be tolerated because their beliefs (pro-life/anti-choice and seeing motherhood as a high calling) are politically anti-feminist and therefore dangerous to other women
5. KJK is therefore guilty of both sins of commission and omission. Firstly, she commits the sin of "talking to women who are pro-life, or who think motherhood is a high calling, etc. as if they might know their own minds".. Secondly, she is guilty of a sin of omission, because she fails to "tell them that their value systems are wrong".

"But that's where KJK gets so much flack, talking to women who are pro-life, or think motherhood is a high calling, etc. as if they might know their own minds.
Rather than telling them their value systems are wrong."

"I genuinely want to here ideas about real life sucessful campaigning whether locally or nationally. So for me it isn't so much about whether others are going to turn round and say you are a bad person/feminist for doing this, but does it work? ie a collaborative campaign made up of a very diverse range of groups. Does it in fact help the argument that people from a range of perspectives had different concerns about the same issue?

I don't have the historical political knowledge to think of other examples but there may well be instance where this type of working alliances have worked. eg abortion rights was a Liberal Party campaign wan't it?"

I was interested in the same thing, also if there were any counter-examples of where a diversity of viewpoints had been counterproductive and hindered collaborative working.

Thank you to PP for the following examples of successful outcomes:

beastlyslumber · 18/11/2022 15:36

Votes for women

Gay marriage

Civil rights in the US

beastlyslumber · 18/11/2022 15:51

"They had different reasons for wanting the same thing.
Some people supported women's suffrage because they were on the left and saw it as social justice. Others because they were more conservative and saw it as a means of preserving social power. Etc etc."

Ladyof2022 · 18/11/2022 18:34

"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."

PriOn1 · 18/11/2022 19:51
(On general principles of collective organisation and campaigning)

"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."

Theeyeballsinthesky · 18/11/2022 21:48

"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 women's meetings screaming abuse & physically threatening them"

I think the last two examples are good and go well together because they reflect not a short-term tactic of convenience but a very successful long-term strategy of working with whoever it is advantageous to do so, including organisations that might be expected to be oppositional, see "Press for Change Campaign, 1994"
web.archive.org/web/19990423103416/www.pfc.org.uk/campaign/pfcaims.htm

EndlessTea · 18/11/2022 21:55

"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."

EndlessTea · 19/11/2022 08:56

"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."

(Although this is speculative and aspirational rather than a historical example, it is very good IMHO as an example of how if we actually did have those mythical Evangelical Christian dollars flowing our way that it is conceivable that they could be put to good use without compromising feminist principles.)

OldCrone · 19/11/2022 09:55

"Here's another example of feminists and religious groups working together for a common cause:


www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/03/left-wing-feminists-conservative-catholics-unite/520968/

Feminists and Catholics oppose surrogacy for different reasons, but as one of the feminists quoted in that article says:


“We see it as a struggle against the patriarchy, the Catholics see it as a struggle to preserve the traditional family, some anarchists see it as a struggle against capitalism—and I don’t have any problem with this.”

(Good example for the range of political and religious views or lack of them)

beastlyslumber · 19/11/2022 10:04

"Cooperation across diverse interest groups is the way forward. It shouldn't be about saying 'we have the answers, you have to follow us or you're morally wrong'. It's about saying, 'we all have an interest here. What's the best way to get us closer to our shared goals without imposing on one another?' "

(Aspirational but lays down the basic principle of collaborative working, whether "Across the Aisle", "Cross Party", multi-disciplinary, multi-agency, etc. In a previous life I taught people how to set-up effective Collaborative Teams and the first step is agreeing a common goal, then how to deploy time and resources most efficiently and effectively. I think *beastlyslumber" sums it up better than my "management speak"!)

TheBiologyStupid · 19/11/2022 11:29

"Examples include the US and USSR, despite their profound political and ideological differences, joining to fight the Nazis in WWII. All of the countries currently at the overrun COP27 trying to agree on how to combat global climate change, regardless of their differences on many other economic and geopolitical issues?"

(Going global now! Nothing can stop us!)

TheBiologyStupid · 19/11/2022 13:06

"And yet it was the Conservative Party that introduced same-sex marriage in the UK..."

(Boom! Mic drop moment! That didn't happen by refusing to talk to Tories.)

deepwatersolo ·20/11/2022 08:39

"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 don't know much US history - would the Young Patriots be equivalent to the Proud Boys?)

Happylittlechicken · 20/11/2022 09:24

"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."

(Another good, real-life example! Mo Mowlam was the hero of the hour - and wasn't Blair so jealous that she took the limelight away from him!)

beastlyslumber · 20/11/2022 09:32

"Another example where talking to people on the opposite side makes a difference: Daryl Davis is a black musician in the US whose mission in life is to fight racism and disband the KKK. He does this by meeting KKK members, talking to them, striking up friendships, sharing his life with them. He's convinced many people to leave the KKK. He can only do this because he's open and loving towards people who he has every right to hate and shun.


Unless you're saying that feminists are the KKK in this scenario, I feel this is a powerful example that shows how well worth it can be to talk to our perceived enemies."

(Not quite theright sort of example because the initiative was from one side, aiming to change the perspective of another group but too good not to include.)

beastlyslumber · 20/11/2022 16:56

"I thought I'd try and steelman this a little bit. (I'm sick and bedbound at the moment.)

I've been trying to think about what arguments could be made to support the claim that it would be dangerous for feminists to collaborate with other groups on a shared goal. If we took the case of FWS and the Christian Institute, which are the two groups in this event that on the face of it are most opposed, what could the dangers be?

First of all, I think I'd want to establish exactly what the opposing views were. But let's say abortion, because we can probably roughly assume that FWS are generally pro-choice and the CI are generally pro-life. So what could be dangerous for FWS here?

One possibility is that by working with the CI, FWS could be said to be supporting a pro-life message. I feel this could be easily disputed (as they are clearly not supporting this message and it's not the point of the event to even raise the issue) but it's certainly true that some people will use 'guilt by association' as a way to try to undermine a group's mission. So there's a danger that by associating with CI, FWS becomes vulnerable to the 'guilt by association' tactic.

Another possibility is that by working with CI, FWS will make CI more accessible to their members, allowing for the possibility that some will be swayed to a pro-life point of view which they wouldn't have if they had never been exposed to the CI.

A third possibility is that the CI could use this friendly and collaborative practice as a way to try to infiltrate FWS and destroy it from within.

There may be other possible dangers but given that no one wants to say what they are, these are the ones I managed to come up.

So the questions then would be:

a) what's the probability of any of these situations arising? Is there any historical precedent or example we can look at where any of these possibilities have transpired?
b) are the potential dangers enough to stop feminists from wanting to work in collaboration with other groups? Even if we accept the existence of these dangers, do the benefits of collaboration outweigh the risks?
c) what could FWS do to ensure that they safeguarded against any possible danger?

I think that the first possibility - that people will use 'guilt by association' as a tactic to try to undermine feminists - is the most credible danger. It's the one that we are seeing in action already. The use of 'guilt by association' to undermine women and feminists is coming from TRAs and also from the 'real feminists' and the left. I personally don't think it should stop women from organising. I think that this tactic can be used even when there is zero association - e.g. it's used against KJK simply when someone stands in the same field as her. So I think that FWS just have to accept it will be used against them and I don't see what they can really do to safeguard against that. The best way to undermine this tactic in my opinion is to rigorously expose it for what it is.

The second possibility is credible, but I don't see as a danger. People are allowed to change their minds. Plus it's likely that some individuals who support FWS are already pro-life on the issue of abortion, are already Christians, or have some other belief that they share with the CI. I don't see it as a problem.

The third possibility I don't find credible at all. I would want to see some evidence of this having happened to other movements before I took this seriously.

I suppose another question might be, well, the Christian Institute are one thing. What if feminists want to collaborate with the Reclaim Party (pretty sure there are feminists already in that party tbh) or another right-wing group? There's a slippery slope argument here, that if it's okay for FWS to work with the CI, it may legitimise them working with Reclaim or another, less cuddly group. I think the potential dangers and my rebuttals would still be the same in this case. I wouldn't have a problem with it in the context of an event like this.

I'm sure I've missed lots here! Just thought I would give it a go."

(Hurray for the first serious attempt to envisage downsides!)

EndlessTea · 20/11/2022 17:19

"The only time I have witnessed - entryism/ hostile takeover, it has been third wave feminists, transactivists and men taking over feminists groups and assets, by first acting friendly, then ‘offering to help’, then offering to help govern, then kicking out the feminists who created the thing.


I seriously doubt this kind of thing could happen with the CI, because, firstly, they have their own thing going on so don’t need to do it further their aims, secondly, I believe they are sincere about their concerns - worrying about the education of children seems to be consistent with Christian values, thirdly, I have never seen evidence of Christian organisations operating in that underhanded way before.


So I agree it isn’t credible."

(Good! Real example of things going badly wrong in the past but reasons given why it is unlikely to be repeated in the current real-life situation.)

===========

Apologies if I have missed any other examples.

There was some excellent exploration of other issues but I just wanted to try to pull together the examples of collaborative working mentioned so far.

I hope that helps move things forward rather than it petering out inconclusively or looping back into other issues discussed, important though they are in their own right.

That's amazing @Bosky ! Thank you 😊

Yes. This covers quite a bit of the issues that some seem to have with KJK I think.

"The only time I have witnessed - entryism/ hostile takeover, it has been third wave feminists, transactivists and men taking over feminists groups and assets, by first acting friendly, then ‘offering to help’, then offering to help govern, then kicking out the feminists who created the thing.
I seriously doubt this kind of thing could happen with the CI, because, firstly, they have their own thing going on so don’t need to do it further their aims, secondly, I believe they are sincere about their concerns - worrying about the education of children seems to be consistent with Christian values, thirdly, I have never seen evidence of Christian organisations operating in that underhanded way before.

Entryism definitely takes place in Christian organisations but you probably just haven’t thought about it. There have been power struggles within the Christian Church since the word go. Entryism/hostile takeover is even constantly warned about in the New Testament. If you look at the history of Roman Catholic Popes in Rome until relatively recently it is all about powerful families trying to get control. One of the big events in the history of the Christian Church was the translation of the bible into English and German rather than Latin, so people could read for themselves what was written. Even today we see the likes of that Church of Scotland minister who gave evidence to the GRR committee ‘offering to help’ then presenting an opinion at odds with many in the Church of Scotland.

Having said that - I suspect CI is more concerned itself about entryism than the other way round. They are taking a defensive stance against attack on their beliefs.

Yes. Some feminists seem to believe women are passive vessels that are in danger of being hypnotised by the sight of a Crucifix and accidentally infected by far-right ideas.

It does seem quasi religious. Some people think they are 'saved' and are the only ones who can save others.

It's depressing.

That's a fascinating article Arabella. Very helpful to reflect on

Thanks for collating and honing everything down so well from this long, complex thread @Bosky !
Really helps to see all the most interesting and thought provoking points pulled together.

KJK is therefore guilty of both sins of commission and omission. Firstly, she commits the sin of "talking to women who are pro-life, or who think motherhood is a high calling, etc. as if they might know their own minds".. Secondly, she is guilty of a sin of omission, because she fails to "tell them that their value systems are wrong".

And yet it was KJK who was critical of Muslims who put 7-year-old girls in hijabs. Tweeting about this and the ethnicity of grooming gangs resulted in her being no-platformed by WPUK.

In May 2018, we became aware of several tweets by KJK that made pejorative comments about Muslim communities. We believed these tweets would contribute to a hostile environment for people from minoritised communities. The views expressed in these tweets are diametrically opposed to our principles and beliefs.

womansplaceuk.org/2022/06/22/womans-place-and-posie-parker/

Yes, it's the idea of infection that seems so powerful in these discussions where people want to prevent others from being exposed to "bad" ideas.

It reminds me a lot of the research around the idea that conservative temperaments tend to be people who are afraid of physical contamination as well.

I think that a lot of progressives now are actually temperamentally conservative in this sense. There is a high degree of fear of contamination.

I hadn't thought about this, you're right. Maybe entryism is actually more of a danger than I thought. In this particular circumstance, I don't think it's an issue, but it's probably right to think that entryism is the biggest danger to any group or organisation. Even governments are vulnerable to this form of attack.

I've definitely seen women arguing that proximity to right-wing groups will make feminists vulnerable to entryism by these groups - this was a repeated argument on one of the KJK threads a while back, that Hearts of Oak were going to take over KJK and Standing for Women. But I think if a feminist group is collaborating with a religious group or a political party, the dangers of entryism are actually less because each group has its well-defined identity and role to play within the project. It wouldn't serve either group's interest to disband their own group in order to infiltrate the other group. So I still wouldn't see this as a reason for different groups not to work together towards the same goal.

I suspect that groups are less vulnerable to entryism when they have one clear and specific goal. A group that organises around a set of moral values will be more vulnerable because values are subject to interpretation and application to different goals. E.g. if the WPUK's value is to 'respect all minority groups' then that can easily be put to the purpose of silencing criticism of children wearing hijab or fgm etc. Whereas a group that is organising around the goal of protecting single sex spaces or keeping prisons single sex or fair play for women in sports is harder to infiltrate because as soon as you try to push them away from their goal, it will be noticeable and radical. And dropping that goal would mean the end of that organisation.

I hope that makes sense! Just trying to think it through. Really appreciate the conversation on this thread.

Absolutely makes sense @beastlyslumber . Goodness! You lot are a fascinating bunch.

Its so interesting thinking about entryism and the church too. I hadn’t really thought about that, but it is staring me in the face.

‘False prophets’ are in a way like the Buddhist near enemy. And the way KJK has been denounced and the reasons for doing so are bordering biblical 😂 She’s a false prophet - I am the real Brian!

Also, as you highlight, purist left wing feminism is completely at odds with accommodating Muslim religious conservatism. And yet here we are - notions of female ‘modesty’ and wearing a veil in public and needing private places to adjust it, because of sinful, tempting lady-hair, is frequently trotted out.

Also, how about the accommodation of a leading transactivist into the feminist fold - up on the platform, absorbing women’s words and getting paid gigs to rephrase them “women are entitled to define their own boundaries”, all the while not recanting his previous woman-hurting activism to leave women and girls no right to our own boundaries.

One thinks certain feminists should look a bit closer to home for the infiltration of hostile beliefs.

All in all, I think that different groups can work together towards specific goals, but they would probably all be wise to refuse ‘favours’ from one another and should ensure that they do their own communications, such as press releases - or be pretty stringent about any collaborative work, eg- an open letter, making sure that it is truly collaborative and all parties are 100% happy, having clarity about how they are going to sign things off, before it goes out.

That would be in cases like the FWS education event. For KJK, I think it is nonsense that people showing up at the event to listen and reflect on what is said, or take selfies or whathaveyou, are a danger. But I think KJK should be very careful about anyone she entrusts as staff or volunteers.

I hope this is the right place to ask, but why is it always assumed to be so one way? If someone pro life works with someone pro choice, is it not possible that the pro life person could change their mind? Or is that a foolish question?

I don’t think it is foolish at all. You may not get someone going from 100% pro life, to 100% pro choice, but they might become more pragmatic about cases where a mother’s life will be saved by a termination, especially if she already has children, or when looking at the balance of rights where a young girl is the victim of incest, that sort of thing.

I honestly think that bloke from Hearts of Oak is being introduced to feminist ideas by KJK. I watched his video - one with the liberal use of the c word. But he was saying “how is a woman going to know if a bloke is a degenerate rapist just by looking at him?”.

I suspect there’s a greater fear that the pro-choice person will somehow be ‘corrupted’ into thinking differently.

and of what happens if you can no longer caricature your “enemies’” position - either because you me assumptions were wrong but also they may not be as fixed and intractable as you imagine.

I know that KJK has totally radicalised Brendan O'Neill when it comes to trans issues. He used to be pretty obnoxious about feminism but now he is one of the most forthright speakers against gender ideology. He was at first of the 'be kind' persuasion and didn't see the problem with using preferred pronouns. Then he got chatting to KJK and Julia Long and now he writes articles about why he'll never used preferred pronouns. He had Genevieve Gluck on his podcast last week, and they were chatting away about misogyny and women being seen as castrated men. KJK alone is probably responsible for changing a lot of people's minds about this subject!

I don't think it's at all foolish to think that you can win someone over to your point of view if you have a good enough argument. The whole point of a debate is to try to make the strongest arguments to win the audience to your side. That's one of the reasons it's so frustrating when posters here refuse (or are unable) to make a coherent argument for their point of view. You might be right! You might get people to see it your way! Why not give it a go?

I agree with all of this. I'm sure KJK is careful who she works with but as she always says, she's speaking the truth so she's got nothing to be afraid of. It's hard to corrupt people if they are committed to simply speaking the unvarnished truth. But of course you can hurt them in other ways.

Yes! Brendan O’Neill is something to behold isn’t he? His arguments seem more robustly feminist than a lot of women. It makes me realise that there are some people out there who seem initially to be anti-feminist and likely to eyeroll when you make a feminist argument, maybe because they stereotype feminists as tedious lefty whiners or something, then when they realise the truth of the matter, and the injustice of the truth of the matter, it lights a fire under them and they go all out radfem!

It makes me realise how important it is to recognise one’s own prejudice and be willing to speak with anyone- you never know who is going to be a total diamond.

Sorry my answer is late Bosky. Yeah, The Young Patriots were white working Class guys who wore the confederate Flag around their necks. But Hampton&Co convinced them that they had Common interests (and a common enemy, I guess). So they worked together and the Young Patriots actually stopped wearing the confederate flag.

Thank's deepwatersolo!

Reading the recent posts make me think of Biblical analogies, like the Prodigal Son being welcomed home 😇

It is often remarked that the Social Justice/Woke movement does not have a capacity for "forgiveness", that once one has "sinned" that there is no hope of redemption.

I am not sure if that is true.

Throwing oneself on the mercy of the mob isn't going to help one iota.

Public humiliation by "Struggle Session" wouldn't do it either.

There does seem to be a system of buying "indulgences" however. Donations to a trans charity seems to be a common ploy with one wing of the woke.

I think though that KJK would have to be fabulously wealthy and do something like fund a single-sex rape crisis centre in every town and village in the land before they might sniffily concede that she is not ALL bad.

There is also the possibility of redemption if a Secular Saint decides to cease smiting the unworthy and instead smiles on the wretch.

For that to work KJK would probably have to dive into shark-infested waters to save Jeremy Corbyn's life and then he would belatedly acknowledge her as his secret love-child 😂

I don't know what, if anything, would satisfy the Americans though. Perhaps if she Ninja'd up a drainpipe and bludgeoned Trump to death with his smart-phone? 🤔

+1

Well a very good friend of mine went from pro-life to pro-choice partly because pro-lifers in the city centre kept on shoving lurid photos of fetuses in her little girl's face and partly because life caught up with her