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

Just only had time to come back and have only been able to skim read through posts.

@MrsOvertonsWindow my op doesn't express a view point it asks a question. Just assuming as you did that I had one seems an example of how judgements get made prior to real knowledge.

Secondly, I'm afraid to say I'm not particularly interested in the free speech aspect (yes i know its important).

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 arguement that people from a range of perspectives had different concerns about the same isse.

I dont 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?

But I do recognise that in the current climate the way in which events are influenced is very, very different because of the power of the internet, and what has now been a decade or more of queer trans ideology in both education and the media. And also (so maybe this is the free speech element) people thinking they have the right to stop an event because they dont like some of the participants and / or the issue. ie the change from picketing/leafleting an event to actually shutting them down.

Right, but you also are avoiding my qustion. What is 'anti feminist and homophobic' in the conference, please?

Haven't we? You've said a few times you'd go to church for e.g. a toddler's group. And the different sponsors are clearly listed, so that's established without any need for your opinion.

So what's your objection to the event?

Are you saying that the sponsors are not of various backgrounds and political inclinations?

Just a reminder of who the sponsors are:

The Battle of Ideas, The Christian Institute, Academics for Academic Freedom, Stand By Me (Scotland) and For Women Scotland.

I dont 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?

Votes for women
Gay marriage
Civil rights in the US

to name a few.

I've thought about this a lot recently. To me the whole sex/gender/trans thing is about women's human rights, so I have no problem aligning myself with groups/individuals whose views I may otherwise disagree with, but where we have the common ground of supporting women's human rights. So not a Tory, but very happy to work with people who are on this issue, for example.

But following that line of thought, I draw the line at individuals/groups who would deny women their human rights in other ways, eg denying access to abortion. They are pushing an agenda that is essentially anti-women and - whilst our views on sex and gender may align - their stance on it does not come from a place of viewing women as equals or actually caring about women's human rights.

@beastlyslumber - thanks - do you have any example from any of these where what might seem like political opposites working together?

I suppose I sort of assumed with the 3 examples you gave that those most concerned eg women, L&G, Black communities were the main campaigners and others supported them, rather than an issue where diverse communities oppose/support the same thing but for very different reasons.

Absolutely, I haven't articulated that on my posts but this is the whole issue with aligning with people or groups who are openly conservative. They want to fight trans rights because they hate trans people, not because they care about women.

They are more than happy to organise against self ID, and in the same breath support the 6 week abortion bill or total abortion ban.

I genuinely don't understand people who say that the context of these peoples' beliefs is not important. To say it means nothing that this event has been cancelled due to LGBTQ staff concerns and only picked up by a homophobic evangelical church known for their similarly restrictive and misogynistic views of women just makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever.

Of course it is!!! How on earth does anyone learn anything by simply standing in an echo chamber?

The sponsors:

The Battle of Ideas

'The aim of the Battle of Ideas festival and events is to provide an opportunity to debate the issues in a full and frank manner, bringing together a wide variety of voices and, most importantly, creating a space for everyone to have their say.'

The Christian Institute

'exists for the furtherance and promotion of the Christian religion in the United Kingdom and elsewhere.

The Christian Institute is a nondenominational Christian charity committed to upholding the truths of the Bible. We are supported by individuals and churches throughout the UK.

We believe that the Bible is the supreme authority for all of life and we hold to the inerrancy of Scripture. We are committed to upholding the sanctity of life from conception.'

Academics for Academic Freedom:

'Academics For Academic Freedom (AFAF) was founded in 2006 as a campaigning group for all lecturers, academic-related staff, students and researchers who wanted to defend unimpeded enquiry and expression. It began with a statement of Academic Freedom that lecturers, and others, could sign but has since taken up the case for free speech and academic freedom throughout the UK and Ireland. AFAF is also heavily involved in case work much of which never hits the headlines.'

Stand By Me:

'We are a group of concerned parents, carers and teaching staff from across Scotland, campaigning peacefully to promote, protect and restore the human rights and wellbeing of our children in the face of ongoing Covid restrictions in Scottish schools.
We are especially concerned about compulsory face masks in secondary school classrooms, with children expected to wear them for up to six hours a day. We believe the potentially negative impacts on learning, teaching and children’s health and wellbeing have been downplayed by the Scottish Government.'

For Women Scotland.

'For Women Scotland is a grassroots women’s group founded in June 2018 amid growing unease about how women’s rights would be affected by the Scottish Government’s plans to reform the Gender Recognition Act to allow for self-declaration of sex.'

surely looking at the line up of people who agree with you must sew a seed of doubt in where the drive to push all this anti trans hate comes from?

But you’re not a feminist, are you, Someposter? You’re devoted to the cause of extending male rights by breaking women’s boundaries. You cannot get your head around the concept of women defending their rights, or perhaps even of women having any rights to defend. That’s why you can only describe it in terms of its effects on men, or as anti trans hate.

And if that’s beyond your capabilities, it probably is pointless even to raise the concept of free speech. Of disliking someone’s opinions but defending their right to express them, because that right is an essential pillar of democracy.

But maybe you can understand that an anti-abortionist and I (pro-choice) may share an opinion on something else, say women’s right to single- sex spaces, without changing our views on abortion? I remain a socialist despite the left having recently become hypnotised by genderism.

I don’t hold my opinions because someone else told me to, or because I would be bullied by my peer group if I failed to agree with them. I hold them as a result of my life experience, and of learning from honest and knowledgeable sources.

So to me, the only sad thing about having so few strong socialist voices speaking up for women is that the left has abandoned any pretence of supporting equal rights.

@IwantToRetire Politically diverse groups (e.g. labour/tory, republicans/democrats, left/right) came together on those issues. That's why I cited them.

an issue where diverse communities oppose/support the same thing but for very different reasons.

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.

Yes we can all make decisions about who we connect with and how. Isn't that wonderful.
It's when events are shut down that the problem occurs.
Would still be interested in the justification of those who judge others but would happily get cooties from working with the Labour party.

You don't have to stand in an echo chamber to not need or want to be persuaded to agree with pro life or anti gay marriage sentiment for example?

I may be interested in why people might think that way, but attending an event specifically to promote their ideas is by far not the only way to do that, obviously.

No one was forcing you to attend.

You don't have to stand in an echo chamber to not need or want to be persuaded to agree with pro life or anti gay marriage sentiment

See, that's interesting. I could listen to anti-abortion people argue all day long and I'm fairly sure that I wouldn't accidentally 'be persuaded' to agree.

Okay, misworded by me.

I honestly couldn't give a shit about people sitting around talking about what to do to push their anti abortion or anti gay marriage sentiment out into the world.

They're obviously succeeding in plenty of places, so I may be interested in why they feel that way, but I certainly wouldn't be "collaborating with them to further my common goal" as per the point of the thread.

Haven't you seen? It's not been shut down it's at a lovely very famously women loving evangelical church, you'd be more than welcome to attend.

I'm so glad. Will the change of location provide the cooties here?
The aim was to shut down the talk. Glad it didn't work.
Now can you address my points about, for example, the Labour Party?

And that is a pertinent point that I have missed due to my incredulity at feminists saying they're okay to kick it with such groups.

In an effort to justify your view points several posters on here have started muddling their arguments to better suit their narrative. The goal posts have been moved. Now it's just about "listening to all groups" and "educating yourself" on even the most backwards of views.

The actual question was, would you be willing to actively share space and platform with people who hold antifeminist other views that you don't agree with, because they share views and goals on trans rights self ID) that you do agree with. As in would you attend political conferences and campaigns alongside people who, as well as rejecting self ID, are also rejecting issues supposedly important to feminists and moving against womens' rights. Not just discussing, coming from groups they have wilfully and actively joined that support the abolishment of those rights.

It's important not to lose sight of that and letting the thread deteriorate into typical right wing "all voices no matter how vile deserve to be heard" type. Which while arguable and fine, is not actually the point.

I'm interested, still, in whether it is ok to share a platform with the misogynistic and antisemitic labour party.
After they refused to let GC groups attend at conference? Kicked out women members who are GC? Treated Rosie Duffield so appallingly?
Where are you drawing the line?
And why are you attempting to shame everyone else into drawing the same line?

You are the only one I see moving the goalposts. You really do believe that pro -lifers and homophobes have such good arguments that anyone who does boycott them will be contaminated

And anti-abortion.

In other words, their only interest in women is controlling them and telling them what they may and may not do; with a healthy dose of broad spectrum bigotry to boot. If the enemy of my enemy is my friend, I'll do without friends. There is no "respectful debate" to have with people like this, and if what has happened in the USA hasn't taught us that yet, we aren't listening.

The actual question was, would you be willing to actively share space and platform with people who hold antifeminist other views that you don't agree with, because they share views and goals on trans rights self ID) that you do agree with.

Yes, I would. I'd be willing to 'actively share space' with almost anyone, tbh. I'd happily go to a conference that included reps from Stonewall, Mermaids, The Tory Party, Labour Party, Atheists Anonymous, The Christian Megaparty, whatever.

I'm not worried that views I disagree with are contagious, or how other people might see me. I don't buy into 'sharing space' meaning I am somehow 'allied with' or 'supporting' someone, because imo that's just ridiculous.

Sounds just like the Labour party, apart from the abortion bit. Mind your, Labour are so misogynist I wouldn't even guarantee that.