How bizarre…
The sin page is up there on the site still for the group. If it doesn’t represent the values of the group it should be removed.
This is PR basics.
Either the group who have control over the site support this page, or this solarity woman has allowed the group to be portrayed as having that view.
That is not that woman’s website. That is not a website gathering individual opinions. That is not a social media platform.
Surely you understand this sappho.
If you or others feel powerless to have that page removed, that is also part of the issue.
I have genuinely asked these questions upthread about the group and their values. Because the mixed messages we are getting. I understand that you and others may well feel powerless to feedback to a group with people in decision making positions being perceived as all having that opinion.
That is what I and others are trying to work out.
Why? Because their behaviour over that page and in the Facebook group seems at odds with the values they want people to think they have. And this division is happening because of feminists like them.
As I said upthread quite clearly. If those women want the division. Fine. But stop expecting to use other women as resources to be tapped.
This division has had me canceling subscriptions, attendence ant events and more considered in contributing to crowd funding. And if this group don’t understand why this is happening by now, then they are so entrenched in believing they pure that they really are as ideological as the TRAs.
And yes… some court cases are really important.
But isn’t it hypocritical for a group to accept financial assistance from women who by their own narrow parameters would be ‘problematic’ and that the group would normally seek to exclude, or tell to fuck off or however they expected Heart of Oak to be dealt with? Because that really does seem to be very hypocritical to me.
It is that group of Brighton feminists who are intolerant and authoritarian, almost to the point of totalitarian. They have shown themselves to be extreme in their intolerance. That fb page, for instance, demanded that people’s pushback against surrogacy be curated to suit them. And in that action dictated that only their way of looking at surrogacy and describing the reality of surrogacy was ever appropriate. Because it would hurt some group’s feelings to hear the stark reality of their own direct actions.
So if that inner decision making group doesn’t agree with that sin page, they should probably get it removed immediately. Because, any benefit of the doubt that I and others would have extended that it was ‘just one individual woman’s opinion’ is probably pretty much used up.