Why are Primark promoting "Found Family"

[WandaWomblesaurus]

www.primark.com/en-us/a/inspiration/special-occasions/celebrating-found-families

"A Found Family Is About Finally Feeling Whole, Something That Might Be Absent In Your Biological Family, Like A Full Set Of Acrylic Nails Or A Good Pair Of Fake Lashes. It’s A Community You Choose, Whose Values And Honesty Speak To Your Own."
- Jude & Michael, Germany

What???

Good grief, the twists you try.

I have been arguing that they were a PR nightmare from the start…. Or did you miss that in your determination to tell everyone what a bigot and homophobe I was?

They fucked this up massively.

So if all you’ve said is that this is just a PR problem, rather than actual advocacy for lower age of consent, why did you imply a poster who was comfortable with Primark supporting them was a supporter of child abuse?

I have no idea what type of agenda the ILGA have not even going to try and pretend ! . All I know is I'm sick to fuck of being talked down to by companies who jump on anything that is trending at the time and use vulnerable people who they actually don't give a fuck about just to sell products . Primark have fuck all qualification in family dynamics . I for one am fed up of companies telling me how I should speak , feel or act . I refuse to take advice from a bunch of costamongers who sell PANTS and really cheap bad quality pants at that !

And again with the personal attacks and baseless attacks calling people homophobic.

“Because the meaning of the declaration is clear in the context of a feminist declaration raising an issue which anyone familiar with global women’s rights campaigns is familiar with.”

No. It is not clear. You wish it to be clear. But it is not. In fact, the statement they made requires not only a leap of understanding, but a leap of faith.

That section in the declaration reads very clearly as a statement that can be construed as being about reducing the age of consent for sex. I have been rather balanced in the way I have represented this and given them the benefit of the doubt. But the truth is, it so poorly written only someone determined to give it the benefit of the doubt does so, or someone who is heavily invested in denying the meaning of the words as stated.

So, you have told us all on this thread that it is ‘common language’. Now you are stating what?

That the phraseology has NOT been used elsewhere, but that people need to believe you about what it means? Even when in context, it is very open to interpretation.

You assured us the language was very well used. I have been consistent in specifically discussing that one section of the declaration. You have produced no evidence that this ‘language’ IS used elsewhere. Instead, you hand wave the ambiguity away saying ‘anyone familiar with global women’s rights campaigns is familiar with.”

No. Anyone familiar with global women’s rights understands the red flags that one statement in that section raised. That you don’t or you choose to ignore it, is your issue to deal with.

you are frustrated because we continue to point out that this language is problematic, and that this very influential organization did little but make a statement that could well be referring to anything else. Ultimately, you want us to consider this organisation as being sound on safeguarding around adolescents. When it is not. Otherwise that part of the declaration would leap out at them!

“You keep doing this whole ‘but they haven’t disavowed/changed the declaration’ schtick.”

Yes. Because a weak statement is not enough to bolster this organisation’s reputation. I remember Mermaids making similar statements about their robust safeguarding too.

But do crack on personally attacking anyone who disagrees with you as some kind of hateful bigot and homophobe.

Maybe you’d like to tell me which post you meant.

And I don’t think this is ‘just’ a PR issue. The lack of dealing with this properly has meant that they have lost credibility about how they deal with safeguarding. If you think that is ‘just’ a PR ‘problem’ then that is good to know.

I think it is just a tad more of a significant issue than that. But hey, keep on dismissing concerns and calling everyone who expresses concerns bigots and homophobes. It is really rather enlightening.

@AlisonDonut you accused me of arriving here from a child abuse forum. A grovelling apology would be nice. (Assuming you weren't intending to be unspeakable.)

What are you talking about? Can you quote me anything at all that I have said in this thread that suggests that I "identify as one of them"?

(I've spent a great deal of this week elsewhere on MN challenging those excusing and minimising grooming in fact)

When you're plain wrong, stop digging and apologise @AlisonDonut

As it is, you look dreadful

I'm going to assume that yes, you do believe that men can be lesbians.

In which case, please stop using words that you have no understanding of. Stop accusing homosexuals of homophobia when you can't even define it!

Strewth. Talk about shaming tactics. And shit ones at that.

Eliminate all laws and policies that punish or criminalize same-sex intimacy, gender affirmation, abortion, HIV transmission non-disclosure and exposure

• *I've read this three times, and I am still not sure what it means. Does it mean that you should not punish people for not telling a sexual partner that they have aids, or are HIV positive?

Or does it mean you should be telling people?

I am just going to point this out in case readers actually believe your false assertions about the common use of the language that was used in that particular section of the declaration.

”There is tons of literature out there discussing non-criminalisation of adolescent sexuality.”

The part I have highlighted that you seem to not have been able to specifically address yourself, is not really limited to safeguarding of those who have same sex or bisexual orientations. It could be said that it is not limited at all.

Because there is an ‘or’ in that sentence. As far as my comprehension goes, that also can be read as opening it up again to all adolescents. But hey… maybe my education was inferior to British educations.

You started on this campaign of libelling bystanders at something past 1pm @AlisonDonut

Really bad idea as well as being scummy and slipshod.

You called me unhinged so if you can't take it maybe don't dish it?

@MNHQ would you mind dreadfully reading back and seeing exactly what accusations @AlisonDonut has posted since 1pm, who she has addressed them to and what it was she misread to set her off? Many thanks.

Do you think they are your admin?

You called me unhinged so if you can't take it maybe don't dish it?

I called you unhinged BECAUSE you accused me of coming here from a "child abuse network".

That IS unhinged.

All I had commented on at all on the thread was the long LGB history of chosen:found families being a "thing".

I wasn't involved in the other bunfight going on.

If you're going to randomly accuse innocent bystanders of belonging to child abuse networks "unhinged" is the minimum you can expect to be called, quite frankly.

Stop throwing your weight around and read posts properly.

Do you think they are your admin?

I've never known them to be keen to leave libel littering the boards.

You called me unhinged for saying it wasnt me syphoning off money after me asking you why you thought found families were good.

But you are getting all my posts deleted so there is no record of my responses.

Not to worry, all the focus is now on you and off Primark. So you got that box ticked well and good.

Alison I haven't even managed to grasp what all the side arguments are. Because you immediately caused a distraction talking about siphoning and child abuse networks. I didn't understand either reference. Was I supposed to?

Someone else other than me is clearly reporting you. So that's at least two people who can see how insane your posing is.

Other than all of that, I might have been on your side of the argument.

As it is, all I'm interested in is your appalling posts t towing dreadful allegations about.

You called me unhinged for saying it wasnt me syphoning off money after me asking you why you thought found families were good.

And no I didn't call you I hinged for that. I had no idea what you were talking about.

You really need to learn to read and not misattribute.

Hi there. This is a reminder to please report any posts to us which you feel break our Talk Guidelines, rather than calling each other out on the thread and derailing it. Please do keep posts civil.
Many thanks.

I read it to be about abolishing responsibility for informing a sex partner about HIV status. That is in line with Stonewall.

Stonewall also have been working to abolish responsibility for a trans person to inform a sex partner about their sex (as opposed to their gender).

Stonewall and I assume this organisation too, seems determined to remove the onus on sex partners to inform potential sex partners about issues that potentially would render the consent void. Who benefits from that?