Harriet Harman and Fawcett Society

[Imnobody4]

Now record 264 women MPs!
Chance to work cross party on women’s priorities.@fawcettsociety will convene meeting for all women MPs enabling them to embark on process of setting up powerful Women’s Caucus. Childcare, violence against women, *equal pay. Now is the time for change!

https://twitter.com/HarrietHarman/status/1809201712114065434?t=cQ44-fIToDSC_zFQrgkyVQ&s=19

https://www.fawcettsociety.org.uk/news/womens-caucus-announcement

The Fawcett Society is transwomen inclusive isn't it. Other organisations must be involved, like Sex Matters etc.

Harriet Harman was just interviewed on Woman's Hour. She talked about the Fawcett Society, but was also asked about becoming chair of the EHRC, and the debate around trans rights.

Harman was very cautious in answering giving a "denial-type reply" about EHRC without actually giving a clear denial, and didn't seem to be completely on-message with what progressive people are supposed to say about "trans rights".

From about 5 minutes in: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0020xv6

It's really quite shocking. It's lobby groups getting above their station.

This is one of the main benefits of "identity politics" to those in power - all you need to do is find some group or organisation that claims to represent the relevant identity group, and that agrees with what you want to do, and then you "consult" with them, and then you can claim you've consulted with the relevant "community".

For maximum efficiency, you also fund them to help make sure they say the things you want to say. (SNP is good at this).

The "identity" helps cover up the total lack of democratic accountability. (Identity groups don't need any sort of internal democracy, because obviously all members of the group agree, right?)

Plus, when you leave politics, you can go and get a job in one of those groups, and continue the back-scratching arrangements (accepting taxpayers money to say what the government wants you to say).

Obviously this works with all sorts of quangos, but the identity version is a refinement.

Response to a question asked at their AGM about women being attacked and silenced

https://twitter.com/MForstater/status/1810089869701771758?t=66_8DXzj5moXZK9z1aJ21A&s=19

Absolutely agree, you've nailed it.

So free speech is quite important but women must realise that making men sad is not ok?

Yes, fuck that, thank you. We're talking about women stating reality and their own needs, neither of which is blasphemy.

Muddled around gender and sex. Sex protected space only applies to refuges and rape crisis centres . No mention of lesbian spaces, changing rooms or anything else or the abomination that is Edinburgh RCC. Maybe some extra guidance in necessary… You don’t say.

Sorry referring to HH on Woman’s Hour.

This is what I thought when every Labour politician referred to ‘safe spaces’ rather than ‘single sex spaces’ in the election campaign; they’re not minded to protect anything other than refuges. And having said that, Keir mentioned that mixed-sex refuges work well because he’s visited some, so they may not even be minded to strongly protect single sex refuges either.

Brilliantly put, thanks.

One of the worst things about this debate is the way women are being thrown to the wolves for not being ideologically pure enough.
In the last Labour government, Harriet Harman had the nick name Harriet Harm-Man because people hated how feminist she was. She's done loads for women and has been a real trailblazer. E.g.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/in-praise-of-harriet-harman/

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2008/nov/09/harriet-harman-defence-of-provocation

The PIE thing happened 50 years ago and is a huge smear.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2014/mar/02/how-paedophiles-infiltrated-the-left-harriet-harman-patricia-hewitt

It's awful to see successful women being attacked like that. I think its great she's in the HoL. We need more women in there.

Basically GC people will really box themselves into a corner of only certain kinds of women are acceptable to them. It's a sure fire way to cause infighting while the men carry on with the same old damaging behaviours.

"The PIE thing"

This is indescribably insulting to the victims and survivors of child sexual abuse, and causes them great pain, and is retraumatising. So too, is hand waving away crimes against children by saying the crimes happened years ago.

@CassieMaddox I think you should consider withdrawing this foul statement and asking MNHQ to delete your post.

I heard the WH segment and she kept getting muddled on sex and gender, which was not very heartening frankly.

Nah, don't get it deleted. Keep all the reported facts there. The Guardian article is not a smear and it does not support CassieMaddox's minimising story either.

"The motion was passed two years after Harman claimed that the group no longer wielded influence in the NCCL". Quite the long shadow. Harman's husband's "success" at stopping PIE from having any influence seems to have been more limited than she imagines.

The Guardian article is a timely warning on the dangers of turning a blind eye.

Pretty low even for Cassie. HH could have faced up to it, apologised and ended up looking older and wiser. She chose not to, I've had a lot of respect for her but never fully trusted her moral compass. But then I was actually around at the time of PIE.

Once again the circularity is a feature, not a bug. From the SNP funding Stonewall, to national bodies like the NHS accepting WPATH's 'expert' advice. And the roundabout of money, grants, and jobs goes round and round.

Apologies. Lack of fact checking on my part.

What? You think pointing out a smear from 40 or 50 years ago is "foul"?

I think we should leave it too. Let everyone see what left wing women are up against. Doesn't matter how much good you do, how much of a feminist you are, it will never be enough for the purists.

I reckon this is an example of how insisting that women should be kind and share changing rooms, showers, hospital wards, prison cells etc with the Isla Brysons and Sara Jane Bakers of the world renders respected politicians like H H look like dangerous fools.
She openly argues that men are women when they say they are. She also sees the proponents of this immensely powerful ideology that has upturned the social contract with zero democratic discussion or consent as full of highly vulnerable people. She is partially right about that, but the vulnerable ones are the children who've been gaslit by these powerful organisations that their bodies are wrong but a sex change will fix them. She's pandering to the middle aged male transitioners and completely ignoring the vulnerable young people who she (along with a depressing number of politicians) have failed to notice or protect.

This whole ideology has progressed this far as from the outset women were told to be quiet, be kind, not speak up and not be difficult and cause dissent.

No more being told to be silent.

@CassieMaddox you could not be more wrong about PIE. And victims and survivors of child sexual abuse - of which there are many - deserve better.

Your posts reveal you care more about party loyalty than you do about child safeguarding, and child victims of crime.

Shame on you.

I thought we didn't go by "guilt by association" on this board. Or smears against feminists.

There is no evidence of HH actively promoting pie. It is a smear. Meantime she's done more to support women and girls than most. Absolutely disgraceful to make out her appointment is somehow harmful to women, but of course tribalism being "a bad thing" only works one way.

What's the good thing about being associated with the Paedophile Information Exchange again? For what reason should we uncritically accept her into public life? She should be persona non grata. As should many others. (Wait until you look up the Islington Care Homes scandal).

But you know, if you stand for nothing, you'll fall for anything. I'm very happy to stand for child safeguarding. It's my red line.

HTH.

The ones without penises?

Cassie I'd love to have your time and energy that you spend wasting on these boards trying to tell everyone how we are womaning wrong and what we should and shouldn't put up with. Admire isn't the right word but there's definitely a word for it. It'll come to me.

OK. Guilt by association.

Unless you believe the version of events from a convicted paedophile over the version of a feminist politician. Which would be a strange choice.

I mean, a thread about some action being taken by women's charity and a feminist politician, to benefit women, being discounted completely because "Fawcett Society thinks TWAW" and some scandal from the 1980s that Harriet Harman might or might not have been involved in.

Great. Really good work in supporting womens rights. I'm sure Rosie Duffield and JK Rowling can do the necessary on their own, given no other lefty women are pure enough.