Why are so many GC women pro-Israel?

[Krakinou]

This is a feminist forum. It’s in the name. I’m a feminist, therefore logically atheist and frankly anti-religion. Certainly against any kind of religious nationalism (Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, etc.)

But surely feminism is about liberation for all women, not just the ones we agree with? The destruction of patriarchal structures, not of women and children who are conditioned by them?

I constantly see snarky comments in GC articles about Gaza and dehumanizing comments about Palestinians and Muslims generally on this board. And minimizing of the suffering of the tens of thousands of people being murdered in an internationally recognized genocide. I don’t get it. It seems out of sync with the general mumsnet feeling too - I get the impression most people on mumsnet are pretty horrified by Israel’s actions.

Does anyone else get the same impression? If so, what is the connection between being Gender Critical and being anti-Palestine? Is it just that the leftist terfs aren’t so represented here?

I’m in a feminist group in Spain and it doesn’t have the same issue at all.

I think this is a really important point from @Mermoose

As to why that correlation exists, I think it's that GCs have learned that you can't rely on organizations like Amnesty International and unfortunately the BBC often misrepresents things. If you're GC you're most likely clued into the fact that rights aren't actually a pie and sometimes ethical problems have no feel-good answer.

I think perhaps sometimes, when the other side seems to lack all nuance, that GC women who argue “it’s more complicated that” or “there are no easy answers” or “there are wrongs on both sides” end up coming across as a lot more pro-Israel than they originally intended to be.

I suspect that then leads to a kind of feedback loop in which they get pilloried for being allegedly “pro-genocide”, and they probably end up becoming more anti-Palestine than they started out, because of the sheer stupidness of some of the opposition arguments. I can see myself in this position and have to work actively to double check I’m not sometimes sliding into political views I don’t really support simply because of the omnicause nature and ridiculous arguments of some of the activists on the other side.

I like what you say, and I tend to believe this too. However, I find myself conflicted about the fact that it is indeed very important (as the "GC" publicly vocal women have shown themselves) to speak out or else there's this feeling that you are the only one witnessing the naked emperor. So while I certainly don't tend to be vocal about the Palestine-Israel issue (although I can't deny what my eyes see), I have the same experience and feeling that @Krakinou has explained.

I, too, wonder why, on this particular issue, there seem to be a hegemonic positioning among British "terfs" (siding with Israel and even denying the genocidal aspect of its actions), that I simply don't see among other european "terfs" (and I am very familiar with european terfism).
So why is it? I think OP has posted a genuine and honest question, and I see no ill will in that.

This is what I mean. I am involved in a lot of refugee aid projects. Many of my colleagues there are sensible, thoughtful people who understand nuanced arguments, but others are omnicause activists who see refugees, Gaza and trans rights as inextricably linked, and if you oppose one you oppose all. If I said I supported single sex spaces, they would immediately assume (despite years of refugee work) that I am a right wing bigot. This kind of framing by the other side does make it difficult to articulate any sensible critical positions that are in favour of some things and against others.

What I really don’t understand is - the reverse of the OP’s question - WHY are so many TRAs so vocal on these other causes, eg Gaza? I can’t see any real connection at all; in fact, the only points of connection I can see should suggest an anti-Palestine, probably anti-Islam stance….

Israel is not committing genocide. The accusation is beyond ridiculous and should be treated with the contempt it deserves.

It's because whilst faith, politics, dietary preferences, tastes in music, opinions on financial policies and everything else in the world varies, fundamentally it's a matter that concerns women and men's behaviour towards them - the nicest woman in the world and the most horrible one are both female and will have an opinion and experiences that may agree.

You could just as easily ask why so many women that drink coffee agree, why so many that are lefthanded agree or why so many who are wealthy enough to not be solely concerned with survival agree with women who would be grateful for clean water, are righthanded or are currently actively trying to avoid men with guns raping and murdering them - fundamentally, both know that they are female, the other sex is male, one cannot become the other - and males as a class pose a significant risk to females that doesn't change with the clothes they wear.

It's not about politics or Internet access. It's about the risk males pose to females that has been in existence since the first humans - and the way in which, despite any trappings of wealth, technology, communication, religion or claims of 'civilisation', men seek to invade, control and conquer women, their bodies and any place that has been set aside to be a male-free space in any way they can, just because they want to.

I haven't seen it on here but absolutely this is a thing on twitter. I've unfollowed quite a few very longstanding GC women because their feed is now all about anti semitism (outrage at Israel). It's not that I no longer like them, it's just not a topic I want to use my twitter for.

I find this really reassuring and helpful along with some of the other answers here. Like I say, my experience in Spain and with real-life friends is very different.

I think you’ve hit the nail on the head that it’s just a case of only some voices being heard giving a skewed impression.

One thing I’ve really appreciated about the GC debate is how women across the political spectrum work together on it. And we mostly keep quiet on other issues to maintain that fragile alliance.

I guess it is easier to form a clear stance on gender because it’s such a self-evident truth, whereas discussing Palestine requires a lot of historical knowledge.

Great post 👏. My adult son says he despairs of his 30s peers and is terrified of the 20s cohort who ' bought their politics in a job lot'. Thus they automatically support the T.

But , when the blinkers come off , it's all too easy to replace those views with a different portfolio of beliefs. If the " Left " got this so wrong then what else don't they jack shit about? I speak as what would have been a bog standard social democrat in the 80s , 90s. Now classed as a raving Trotskyist no doubt.

Another adult son says it's futile to pretend that either gender ideology or Islamic fundamentalism are not problematic. Just makes us look stupid and is meat and drink to Reform. To the OPs question , well there's always been right wing feminists anyway. Going back to Emmeline Pankhurst and Marie Stopes.

What I really don’t understand is - the reverse of the OP’s question - WHY are so many TRAs so vocal on these other causes, eg Gaza? I can’t see any real connection at all; in fact, the only points of connection I can see should suggest an anti-Palestine, probably anti-Islam stance….

The irony is they'd be thrown off a building in gaza.

Queers for Palestine ...etc

I think, because people tend (not all, but most) to end up in one echo chamber or the other. The first split is probably left/right and after that you split into smaller echo chambers, but that's the first one.

I am traditionally a wooly liberal, since having to take a very strong stance on male entryism to female spaces I have found myself on 'the other side" quite a lot. So I see a lot more people arguing these other unrelated causes, whilst I am reading about the trans rights battles.

A possibly similar issue is assisted dying. I heard a lot of GC women express serious doubts about the assisted dying bill, whereas all the people I know who believe TWAW were strongly in favour. As I have mixed feelings on assisted dying, I found this polarisation quite difficult.

As an aside, I wonder to what extent algorithms presenting online content are to blame for creating these artificially “bundled” positions ( eg pro TWAW, pro Palestine, pro refugees, pro assisted dying vs GC, anti-Palestine, anti-refugees, anti-assisted dying)…?

Yes, that’s exactly what I meant. It’s exactly as a PP’s son says, they “bought their politics as a job lot” (great phrase!). I don’t understand why, though.

Exactly! I entirely agree. And I wonder how these causes get bundled together, and to what extent social media/algorithms are responsible for the polarising splits, in terms of what they present to people with specific views.

I consider myself a feminist. But I don't support all women, some women are twats.

I haven’t seen this at all. Just a few online voices. And in real life, all my GC friends are broadly left wing and broadly pro Palestine.

That said, being GC is a broad church. There are many right wing and/or racist people who are GC too. I find it frustrating that people refuse to recognise that differing sides may have the same view on some things.

I can remember when feminist analysis used to reject 'sides' in favour of alternative & co-operative methods of resolving conflict.

It's not as if they are squeamish about violence

Who's "they"?

"The master's tools will never dismantle the master's house".

Fwiw I'm pro Israel and gc. Yes I've definitely noticed that many of the twaw brigade are also pro Palestine...i find a lot of people with this mindset don't look very deeply at the issues...what's trendy at the time and virtue signalling are the order of the day for them.

Because we’re all massive bastards.

🙄

I watched a really enlightening series of films last year( made by a Canadian) in which he went around Israel, the West Bank and Gaza interviewing Israelis and Palestinians. He asked them how they saw the future; how they saw the possibility of a two state solution etc.

Overwehelmingly, about 90% of the Palestinisans were very hard line in that they would not accept the legitimacy of Israel at all. They saw the whole of the land as theirs. Whereas most Israelis were open to finding a two state solution and trying to live side by side. It was quite depressing to witness, certainly if a two state solution is how you see the way forward.

Palestinian children are brought up on a hatred of Jews and of Israel. They are highly indoctrinated. Hamas and other extremist organisations ( with the aid of Qatari money) operate TV channels in which young children are brought up to wish for the destruction of Israel; and summer camps in which children are exposed to military hardware and guerilla warfare. ( and many of these schools and camps are run by the UN)

And as you suggest above, doctors, journalists and other professionals have also been shown to belong to certain Hamas cells and have taken part in 'operations'.

I think at a deeper level we are witnessing the transition from a zeitgeist that has been all about 'openness': no borders and no boundaries...to one which is about re-establishing boundaries and borders. The zeitgeist operates at every level from the personal to the national to the political.

Well @Krakinouyou lost me in your third statement. Logically atheist? Nope. Anti-religion? Not necessarily. There is a whole wide world out there of feminists with different views on all sorts of subjects, while still being GC. You sound very narrow in your thinking.

@Shortshriftandlethal
I don't suppose you have a link or more information that would help me google the series of films you mentioned please? I'd like to learn more.