Thread derailment

[Temporaryusernamefortoday]

Wondering if I am the only one that’s noticed more and more thread derailments. I’m not talking about TRA taking a TWAW stance but an individual being deliberately obtuse or missing the point of an individuals posts to create an argument about a tangential element. It just seems rather insidious and designed to prevent proper conversation.

This is not a TAT but a thread about a phenomenon.

And that equality will NEVER be achieved when men are included.

That's my point: it doesn't matter whether other groups think that GC feminists are not feminists. What matters is whether GC feminists hold an internally coherent view with regards to fighting for women's rights.

Okay and again that's your opinion and why you are a GC feminist. That isn't the only type of feminism though.

What type of feminism includes men?

The thing is, and I know this from my subgroup of feminism, it probably won't be as simple as that. As well as being GC, GC feminists will hold a variety of other identities, labels and/or experiences which will mean they have different views on several other issues affecting women and girls.

So when it comes to all GC feminists holding a consistent "internally coherent view" about what needs fighting for and how to fight for it, you'll struggle. It goes for every subgroup. Only one issue or identity or label really links us but away from that one issue, our commonalities are few.

My particular subgroup are very split on issues like abortion, religion and sex generally.

I did not expect to come back to this thread and find that it had resonated with so many people!

I am pleasantly surprised to see how fabulously some people have articulated things that I could not. Gaslighting presented as reasonableness being one such observation.

I am entertained to see the tactics being employed by some on this thread! I am firmly GC, having had a ‘be kind’ phase over a decade ago.

I can say that when I went through that phase I suffered from a sense of patronising moral superiority, which made it impossible for me to engage with those on the GC side, I see others on this thread suffering from the same malaise.

I’m not sure what snapped me out of it but I can’t help feeling that if someone had asked me if I would be willing to have my hypothetical daughter sharing a cell with Isla Bryson a TiM rapist, I wouldn’t have been able to mentally gymnastic myself into a yes.

That is what you as ‘be kind’ are fighting for, the rights of a rapist to be locked up with your hypothetical daughter. Prioritising his feelings over her safety, but maybe you think women in prison deserve to be intimidated and raped.

Feminism that isn't GC.

Most Feminism includes men to the extent that it recognises how gender roles and the patriarchy harms everyone. Lots of feminists belive a more equal society will give men more true choice about how they live their lives.

A simple example being that equal pay for women will mean more families have a real choice about who goes back to work and on what basis. A lot of families simply couldn't afford to live on the woman's equally grafted but much lower pay, so the man has to return to FT work and the woman may have to sacrifice her career.

Who isn't GC on this thread?

This is a salient point. Often people seem to think that feminism, or every person who posts on FWR, or anyone who believes sometimes sex is important, all agree on everything. This is a very juvenile opinion and it's important to remember that we can fight for female equality even if our priorities are all different.

We've already, in this thread, had one sole person give an off-hand example of a Marxist board only to have someone demonstrate that they believe this is representative of what 'GC people as a whole' think here:

However, it makes more sense why the GC people see is as derailing if they think this is akin to a Marxist Socialist board where people with a specific viewpoint are invited to congregate.

The views of one are being ascribed to 'GC people' - 'they'. On the basis on one person posting it.

Only one issue or identity or label really links us but away from that one issue, our commonalities are few.

Agreed. We're all women.
Although I take issue with the word 'identity'.

If you're including people that underpin our oppression, there is precious little point to having a movement at all.

The operative word is IF. And since I haven't really seen anyone challenging the posters who said the board is primarily for GC feminists, in fact theyve posted in support of it, i can only think they have a common perception of this section of Mumsnet.

GC feminism is about the harms of gender stereotypes. It's right there in the name Gender Critical - the critique of gender stereotypes/expectations

You seem to be reading a very different site to me.

New posters often turn up, ahgast that GC perspectives that they are unused to seeing in other contexts due to (online) heavy moderation/bans, and (offline) the chilling effect of heavily pro-GC diversity policies in work and media are allowed to stand, and challenge the GC position using what they believe are the unassailable arguments they have seen elsewhere.

They are shocked to discover that not only are these arguments not in fact unassailable but in fact rest on weak logic and/or inaccurate information, but they have been raised, discussed, challanged and dissected many many times before (something the crusading new posters would know had they the basic online ettiquette to do a few searches, or today even ask a GPT for a precis of what has been previously said on the topic), to the degree that FWR regulars have evolved a literal playbook for answers to the same old arguments.

At this point, one of four things will happen:

They listen, stay around, evolve their arguements and understanding. They may move to a more GC position, they may not, but either way they take what other posters are saying on board. This is good faith.

They disappear in horror, never to come back. Also good faith.

They disappear from FWR most of the time, but pop up on threads like this and general MN "what don't you like about MN?" type threads to complain about FWR pile ons and how they were bullied off for not toeing some FWR party line (as opposed to the reality that they simply had nothing new to bring beyond already debunked claims and emotional manipulations that have just stopped working). This is - questionable faith. On balance I think they do believe their hype, but manipulative people often do, and it does have the I'm sure unintentional advantage that anyone who says "No, it wasn't quite like that" can immediately be used as proof of just how bullying FWR is. A catch 22 - if you say nothing the lie stands, and if you say something, it just proves the lie.

They engage with the counter arguments on the thread, yes simply disputing rather than learning but neverthess acknowledging those posts have been read, but then pop up with exactly the same claims and the same "facts" on the next thread and the next and the next, all wide eyed as if they had never come across any differing positions or had the "facts" challenged and debunked. This is not good faith.

I will engage with the latter group (I know many FWR regulars will not), not because I think there is any hope that they are anything other bad faith posters, but because I think it's important that other readers who may not be aware that this is a groundhog day poster are given the full picture by either referring back to the times this topic has been discussed with the same poster at length, or by referring to a thread covering the same ground with a different poster and suggesting the new poster reads it first then comes back with an argument that progresses from what's already been said rather than simply restarts it.

The board is moderated fairly. The fact that GI arguments are weak is not a moderation issue.

Yes some members of my subgroup feel like that about inclusion of women from dominant demographics in our feminist circles. Not all. But some.

Debunking facts is a whole other issue I do want to address but I think that may have to be for another day.

Just to be clear - if someone says something and other posters don't line up to set out which bits they agree with or disagree with, your assumption is that all other posters agree? That's the 'only' thing you can think?

We're literally on a thread talking about how sometimes it's best to just ignore things you disagree with in order to keep on track, so that's an odd conclusion to draw, to be honest, and it's not been evident in any forum I've seen.

Yes well that's what I mean. Most feminism includes men. It just recognises that women are oppressed.

Well, in a way, yes. Especially in a climate where other posts are picked apart. If this level of scrutiny is a norm, rather than specific to posters whose GC status is unestablished or is known not to be GC.

If it is just about debunking falsehoods, then it would be important to correct anything false, regardless of its source. Just so we are all on the same page.

I don't understand your answer. You originally said only GC feminism doesn't include men . Now you say that my definition of GC feminism shows that it includes men.

What if they did? IMO “trans inclusive” feminists are trying to subvert feminism almost as much. Misogyny runs through the “trans rights” movement like a stick of rock.

I cannot think of any women, part of a 'dominant demographic' or not that should be excluded from feminism.
I include all women in feminism. I could disagree with them on a billion different things. I will still stand up for their rights as women. Even if I strongly disagree with everything else they stand for.

That's the beauty of feminism. The welfare of all women is fought for. As long as you are actually a woman.

Fucking hell

It's "for" GC feminists only in the sense that it is one of the few mainstream places (more now, but in the past few few indeed) where the impact of Genderist belief on female people and their intersection with sexism in terms of systemic male power and gender stereotypes can be discussed, and these are things that GC Feninists want to discuss.

But it's not "for" GC feminists in the sense that only GC perspectives are allowed. Quite the opposite. GC Feminists need to see the opposing arguments well made.

Currently I am GC because I have never seen an argument that convinces me that the consequences of having a female body are insignificant enough to ignore in society, language and law in favour of a mental preference, but I remain open to the possibility somewhere out there is a killer fact or perspective that will make it all make sense.

Exactly.

I think the whole "includes men" thing is a bit of a red herring tbh. It sounds good because it quietly suggests that women who aren't GC are "pick me's", but as you pointed out, not many brands of feminism exclude men, anyway. So GC feminism isn't "male exclusionary". You just don't recognise TMAM or TWAW. It's about a particular stance on one issue.

[replied to wrong post]