Oxfam and JKR

I don't have the answer to that, Dickens, other than the 'no debate' comes from the same stable as 'educate yourself', 'do your research', and the ridiculous 'Simples!' - it is said by people who are used to having the last word, whether in a classroom, in the home or in the workplace. It's basically saying 'I don't have to explain myself to you 🙄', or 'because I say so', and says a lot about the people saying it.

It does give the impression that they know there is no answer to the questions put forward by the so-called GC, so ignoring them or hiding behind the convenient 'No Debate' slogan is a get-out clause.

I think there are many issues relating to the topic other than womens spaces and the issues relating to children. I think telling people that what they know is a lie is in fact the truth, well I think that has far reaching consequences. I would say the same if there was a movement to convince us the moon is made of cheese.

Looks like the backlash has started:

"Oxfam is facing its day of reckoning over its treatment of women worried about their rights, it was warned today.

The charity is embroiled in a scandal following a video which appeared to brand JK Rowling a 'Terf' - a trans-exclusionary radical feminist. It also stands accused of hounding out a volunteer, who was falsely accused of transphobia, for defending the writer.

Now the charity, which was founded in Oxford in 1942, has been told it risks destroying its reputation with its pro-trans rights stance.

It has been likened to the infamous 1991 speech from Gerald Ratner, whose description of his jewellery products as 'crap' saw stocks plunge by £500million.

Today the co-founder of the Sex Matters campaign Maya Forstater said Oxfam was at a similar fork in the road.

She told MailOnline: 'I think this could be Oxfam's Ratner moment if they don't start standing up for women's rights."

People are cancelling donations.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12173267/This-Oxfams-Ratner-moment-fire-charity-accused-turning-womens-rights.html

The 'no debate' stance in its various forms is because those who do this, don't have answers to the questions they're asked. They cannot say which rights the trans gendered are being denied, because there aren't any apart from the ones some of them want, at the expense of natal women.

Just a quiet word - to say this

I'd like to comment Dickens on "why do TW women insist that there is "no debate"

My thought there is that's not fair to the many TW who agree there is a debate.

Or

The ones I've come into contact with in the Quakers have written, a series of needed dialogues to resolve difference and increase understanding. I'm not talking about my one Quaker TW friend, btw, it has been discussed far more widely and I believe is elsewhere.

Not everyone has set themselves up on either/or "Sides".

That's true there are a number of outspoken gender critical transwomen.

Unfortunately Wyllow those that shout the loudest are the ones who are heard and they're the ones who say there is no debate.

Even here on GN when sensible alternatives are suggested and there are attempts to increase understanding, accusations of transphobia are thrown into the mix.

It is a Ratner moment for Oxfam isn't it DL. I cannot believe that that cartoon was not meant to represent JKR.

You are, of course, right, Wyllow. It is the people shouting 'No Debate' that people are referring to, not those like your friend, or the others you mention. Sadly, they get caught in the crossfire, which is such a shame.

And something we always say in these discussions Doodledog, how the actions of a few impact on the majority who simply want to live the life they have chosen in peace.

Dickens

RosesandLilac

I’m sure I am not the only person who’s read this and been shocked 😳
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/06/09/oxfam-training-guide-blames-privileged-white-women-root-causes

Thankfully I stopped supporting Oxfam years ago after the Haiti abuse broke. As they probably rely on my generation to volunteer in their shops perhaps this might make some people think again.

'Mainstream feminism centres privileged white women and demands that ''bad men'' be fired or imprisoned.'

Next to the cartoon of a sobbing white woman is a caption saying that this attitude 'legitimises criminal punishment, harming black and other marginalised people'.

'White feminist tears deploy white woundedness, and the sympathy it generates, to hide the harms we perpetuate through white supremacy.'

'I would never tell a survivor of sexual violence what to do, but I would like us to have better choices than criminal punishment, media exposure, or silence.'

Alison Phipps told MailOnline today: 'I can't comment on the Oxfam training materials as I haven't seen them, but my book is grounded in a long tradition of feminist thought and politics that sees criminal punishment as part of the problem and not the solution.

What do GNetters make of this? I'm somewhat stunned by what I've read...

The discussion about criminal punishment, prisons, and state sponsored violence is one feminists have been discussing for a long time. Angela Davis first proposed the abolition of prisons.
If you are interested there's a long article here
blogs.lse.ac.uk/gender/2021/02/15/dismantling-prisons-abolitionist-feminism-women-incarceration-and-metoo/

The basic idea is that the criminal justice system and incarceration have massively failed to deal with the problems of violence and abuse, and the prison system not only perpetuates but aggravates the problem. In fact it fails both the abuser and the abused
In a world without prisons, the way to address sexual and gender-based violence without relying on state violence is through transformative justice and community-based responses rooted in care, which are not dismissive of conditions of poverty, race, and exploitation. As advocated by Angela Harris, the restorative justice lens focuses on healing, repair, and accountability. With respect to healing, this includes investing in resources to assist survivors to leave abusive environments, mental health and trauma counselling, and inclusive sexual assault centres that are accessible to all survivors. With respect to repair and accountability, this must include counselling for the person who caused harm, as well as a number of restorative justice efforts such as victim-offender mediation, community justice conferencing, workshops and trainings, removal from leadership positions, admission of guilt, public or private apologies, and specific behavioural changes.

I think in view of the recent problems with the police, the inability of the system to deal with rape, the number of accusations of assault and the continuing problem of domestic violence some other solution should be attempted. I suspect there will still be people who need to be kept away from the public. But some sort of restorative justice and monitoring with counselling might be one way to go.

Glorianny

Dickens

RosesandLilac

I’m sure I am not the only person who’s read this and been shocked 😳
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/06/09/oxfam-training-guide-blames-privileged-white-women-root-causes

Thankfully I stopped supporting Oxfam years ago after the Haiti abuse broke. As they probably rely on my generation to volunteer in their shops perhaps this might make some people think again.

'Mainstream feminism centres privileged white women and demands that ''bad men'' be fired or imprisoned.'

Next to the cartoon of a sobbing white woman is a caption saying that this attitude 'legitimises criminal punishment, harming black and other marginalised people'.

'White feminist tears deploy white woundedness, and the sympathy it generates, to hide the harms we perpetuate through white supremacy.'

'I would never tell a survivor of sexual violence what to do, but I would like us to have better choices than criminal punishment, media exposure, or silence.'

Alison Phipps told MailOnline today: 'I can't comment on the Oxfam training materials as I haven't seen them, but my book is grounded in a long tradition of feminist thought and politics that sees criminal punishment as part of the problem and not the solution.

What do GNetters make of this? I'm somewhat stunned by what I've read...

The discussion about criminal punishment, prisons, and state sponsored violence is one feminists have been discussing for a long time. Angela Davis first proposed the abolition of prisons.
If you are interested there's a long article here
blogs.lse.ac.uk/gender/2021/02/15/dismantling-prisons-abolitionist-feminism-women-incarceration-and-metoo/

The basic idea is that the criminal justice system and incarceration have massively failed to deal with the problems of violence and abuse, and the prison system not only perpetuates but aggravates the problem. In fact it fails both the abuser and the abused
In a world without prisons, the way to address sexual and gender-based violence without relying on state violence is through transformative justice and community-based responses rooted in care, which are not dismissive of conditions of poverty, race, and exploitation. As advocated by Angela Harris, the restorative justice lens focuses on healing, repair, and accountability. With respect to healing, this includes investing in resources to assist survivors to leave abusive environments, mental health and trauma counselling, and inclusive sexual assault centres that are accessible to all survivors. With respect to repair and accountability, this must include counselling for the person who caused harm, as well as a number of restorative justice efforts such as victim-offender mediation, community justice conferencing, workshops and trainings, removal from leadership positions, admission of guilt, public or private apologies, and specific behavioural changes.

I think in view of the recent problems with the police, the inability of the system to deal with rape, the number of accusations of assault and the continuing problem of domestic violence some other solution should be attempted. I suspect there will still be people who need to be kept away from the public. But some sort of restorative justice and monitoring with counselling might be one way to go.

The basic idea is that the criminal justice system and incarceration have massively failed to deal with the problems of violence and abuse, and the prison system not only perpetuates but aggravates the problem. In fact it fails both the abuser and the abused

In principle, I would not argue with this. The criminal justice system as it is clearly is not working - and not only in relation to cases involving rape. There are those incarcerated - both men and women - who, IMO, simply should not be. I know one, personally - imprisoned as an 'example'... a young woman with an infant who had thoroughly "learned her lesson" simply by being caught in the act of a minor crime, and was no threat to anyone but herself.

I first became aware of the injustice imposed on the poor when I picked up my namesake novel, Oliver Twist. "Please sir, can I have some more"... Dickens savaged the injustices applied to the impoverished – and the then infamous New Poor Law.

I wouldn't disagree with that, women in particular are often incarcerated for crimes which would be better dealt with in another way.
But not for violent sexual crime, that would impact on the most vulnerable sectors of society, it's a problem of identity politics that it ties itself in knots and forgets that kind of thing.

HousePlantQueen absolutely - it frightens me that people cannot now state an opinion without being trolled, cancelled, vilified, and having threats of every kind made to ruin them. How can we stand up to this?

A lot depends on the nature of the crime, the amount and extent of violence, whether this is the perpetrators first offence and how may victims, to name a few.

Abolishing prisons is far too simplistic in my view as is the reference to restorative justice. Whose going to ensure the perpetrator engages in victim-offender mediation and what happens if the victim is unwilling to engage?

Whose going to ensure the perpetrator takes part in community justice conferencing, workshops and trainings? Removal of leadership positions in the private sector may not be agreed upon by those with the authority to implement this.

Public and/or private apologies will not always be sincere and how is sincerity to be gauged? Specific behavioural changes may not be genuine, and whose going to be responsible for identifying the changes that are needed and ensuring that this is happening?

If there's insufficient funding to provide decent prison facilities with no overcrowding, and to encompass all of the aforementioned which IMO would be much easier to manage, control and monitor within a prison facility, how is it going to be achieved in the wider community?

I agree that restorative justice and monitoring with counselling is an important factor in rehabilitation and should be happening already within prison. Where there is availability it's insufficient so for me this is what needs addressing, not the abolition of prisons.

"I suspect there will still be people who need to be kept away from the public" well that goes without saying surely, and there are already too many examples where prisoners have been regarded as safe for release, who've been anything but.

We are standing up to it MrsNemo and the backlash Oxfam are receiving is evidence of that, it's that it's happening at all and we have to stand up to it that depresses me.

Smileless2012

A lot depends on the nature of the crime, the amount and extent of violence, whether this is the perpetrators first offence and how may victims, to name a few.

Abolishing prisons is far too simplistic in my view as is the reference to restorative justice. Whose going to ensure the perpetrator engages in victim-offender mediation and what happens if the victim is unwilling to engage?

Whose going to ensure the perpetrator takes part in community justice conferencing, workshops and trainings? Removal of leadership positions in the private sector may not be agreed upon by those with the authority to implement this.

Public and/or private apologies will not always be sincere and how is sincerity to be gauged? Specific behavioural changes may not be genuine, and whose going to be responsible for identifying the changes that are needed and ensuring that this is happening?

If there's insufficient funding to provide decent prison facilities with no overcrowding, and to encompass all of the aforementioned which IMO would be much easier to manage, control and monitor within a prison facility, how is it going to be achieved in the wider community?

I agree that restorative justice and monitoring with counselling is an important factor in rehabilitation and should be happening already within prison. Where there is availability it's insufficient so for me this is what needs addressing, not the abolition of prisons.

"I suspect there will still be people who need to be kept away from the public" well that goes without saying surely, and there are already too many examples where prisoners have been regarded as safe for release, who've been anything but.

If restorative justice and monitoring with counselling were to be implemented in the same way that "care in the community" has been, then I wouldn't have much faith in its ability to bring about any meaningful change.

It's a very frightening thought isn't it Dickens.

MrsNemo

HousePlantQueen absolutely - it frightens me that people cannot now state an opinion without being trolled, cancelled, vilified, and having threats of every kind made to ruin them. How can we stand up to this?

This is very important. We are supposed to be 'a free country'. I know that's simplistic, but as a simplification it is what a lot of people pride themselves on being part of, yet you are right - there are things that it is too risky to say out loud, as people like JKR has found. Upset the bullies and you face terrible consequences. JKR herself has the advantages of being brave, public spirited, feminist and very rich . She can take on the 'haters' in ways that more ordinary people can't.

We really do need to stand up to it, whatever our opinions on particular matters. I don't know how we do it without curtailing the rights we've been used to, and without preventing people from highlighting injustices and criminality; but somehow the cancelling and online vilification needs to stop.

Doodledog

fancythat

It is all far far more than a man power struggle going on before our very eyes.

How do you see it, fancythat?

I have lifted this in part from elsewhre on GN.
I didnt see the point in reinventing the wheel on this.
Knew it had to be spoken of, even if just a little, on GN previously.

"WEF is the World Economic Forum under the direction of Klaus Schwab. WEF goals align with UN Agenda 2030.

Their goals include the elimination of national sovereignty, elimination of private property, elimination of individual sovereignty etc. to be ruled by an elite group of globalists who will makes decisions on our behalf because we are deemed incapable.

Basically Fascism/Marxism…"

I would also add elimination of the family unit.
Trans stuff/man power stuff is a tiny part of all that. So is LGBT plus plus.

I dont know everything there is to know.
I think I am right in saying that some of this is on the UN and wef websites, but I havent looked at them recently.
Some of it is written in Klaus Schwab own book I think.

I dont see the point in a debate.
People will either choose to believe or not to believe.
Much has been written already over several years. If not on here, then elsewhere.

To be fair I dont see the point in debate is what I have been fighting against so cant say that fills me with joy.

But I dont know more the the average person in the street who is in any way interested Galaxy
I dont know anything more than what has been written about previously.

Though I am happy to join in a discussion I suppose. But I wont be the most original enlightening person on the subject.

Fancythat
When you read articles that state Klaus Schwab wants to eliminate ownership of private property, check that out.
It was never said
I’m no fan of the WEF but I like facts to be facts
Don’t believe all you read and check out the people who are writing the articles: they all have an agenda.

I have a book written by Klaus himself.
And you can see things that are actually happening around the world.
I have seen things written on the UN website.
I have seen things written on the wef website.

It is possible to go the other way with everything and not believe a single thing that is written, ever. If it doesnt suit someone or their personal narrative.

I am aware that this thread is about Oxfam.

It is also possible to dismiss something as not correct, which it might not be, and look the other way at many things that are correct.

There are all sorts of ways to deceive, even yourself.
Or manipulate, or be disingenous with others and maybe yourself.

fancythat

Doodledog

fancythat

It is all far far more than a man power struggle going on before our very eyes.

How do you see it, fancythat?

I have lifted this in part from elsewhre on GN.
I didnt see the point in reinventing the wheel on this.
Knew it had to be spoken of, even if just a little, on GN previously.

"WEF is the World Economic Forum under the direction of Klaus Schwab. WEF goals align with UN Agenda 2030.

Their goals include the elimination of national sovereignty, elimination of private property, elimination of individual sovereignty etc. to be ruled by an elite group of globalists who will makes decisions on our behalf because we are deemed incapable.

Basically Fascism/Marxism…"

I would also add elimination of the family unit.
Trans stuff/man power stuff is a tiny part of all that. So is LGBT plus plus.

I dont know everything there is to know.
I think I am right in saying that some of this is on the UN and wef websites, but I havent looked at them recently.
Some of it is written in Klaus Schwab own book I think.

I dont see the point in a debate.
People will either choose to believe or not to believe.
Much has been written already over several years. If not on here, then elsewhere.

I had an idea you were going to quote from the WEF.

There's been lots of discussions on SM sites about it. And lots of claims made about the 'new world order', and 'the great reset'.

It's difficult to gauge the exact truth - however, I always go to "Full Facts" . Some of the things said at the WEF are quoted accurately, but quite out of context. And that matters.

I'm not about to launch into an argument about what's said and what's meant - or the more bizarre scenarios that are sometimes put forward by conspiracy theorists - which is not to suggest that you are one of those - because we're going to veer off in a completely different direction to the main topic.

Suffice to say that this BBC article gives a more balanced view of the WEF.

In the hands of a diverse group of online activists, the Great Reset has been transformed - from a call to encourage people to think about a sustainable future, to a sinister plot against humanity.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-57532368

Gloryanny - what is your view? I'd be interested to hear it!