The case for socialist feminism: dayschool on class, capitalism & women's liberation

[Sacha Ismail]

Organised by the Alliance for Workers' Liberty - www.workersliberty.org

10.30am-5pm, Saturday 21 April 2007, London (venue tbc).

Waged £5, unwaged £2.50, including a pack of materials on socialist feminist ideas. There will be a creche provided. Read more for more details...

Followed from 6pm-late by a fundraising social for the Organisation of Women's Freedom in Iraq at the Ivy House, 8-10 Southampton Row, London WC1B 4AE (less than five minutes from Holborn tube). Waged £5, unwaged £3.

Discussions will include:

• What is the relationship between class, gender and other oppressions?
• How do socialism and feminism fit? Is women's liberation possible under capitalism?
• How can we get the labour movement to fight for women's rights?
• The women's movement of the 1970s and 80s: what we can learn
• The case of Iran: feminist attitudes to religious oppression, feminist attitudes to war and imperialism
• Porn, prostitution, sex work: how can we fight oppression without allying with the right?

For more information ring Sofie on 07815 490 837 or email Cathy Nugent [email protected]

 

[ViolentPanda]

Should have gone in the "announce" forum".

Typical AWL, can't even get the simple shit right!

 

[Falcon]

Discussions will not include:

- Gynocentric society and the rising 4:1 male/female teenage suicide rate [1]
- 60% of the nation's wealth by 2025 - will that be enough for women? [2]
- higher medical funding for women - strategies for reconciling with low male life expectancy [3]
- legitimising physical aggression: why women's greater use of domestic violence is acceptable [4]

[1] UK Healthcare
[2] Opn2Wealth
[3] Statistics
[4] MORI Poll

Happy International Women's Day, when it arrives.

 

[untethered]

Discussions will include:

• What is the relationship between class, gender and other oppressions?
• How do socialism and feminism fit? Is women's liberation possible under capitalism?
• How can we get the labour movement to fight for women's rights?
• The women's movement of the 1970s and 80s: what we can learn
• The case of Iran: feminist attitudes to religious oppression, feminist attitudes to war and imperialism
• Porn, prostitution, sex work: how can we fight oppression without allying with the right?

If there is a hell and I am unfortunate enough to end up there, I imagine this is pretty much what it would look like.

 

[SubZeroCat]

If there is a hell and I am unfortunate enough to end up there, I imagine this is pretty much what it would look like.

wtf?

 

[sojourner]

wtf?

Quite

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Should have gone in the "announce" forum".

Typical AWL, can't even get the simple shit right!

Given that the kibbitzing has already started it can't very well go there now....

 

[Luther Blissett]

Should have gone in the "announce" forum".

Typical AWL, can't even get the simple shit right!

Like their recent abortion rights campaign, which attempts to duplicate the existing campaign http://www.abortionrights.org.uk/, and throws some new demands into the mix.

A female student is questioning AWL/ENS elsewhere (referred to in this quote as "political faction"), and reports that in early 2006, the national Abortion Rights campaign:

had sent a leaflet to all Student Union Womens' Officers. One political faction seizes that prompt to write their own leaflet, leaving out reference to the existing campaign's 'call for support', spreading this 'duplicate with tweaks' as far as is able throughout the student union network. This factional group begin to make, in public, snide comments about the existing campaign, post circulation of their own leaflet. This faction then forms their own new Feminist Group, and begins pushing various agendas through their new mouthpiece They continue alluding to the ineffectualness of the existing campaign's methodology, even though all existing Feminist Groups in Britain are in support of the existing Campaign. Then, this Factional Feminist Group organise an Abortion Rights demo on the same day as the annual Womens' Capital Conference - an event held for what, some 10 years now? Other Feminists and Womens' Campaign Groups, shall we call them 'long established' are so aware of this annual event, that they mark it in their diary long before the publicity team for the event have got into gear publicising it in the 'usual' way. Then, this new Factional Feminist group ask the existing Abortion Rights Campaign if they can speak at their separate event. When told 'no', they label this 'flimsy pretext' and try to convey to the newbie Feminists involved in their Factional Feminism that 8 weeks advance is enough notice. The rhetoric used by the Factional Feminist group is undermining, scoffing, unsupportive, and yet they twist all this around to make it appear to their supporters that it's the existing campaign that is 'unsupportive.
http://www.educationet.org/messageboard/posts/90619.html

That typical of twist-around was of course used to great effect by the neo-conservative Bush Administration against it's political opponents, which begs the questions, why would a factional group attack an effective and well supported Abortion Rights campaign group? What, (if any), are the differences in their demands?

The Student Womens' campaigner brought up several points here and here She points out that Abortion Rights weren't "refusing" and that their refusal wasn't a "flimsy pretext" or afraid of "alienating LibDems/Tories/'Blairites", and the AWL/ENS retort with an accusation that the existing Abortion Rights Campaign have a "desire to boycott the [AWL/ENS] march!" (http://www.educationet.org/messageboard/posts/90651.html)

The 3rd March was the NHS Day of Action, and on this day, the Abortion Rights launched the "40 years on - time for a modern abortion law!" Campaign.

I've had a look now, and there are not very subtle differences between the AWL/ENS abortion rights campaign and the existing well established Abortion Rights Campaign. AWL/ENS takes all their aims, and then adds these clauses - AWL/ENS want the taxpayer to fund abortion (An end to privatisation, marketisation and fragmentation in the NHS; increased public funding to guarantee free and equal access to abortion), they want to improved access to and increased choice of publicly funded contraception. (it's free already to students and exempt citizens from the local Family Planning Clinic, and has been for years - you go in, and they give you a bag of juicy condoms of all shapes and sizes - the cutesy grin from the women is also free), AWL/ENS want to add "clear, honest, comprehensive and confidential sexuality and relationship education for all children which addresses issues of consent and domestic violence" (in an abortion campaign?) and they want to add this, which looks like the same demands made by the Christian (esp. USA Catholic) leftwing:

- A real 'right to choose' which also means the right to have a child free from economic and social pressure. This requires a real living wage for all workers, benefits which can be lived on and rise with earnings, universal publicly funded childcare and an end to the stigmatisation of single mothers.
http://www.educationet.org/messageboard/posts/90525.html

My girlfriend is getting visibly upset here, and tells me that she's never heard of feminists (socialist or otherwise) confusing issues for an Abortion Rights Campaign before, and she's phoned just about every female friend and relative to rant at them about this. While I was trying to calm her down, I asked her how she'd react if she was confronted by an abortion rights campaign that thrust that last clause at her, and she told me that she'd be suspicious and tell them that belongs in a broader womens' rights campaign, and not in an abortion rights campaign. I think she has a strong point. What do you all think?

 

[Tokyo]

I asked her how she'd react if she was confronted by an abortion rights campaign that thrust that last clause at her, and she told me that she'd be suspicious and tell them that belongs in a broader womens' rights campaign, and not in an abortion rights campaign. I think she has a strong point. What do you all think?

What are you saying? Are you saying that you think that this clause is inessential, and so the abortion campaign shouldn't be calling for it (which would be a plausible position, though I'd disagree) - or are you insinuating that the campaign is in some way secretly trying to undermine its own proposals by accommodating to a (left)-Catholic point of view (which it does come over as, but would be ridiculous, so I'm probably just misinterpreting you).

 

[Crispy]

I think the point is that single issue campaigns get easily strangled by people pinning wider struggles on them.

 

[untethered]

I think Luther is suggesting that the new campaign is splitting support for the established one either for egocentric reasons or for mischievous ones.

Probably more of the former, to be likely. Narcissism of minor difference and all that.

 

[Tokyo]

I think the point is that single issue campaigns get easily strangled by people pinning wider struggles on them.

Hmm - but this is basically a broader organisation involved in (or at least standing for) wider struggles which is prioritising abortion rights. The fact that Feminist Fightback's demands are not solely those of Abortion Rights (the former National Abortion Campaign) seems a pretty good reason why they are organising some things separately.

I think Luther is suggesting that the new campaign is splitting support for the established one either for egocentric reasons or for mischievous ones.

Probably more of the former, to be likely. Narcissism of minor difference and all that.

But it basically supports the Abortion Rights campaign. It doesn't ask people not to support it, not to get involved with it, etc. This article by an activist essentially says that Abortion Rights is doing good work, but they believe that it needs to do more - and doesn't it make sense for a separate group to organise activities which they want to make happen, but the older organisation can't or won't prioritise?

Rather than splitting support, it seems to me that they are doing additional things - which is surely a good thing?

 

[Falcon]

The fact that Feminist Fightback's demands are not solely those of Abortion Rights (the former National Abortion Campaign) seems a pretty good reason why they are organising some things separately.

The fact that Feminist Fightback's agenda is fundamentally opportunist in nature seems a pretty good reason why their demands are sometimes those of Abortion Rights, and sometimes those of Pro-Life, depending on whatever provides the most expedient line of attack the time.

 

[Dignity]

When will the world be a better place?

When people do not want to see the broader picture, but focus on the things that irritate them, and insist on using excerpts of statistics and parts of quotes and twisted truths we will never get anywhere. Falcon, your references earlier on just show how statistics can be misused, how can you "summarize" your references like that and ignore other statements that weaken your case in the very same reference?
And maybe websites run by bitter men should be avoided just as much as web sites run by bitter women...

And happy International Women's Day to you too. It is an important day worldwide. As the UN Beijing Platform of Action states: "empowerment of women and equality between women and men are prerequisites for achieving political, social, economic, cultural and environmental security among all peoples". We do not achieve this by referring to fundamentalism, opportunism, attacks, or by rubbishing anyone's beliefs and feelings, but by asking "what is the best thing I can do for my neighbour today?" Happy Peoples' Day, everyday!

 

[Falcon]

Thank you Dignity. With all due respect, the statistics came from MORI, the BBC, the National Office of Statistics, the Open University - not institutions one immediately associates with bitter old men. Nor is it clear to me why e.g. "Porn, prostitution, sex work: how can we fight oppression without allying with the right" - based presumably on some objective criteria - is obviously balanced, straight and inclusive of all possible views while e.g. "Gynocentric society and the rising 4:1 male/female teenage suicide rate" is not.

My point is not that the statistics "prove" anyone's particular beliefs are right or wrong. However, it is the case that we have built a society in which an increasing number of young men would rather take their own lives than endure living in it; by the time my sons reach the age of maturity, they will be in the financial minority; that they and I are more likely to die earlier than you, but our nations health spending priorities do not reflect that; and that in a sample of 1900 adults by a professional polling organisation, women were 5 percentage points more likely to have committed domestic violence than men.

I can't say that proves mens' freedoms are more or less represented in our society. I can say that if it were truly necessary to "get the labour movement to fight for women's rights", I would have expected the case for doing so to be more readily evident in commonplace statistics than it is. I am left wondering how those who attend dayschools in feminist socialism accommodate themselves to these realities (other than by not talking about them, which was my post).

(For my part, I think gender as a basis for analysing societies ills carries about as much relevance today as star signs do. So I agree with you about the value of asking "what is the best thing I can do for my neighbour". Without wishing to discourage you, I recently concluded that it was to go to my sons' school to provide a positive role model for the fatherless boys by reading to them. Unfortunately, that came to a sad end when the headmistress withdrew permission after receiving complaints from the mothers about her allowing an unaccompanied man in the classroom! Let me say I'm not bitter that the children are now read to by unaccompanied women, but I am very sorry for our children being raised in such a skewed society.)

 

[ViolentPanda]

If there is a hell and I am unfortunate enough to end up there, I imagine this is pretty much what it would look like.

Your idea of hell is left-oriented feminism?

Poor you, you must have some monstrous hang-ups and complexes to cause you to envision hell in such a way.

Ever considered therapy (electro-convulsive, preferably)?

 

[brasicritique]

fat van man strikes again

 

[ViolentPanda]

fat van man strikes again

Ho ho ho.

Could you get any more pathetic?

Nah.

 

[Luther Blissett]

Your idea of hell is left-oriented feminism?

Poor you, you must have some monstrous hang-ups and complexes to cause you to envision hell in such a way.

Ever considered therapy (electro-convulsive, preferably)?

Would that it were left-oriented feminism.
This is Third Way Centrism, the type that Blair and Clinton promote.
Three of AWL/ENS/FEMINIST FIGHTBACK clauses belong to the THIRD WAY pro-life 'camp' and do not belong in a pro-choice abortion campaign. (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Third_Way, http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Third_Way_Foundation, http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1534, http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1463)

These issues are part of the US-Third Way led pro-life campaign aimed at reducing the amount of abortions by 95% in the next 10 years. I'll mark them in BLUE in their demo advert, so that you know which ones I'm talking about.

“The Reducing the Need for Abortion and Supporting Parents Act” is an initiative that will work to reduce the number of abortions in America by both preventing unintended pregnancies and supporting pregnant women and new parents. This bill enables pro-life and pro-choice advocates to find common ground to reduce the number of abortions in America while protecting personal liberties.
http://www. third-way.com/products/60

and also here too - these two groups represent the growing neo-conservative support in the 'Democrat' camp.

Pro-life Democrats in Congress who share this same commitment will introduce the Pregnant Women Support Act, a comprehensive bill to provide support for pregnant women who want to carry their child to term. Some of the programs included are: establishing a toll-free number to direct women to places that will provide support and Pregnancy Counseling and Childcare on University Campuses, requiring doctors to provide accurate information to patients receiving a positive results from prenatal testing and counseling in maternity group homes, making the Adoption Tax Credits Permanent and Increase Tax Credit The legislation would eliminate pregnancy as a pre-existing condition, supports Informed Consent for Abortion Services, increases Funding for Domestic Violence Programs, requires the SCHIP to cover pregnant women and unborn children. It further provides free home visits by registered nurses for new mothers, incentives to reduce teen pregnancy and provides protection for pregnant college students who wish to continue their education.
http://www. democratsforlife.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=48&Itemid=45

It's important to realise that the BLUE ISSUES called by AWL/ENS/Feminist Fightback are not Abortion Rights (was NAC) Issues, and the RED ISSUES are already covered by the existing ABORTION RIGHTS CAMPAIGN. In GREEN, are NHS ISSUES and part of the existing campaign: http://www.keepournhspublic.com/index.php which is shared with the FPA (Family Planning Association) (and also the existing Abortion Rights Campaign).

AWL/ENS/Feminist Fightback ABORTION DEMO ADVERT:

Support for the 3 March protest for abortion rights, called by the Feminist Fightback conference, is growing. This is an extremely important opportunity to protest against attacks on abortion rights and demand a genuine right to choose, so please get in touch, support us and come along.
[...]
We need your help in building the protest for abortion rights due to take place on Saturday 3 March.[...]

To mark the 40th anniversary of the 1967 Abortion Act which legalised abortion in Britain, the organising session of the conference agreed to hold a torch-lit march for abortion rights in central London a day close to International Women's Day (which is Thursday 8 March). With anti-choice right-wingers currently on the offensive, we believe that this protest is very important indeed.

We will be meeting on Saturday 3 March from 6.30pm at University of London Union on Malet Street (Goodge Street, Euston, Euston Square or Russell Square tube), to march followed by a rally. This event is open to all, men and women. Our demands are:
- No reduction in the 24-week time limit for access to abortion.
- The right to abortion on demand (this means an end to having to get the consent of two doctors) up to the legal time limit.
- The extension of abortion rights to women in Northern Ireland.
- Abortion to be integrated into the NHS as an ordinary medical service. [LB notes: this also shared by FPA and other womens' orgs in order to facilitate waiting time and ease of localised access) .
- An end to privatisation, marketisation and fragmentation in the NHS; increased public funding to guarantee free and equal access to abortion.
- Improved access to and increased choice of publicly funded contraception.
- Clear, honest, comprehensive and confidential sexuality and relationship education for all children which addresses issues of consent and domestic violence.
- A real 'right to choose' which also means the right to have a child free from economic and social pressure. This requires a real living wage for all workers, benefits which can be lived on and rise with earnings, universal publicly funded childcare and an end to the stigmatisation of single mothers.
http://www.educationet.org/messageboard/posts/90525.html

 

[Falcon]

It reads like a Manifesto for the Sexually Incontinent i.e.

- Increased ability to avoid the consequences, but no obligation to use it.
- Increased ability to dispose of the consequences, but no obligation to avoid it
- Increased ability to live with the consequences, but no obligation to fund it.

I can see how this farrago of resentments might be attractive to some people. It's less clear how a society comprised exclusively of people for whom that might be attractive would be viable. In the event that everyone exercised their "right" to "have a child free from economic and social pressure", for example, there would be no-one left to provide the means to do so.

 

[Sacha Ismail]

The point along the lines of "You advocate a living wage, childcare, decent healthcare etc so you're not really pro-choice" is just surreal and I won't bother to answer it in detail.

For the rest - Luther Blissett, your facts are totally wrong. Tell your girlfriend she doesn't have to be upset, since no socialists have tried to hinder or undermine any pro-choice campaign.

Here's what happened.

Last year a group of mainly young, mainly socialist/anarchist feminists (including AWL women) decided they wanted to organise a feminist conference - this became Feminist Fightback, which was attended by over 220 people. The planning meetings for this event decided they wanted to have a session on abortion rights, so they immediately contacted the Abortion Rights campaign to ask for a speaker. This is part-time activists emailing a group with lots of funding and a full-time office! After a long delay and repeated requests, they were told that no one would be able to attend - even though the event was not for another eight weeks! They were also told, somewhat bizarrely, that Abortion Rights could not advertise the conference they would not be speaking.

To everyone involved, this seemed pretty implausible. But, benefit of the doubt and all that. The abortion rights session at the conference decided they would like to organise a demonstration for abortion rights. So, again, the first thing they did was to write to Abortion Rights asking if they could cooperate to organise one. Again, no response for a long time, despite repeated attempts. So they got on with organising it, this time writing to Abortion Rights to ask for a speaker at the demo.

Eventually, after the repeated requests, a reply: sorry, we can't as the event clashes with the Capital Woman conference (and again, we can't advertise it because no speaker!) But in fact there was no clash! Capital Woman finished at 5.15pm, the march didn't even start to assemble until 6.30pm and the rally wasn't until 8pm (all in central London). This was pointed out, but Abortion Rights simply chose not to reply.

Then, suddenly, it was announced that Abortion Rights would be holding a press stunt earlier the same day.

Isn't this sectarianism of the most appalling kind? Not on the part of Feminist Fightback, ENS Women or AWL etc but on the part of Abortion Rights! And yet all these groups continue to support and advocate affiliation to Abortion Rights, regardless of their criticisms and how they have been treated...

 

[Sacha Ismail]

PS It's very frustrating that all kinds of unjustified rumours are circulating, so that people like LB's girlfriend think that there are socialists trying to undermine abortion rights campaigning. Spread the word about the truth!

 

[Sacha Ismail]

Also, let's not miss the fundamental thing. Last Saturday evening, 250 people, mostly young women, took part in a torch-lit march through central London, followed by speakers including a left-wing Labour MP, a US pro-choice activist, trade unionists from the CWU and Unison and an Iranian women's activist. They tried desperately to get Abortion Rights to work with them on this. There can be little doubt that if AR had, the march would have been much bigger. So the question is why wouldn't AR take part? (And before someone says the demands were wrong, they were fixed AFTER Abortion Rights refused to participate - though why exactly it should object to an end to NHS privatisation, decent childcare and a living wage is also an interesting question...)

 

[Luther Blissett]

duplicate post

 

[Luther Blissett]

Do you always put words into the mouths of organisations you oppose? You are making assumptions bout the existing Abortion Rights Campaign that have no basis in facts other than your own 'imagination'.

This is blatant sectarianism.

You haven't given any explanation for including pro-Life campaign issues in YOUR plagiarised 'Abortion Rights' campaign, or addressed the (US) Third Way/Progressive Policy Alliance pro-Life clauses that you added or the 95/10 Campaign.

When you've finished addressing the points raised on this thread, rather than lurch into yet another 'how super we are' advert for your political faction, perhaps you'd like to address why you're also duplicating the CODEPINK UK Feminists against the War group instead of offering real solidarity. I thought your faction's watchword was 'solidarity'. Instead you appear to be deliberately using entryist tactics along with political backbiting, public defamation, and pre-emptive accusations as to the motives of those whom you consider to be 'opposition' to set up a rival campaign.

You claim your group is 'socialist feminist', yet it resembles third way centrism.

 

[Sacha Ismail]

I honestly don't understand much of what you've just written, but I'll have a guess and do my best to reply. I notice you haven't replied to my point about the behaviour of Abortion Rights? Why is that? Will you reply please?

> Do you always put words into the mouths of organisations you oppose? You are making assumptions bout the existing Abortion Rights Campaign that have no basis in facts other than your own 'imagination'.

What assumptions? That eg, though this is very directly linked to access to abortion, fragmentation and privatisation in the NHS? But they don't! Can you deny this? But this is not the key point here. Despite ENS Women etc's criticisms, they tried repeatedly to involve Abortion Rights - but were met with refusal. This is the basic reality you refuse to deal with, unsurprisingly since it must be very embarrassing.

> This is blatant sectarianism.

Huh?

> You haven't given any explanation for including pro-Life campaign issues in YOUR plagiarised 'Abortion Rights' campaign

But no one has set up an alternative abortion rights campaign, plagiarised or otherwise. They simply had a demo, which they tried to involve AR in but they refused. And sorry, why is supporting a living wage, decent childcare and decent health services "pro-life" eg anti-choice? And are you trying to suggest that the demo wasn't really pro-choice?

> or addressed the (US) Third Way/Progressive Policy Alliance pro-Life clauses that you added or the 95/10 Campaign.

I don't understand this at all.

> When you've finished addressing the points raised on this thread, rather than lurch into yet another 'how super we are' advert for your political faction, perhaps you'd like to address why you're also duplicating the CODEPINK UK Feminists against the War group instead of offering real solidarity.

I have literally no idea what this refers to. In fact I barely understand the sentence.

> You claim your group is 'socialist feminist', yet it resembles third way centrism.

Again, I say: huh?

 

[Nigel]

Altough I have no great love for the politcs of the AWL, and at the same time achknowledge that although delusional, and forced into counter prodctive and sectarian positions on other issues, e.g. Trade Unionism,South America; & seem to have some collective submissive sado-masochistic relationship with some elements in the SWP, they do have a few good political activists.

This is tremendously brave, dynamic and completely necessary initiative. From what i've seen and heard of this dynamic its the best thing that has happened for years in the Feminist/Womens movement and I hope it goes well. I can't think of any Left Wing Feminist/Socialist Feminist group that has been active and had a clear political & ideological structure as this since Womens Voice (SWP faction in early eighties).

The only criticism i would have is that it still has a tendency to play into victim culture: should have more of a Paglian perspective. But at the end of the day its not my position to criticise.

Surely better education, availability of contraception, mornining after pill etc. leading to less termination of pregnencies is a good thing. In my opinion and that of many women as well abortion are at worse a necessary evil and cannot be a pleasant experience.

One thing that does perplex me about this thread is why a male full timer for the AWL is defending it against what I think to be someone who is a of the same gender.

 

[Sacha Ismail]

Thanks, Nigel!

The reason I'm defending it is because, as far as I know, no other AWL members read Urban 75. Perhaps this is a deficiency on our part, but that's a different question.

Sacha

PS In what way are we sectarian on the trade unions?

 

[Nigel]

Around the PCS and CWU recently?
Possibly

 

[Luther Blissett]

The point along the lines of "You advocate a living wage, childcare, decent healthcare etc so you're not really pro-choice" is just surreal and I won't bother to answer it in detail.

I haven't made that point - I haven't said those words.

I've said that the issues highlighted in Red are part of the existing Abortion Rights campaign, which unequivocably deserves 'our' support (a support that ought to reach out beyond narcissistic sectarianism).

I've said that the issues highlighted in Blue are part of the Third Way (this is part of the Progressive Policy Institute) and is the same Third Way centrism favoured by Clinton and Blair, the Neo-Democrats, and various leftist religious pro-Lifers. I passed no judgement on these issues and showed their political/social origins.

I've said that the issue in highlighted in Green is part of 'our' 'Keep the NHS Public' (and also of the NHS Together) campaign - it an issue as common to Abortion Rights as it is to Senior Citizens waiting for Cataract or Hip operations.

For the rest - Luther Blissett, your facts are totally wrong. Tell your girlfriend she doesn't have to be upset, since no socialists have tried to hinder or undermine any pro-choice campaign.

She's not convinced. She's not entirely convinced that you're socialists or leftists yet, you could well be laissez-faire capitalists, centrists. What is it specifically that makes your organisation 'socialist' or 'leftist'?

Here's what happened.
Last year a group of mainly young, mainly socialist/anarchist feminists (including AWL women) decided they wanted to organise a feminist conference - this became Feminist Fightback, which was attended by over 220 people. The planning meetings for this event decided they wanted to have a session on abortion rights, so they immediately contacted the Abortion Rights campaign to ask for a speaker. This is part-time activists emailing a group with lots of funding and a full-time office! After a long delay and repeated requests, they were told that no one would be able to attend - even though the event was not for another eight weeks! They were also told, somewhat bizarrely, that Abortion Rights could not advertise the conference they would not be speaking.

The Feminist conference was a fine idea. The scurrilous and very public suppositions on why someone from the Abortion Rights campaign was unable to attend your political factions' conference are either childish conjecture on your part, or a deliberate attempt to publicly demean the exisiting Abortion Rights campaign - this aspect is not so fine. Why? Mainly because it's indicative that you're viewing the Abortion Rights Campaign as a vehicle to help you accomplish your purposes, and you feel let down by them because they weren't able to attend, and public derision of them is your way of punishing them. Your relationship to Abortion Rights is 'I-It' and has a certain level of manipulation from your quarter attached to it, else you would not have reacted in this way. It would have been better if you had kept things private, written a letter saying how disappointed you were that they couldn't on this occasion be present, mentioned that you hoped there would be a point in the future where they would be free to offer a speaker at one of your future feminist seminars, and continued on with your campaign without this public conjecture/derision of the Abortion Rights Campaign. The manipulative techniques you used here are not the best way to achieve solidarity, but you don't need me to tell you that, right?

To everyone involved, this seemed pretty implausible. But, benefit of the doubt and all that.

Benefit of the doubt would mean not publicly accusing them of 'flimsy pretext', or refraining from conjecture on public forums as to why there was no-one available on the day of your vigil to speak.

The abortion rights session at the conference decided they would like to organise a demonstration for abortion rights. So, again, the first thing they did was to write to Abortion Rights asking if they could cooperate to organise one. Again, no response for a long time, despite repeated attempts. So they got on with organising it, this time writing to Abortion Rights to ask for a speaker at the demo.

Has it occurred to you that Abortion Rights is a campaign with a small number of staff, who have a daily schedule of operation, who have a fully booked up schedule stretching months into the future? What if those women at the Capital Women conference had family to attend to? Children? Pre-booked trains to catch? Your response at their inability to comply with an 8-week notice on your part was petty, partisan, and a whole lot of other 'p' words. Frankly, I'm disappointed - FemFightback is a great idea - but as for being 'socialist' or 'anarchist' in it's operation, no, sorry - there's a long way to go before you display 'anarchist' and 'socialist' tendencies in your mode of approach to gaining cooperation from other groups who are all working towards similar goals.

Eventually, after the repeated requests, a reply: sorry, we can't as the event clashes with the Capital Woman conference (and again, we can't advertise it because no speaker!) But in fact there was no clash! Capital Woman finished at 5.15pm, the march didn't even start to assemble until 6.30pm and the rally wasn't until 8pm (all in central London). This was pointed out, but Abortion Rights simply chose not to reply.

Your AWL/ENS Women/FemFightback group were not happy with the response, and believed that 45mins was enough time to get from A to B. I've looked at that educationet forum, and you yourself (assuming you write there as "left-opposition boy") said that it takes at least 30 mins to get from where Abortion Rights were, to where you were. You show very little understanding or respect for the schedules of those individuals involved in the Abortion Rights Campaign. Your very public derision of Abortion Rights is indicative of the potential for future communication difficulties between you, especially from your organisation.

Then, suddenly, it was announced that Abortion Rights would be holding a press stunt earlier the same day.

Then, suddenly, you noticed the Capital Women conference and the Abortion Rights campaign website was advertising the launch of a new campaign - you call this 'a press stunt'. The language you personally use is not one of support, it is derisive, divisive, scathing, uncooperative, aggressive.

Isn't this sectarianism of the most appalling kind? Not on the part of Feminist Fightback, ENS Women or AWL etc but on the part of Abortion Rights!

At the moment, it looks like sectarian slurs on the part of AWL/ENS Women/FeministFightback. Not once have Abortion Rights campaign demeaned your organisation in public, and yet your organisation has responded (disappointment?) to their inability to attend your meetings with sectarian language, and public derision of the Abortion Rights Campaign, as well as attempted to project a motive for their inability to be present at one of your events.

And yet all these groups continue to support and advocate affiliation to Abortion Rights, regardless of their criticisms and how they have been treated...

Your organisation AWL/ENS/FemFightback has been treated by Abortion Rights in a professional manner, and yet spokepeople for your organisation has derided them across at least two public internet forums, several times since Abortion Rights Campaign 2006 call to students for support.

It would be so much more constructive if this type of very public derision of Abortion Rights Campaign and of the dedicated women involved in the Abortion Rights Campaign (who give of their time and energy) was dropped by AWL/ENS/FeministFightback, and instead, your organisation were to try for a more cooperative manner. If your organisation could learn from these experiences - 8 weeks is obviously not enough notice; - trying to double-book them after an all-day conference wass not wise; it was not 'supportive' to publicly deride them for not being present ( since as individuals or as a Campaign they are under no obligation to offer AWL/ENS/FeministFightback any further explanation as to the reasons why they could not be present at the time and place of your choosing).

Other approaches are possible - an open letter asking when they are free, a reply from you saying when you are free within those times they gave, an offer to arrange one of your symposiums around their ability to provide a speaker. Abortion Rights Campaign is a small organisation, but a longstanding one, and has much support across the board from a broad feminist movement. They have done and continue to do so much for Abortion Rights - they do not deserve the public derisions and childish conjecture that you are making, and if it is your intent to support their good work, then this was not the way to go about it. If it was your intent to engage in trotty manipulative politics, then you've succeeded. I would hope that this public sniping won't be the future modus operandi of AWL/ENS/FeministFightback.