Does activism achieve anything?

Toeing the party line i see

I think activism in itself is fine when it reflects the broader view of a particular grouping.
However, I see problems can occur when a person is either termed an “activist” or is self appointed, but speaks from their own viewpoint and not the broader group. Using their activism more for their own “empowerment” rather than speaking for a particular grouping.

In this day and age an “activist” can very easily create a high profile on social media, creating an impression that all of the activist’s views are reflected by the broader grouping they purport to represent.
But more often than not this is not the case. It is just an individual who has created a visible profile, with an opinion.

It seems to have brought success for the campaign group ‘For Women Scotland’. They formed in 2018 and after a lengthy legal campaign, the Supreme Court in the UK ruled yesterday that "the terms woman and sex in the Equality Act 2010 (in the UK) refer to a biological woman and biological sex".

probably both.

Other examples of activism here was to get new pedestrian crossing beside the boys primary school …and get the tennis courts in the park refurbished…. Both required direct community intervention.

That isn't true. The majority of Irish People were against Irish Water for what it was, a cash grab and certain privatisation mimicked on the absolute clusterfúck that is the water services in Wales and England.

Everyone should be on their bloody knees thanking the people who protested against the privatisation of our water.

Because if it hadn't happened that bill would have skyrocketed, just like the bin charges did.

People learned, and they said not this time.

Exactly. A lifestyle of doing good and fighting for things you believe in and that other people would believe in as well if they had a clue - heaven forbid.

Heaven forbid that someone would make being an activist a part of their personality as opposed to being involved in a useless, ultimately meaningless hobby or having opinions about shows and celebrities.

The coverage of Just Stop Oil in the UK was a great example. They blocked roads and caused disruption as a method of protest. The coverage was all about disruption and "what about if an ambulance needs to get through?" And "what if a woman is in labour trying to get to hospital?". They made it so much about these 2 points that they were able to limit the segment on the protest to these two questions over and over again, without ever going into depth on the point of the protest.

Contrast that with the coverage of the farmers' protests a few months ago. There was no mention of the fact that they blocked the roads and they weren't asked about ambulances or women in labour getting to hospital at all. The focus was on the numbers and the policy being discussed. Nobody called them crusties.

In other words, it was sanctioned by the media as a legitimate protest. So they were facilitated to discuss their actual point rather than being sidetracked with chat about how disruptive the protest was for people.

It doesn't mean one protest was right and the other was wrong, but it's interesting to see how we're told to think about a protest based on how it's covered by the media

As Pointed out below, I think you're reaching with the comparison. And reaching again with the contrast in how JSO and farmers were covered in the media when they both blocked traffic in London.

There wasn't even a mention of farmers blocking traffic and potentially preventing ambulances and women in labour getting to hospital. It was the first and main thing JSO were asked about in interviews. It didn't take the media ages to start asking JSO about traffic, it was their main question.

That's only because civil disobedience didn't go far enough. The majority of people in Britain, for example, opposed the Iraq war, but not enough that they were prepared to wreck the place in order to prevent it from happening.