In wanting Mumsnet to help Judi Dench and Joanna Lumley

I object to this public forced teaming.

As usual, the champagne socialists achieve nothing but stirring up more division. They are protected from dangers unlike the rest of us. Their arrogance and delusion doesn't wash with me. Dench has recently shown her lack of common sense elsewhere and in a very serious situation. Once again, its not something that affects her. Although it should as she's part of the category who was targetted in those vile extreme tweets. Jokers with Far more money than sense.

I suggest that a course of action we can all take, that is within our gift as the main decision-makers about household purchases, is to boycott goods made in countries that behave in ways we find unacceptable.

• Israel, if you are appalled by how they treat Palestinians.
• China, if you are appalled by how they treat Uighyurs, especially Uighyur women.
• Anti-choice US states, like Texas.
• Anyone else you think is out-of-order.

Unlike the open letter addressed to Justine, this post doesn't coerce you into a boycott. You can do so completely privately. And it hits these countries where it hurts: in the treasury.

Reposting with some added context in editorial brackets:

All of you [PP on the FWR thread] who described it as bullying and manipulative are on the nail. I struggle with the language surrounding social interactions [FWR regulars know that this is because I am autistic], so all I could identify was "this feels bad" and take a stab as to a possible underlying motive.

I am reminded of "if you're not with us, you're against us", which is always a threat. I am also reminded of the perennial virtue-signalling student union motions to condemn <thing>, where <thing> is usually the fault of a foreign govt who doesn't even know that Smalltown Former Poly even exists, never mind pays attention to what its SU committee thinks. The SU motions about Palestine/conflict minerals/gay rights in Russia/etc are not only pointless, they distract from the task of representing and supporting the students. I'm lastly reminded of Catch-22's Great Loyalty Oath Crusade.

"When they voiced objection, Captain Black replied that people who were loyal would not mind signing all the loyalty oaths they had to. To anyone who questioned the effectiveness of the loyalty oaths, he replied that people who really did owe allegiance to their country would be proud to pledge it as often as he forced them to."

It feels like there's a subtext of "if you don't cosign this, you must want to hurt babies", when that's not the case because there are plenty of other reasons not to cosign it.

One of those reasons being "why is anyone trusting or supporting Oxfam after sex-for-aid?" Another being "we don't know the full story based on this letter alone". A PP explained about Israel wanting to vet aid workers and the charities in question not cooperating, which is strangely not mentioned in the letter.

The First Rule of Misogyny is "women are responsible for what men do". Justine and the women of Mumsnet are not responsible for what the man in charge of Israel does, and it's misogyny to claim that we are or should try to be, especially when he is ignoring everyone else.

I don't just post on FWR. I spend a lot of time on Relationships as well, usually telling women to LTB. It took me a while to realise that the reason why this letter "feels bad" is that it's an attempt at coercive control by setting expectations amongst the public to manufacture Justine's consent, just like when an abuser sets expectations in the kids that he knows his victim might not want or be able to keep (e.g. saying "Maybe Mum will get you a tablet for Xmas" to an eight year old). I didn't recognise it immediately because it's outside of a family context and was carried out by women.

Nah, the definition of a woman is based on biological fact, not political pressure. That's the whole bloody point.

Approaching Justine to discuss how they can best use the reach of Mumsnet to publicise their campaign to as many women as possible - very good idea.
Being vague about what exactly they want Justine and all these women to do, what they think it will achieve, and how they themselves will help with it (if they intend to) - not so good, but could be sorted perhaps.
Approaching Justine with the fanfare of an open letter, so that if she isn't then Seen To Be Doing, she risks being accused of not caring about Gaza - manipulative, and not good at all.

The UK Supreme Court is in the UK, where most Mumsnet posters are. FWS were founded by four Scottish women who met on FWR. Them being Scottish gave them standing to bring their case against the Scottish Ministers.

Israel and Palestine are not in the UK. No one in the UK has standing to bring legal action against the Israeli govt.

Talk about a bad faith argument.

I don't think it's MN's place in the past, present or future to influence any campaign, tbh. Comment - maybe. Weigh in? No. Keep out of it all by being Switzerland would be my advice.

🤣

Indeed. The OP’s thread title is: ‘Am I Being Unreasonable in wanting Mumsnet to help Judi Dench and Joanna Lumley?’

And then if one reads the letter (I've read it twice), it’s not clear what the group of celebrity women want Justine Roberts to do that can help and will help.

Not answering when called out on your nonsense. Colour me shocked

I swear you lot are all made from the same wonky cookie cutter.

Oh-kay, dear.

<waits to be accused of calling Gazans dim teenagers, such is the logic of Yhose Who Cannot Debate>