Model response to a dilemma for women in the left-right storm (really?)

Im not convinced that having some ethical red lines in the means you are willing to employ to attain a goal is to the detriment of effective campaigning.

Aren't you? Fascinating.

The greatest coup de etat by TRAs has been journalism. There's been few topics so uniformly ignored by MSM as this one. I'm absolutely stumped by it.

I'd argue they are vital to win elections, but not easy to pin down their priorities. What I hear the most from independent voters is "economy, healthcare, CEO pay, and foreign relations" not sure if feminism is on their radar as much.

Most independent voters in the US are even more ethics oriented than the average Joe Public. They are largely voters fed up with a de facto two party system that constantly offers them the chance to vote between two evils and refuse to pragmatically vote for the “lesser of two evils.”

No independent party in the USA has any real political power, so independent votes are largely protest votes.

Yes, they are very tribal.
For example, good number of democrats watching TC are hate-watching. Seeing this issue on there…well it tells them what to oppose.

What about independent voters?

I agree with @Onnabugeisha that in the states the PR tactics that work for UK women may not be in the best interest of US women. You don’t want the message receivers/audience to be biased against and thus reject the message because of the messengers’ clear alignment or association with movements that are extremist or anti-feminist in any way.

One obstacle I hit over and over is, "well, if transwomen in same sex places is an issue or or affirming trans children is problematic, the MSM would be covering it."

So, like it or not, most left wing people who need persuasion will not be swayed by a TC-only coverage.

Americans are deeply tribal when it comes to Conservative vs Liberal. We don't have any real nuance. Most people trust almost exclusively left wing only or right wing only media.

they don't want right wing women to see their film

I didn't say that, so dunno on that one

but on the subject of being a judgey pants, of course the film makers judge people who go on TC. They chose not to, and moreover chose to announce their decision to the world for maximum head pats.

You mean people who say things like:
they clearly judge people who do go on Tucker Carlson. Or they don't want right wing women to see their film.

@MrsOvertonsWindow, I don't expect women to be silent, I'm a feminist. But plenty on this thread have said the film makers should have been silent.

If it were up to me, the strategy would be to say 'yes' to every offer of an interview, especially from those with a huge viewership, like TC or Fox News.

I don't think it's hard to work out that if you want to get your message to the largest number of people, you need to do a lot of publicity and marketing.

So, getting the message out to the most people possible is the end goal for the short sighted.

What should be the strategy to get the message out?

ah, the bad lady not staying pure has made some people in the US think understanding that humans can't change sex is transphobic

what an excellent imagination some people do have

This is why the warning not to enter AIBU should be heeded!!

Im not convinced that having some ethical red lines in the means you are willing to employ to attain a goal is to the detriment of effective campaigning.

For example, KJK did significant damage to US women fighting for sex based rights by doing her US tour all because she has a by any means, align with anyone, go on any show mentality. I have family in 5 states in the USA and they’ve all said that in their local areas, her tour has resulted in a general impression that all GC views are utterly transphobic and literally hate speech.
And posters here have wondered why the USA seems a lost cause and have lamented things going backwards….it’s obvious to me and the filmmakers really.

So, getting the message out to the most people possible is the end goal for the short sighted. Because getting the message out is only step 1. You also need the message to be agreed with and to garner support. You don’t want the message receivers/audience to be biased against and thus reject the message because of the messengers’ clear alignment or association with movements that are extremist or anti-feminist in any way.

You can deride this as “purity spirals” all you want, and call it “divisiveness” but that’s the reality of the world we live in. Is it fair? No. Should people consider content over talking head? Yes.

But the reality is that the messenger matters as much as,(if not more than) the message itself. Ignoring this fact of life, is what is counter productive in the long run, for the end goal of defending womens rights and single sex spaces.

"Smug and condescending" can hardly be classed as vitriolic though.

That is how the statement comes across. TBF, considering at least one of the talking heads in the film who has made her views quite clear re being leftist blah blah guilt by association blah blah, I'm not surprised at the film makers.

There is huge vitriol towards these women who campaign tirelessly for women's rights.

The irony! It burns!

Look, I don't feel any vitriol towards the filmmakers. I don't know who they are. I just think their tactics are ineffective and divisive. And their statement is virtue signalling nonsense. And their film is boring. I wish they'd be more interesting and effective, that's all.

I can guess why people who persist in being hugely divisive and obsessed with political purity to the detriment of effective campaigning are fans of others who do the same.

All these amazing psychics who can guess the real reasons for things!

lucky you to have this astonishing imagination talent

OK then, I don't understand the name calling and nastiness towards these fim making GC feminists. What have they done that's so bad, or even bad at

I don't understand it either. There is huge vitriol towards these women who campaign tirelessly for women's rights.

I can guess what the reason is though. The clue is in the OP.

@TooBigForMyBoots

smug and condescending
And that's just page 1.Shock

Just to clarify my comment (I can’t speak for any one else).

When I said that this is how they come across when they speak to people on Twitter, this was happening way before the TC/FN thing. I made no comment about their statement and I’ve acknowledged they are entitled to set their own boundaries.

Please don’t make generalised accusations.

Secondly, one of the filmmakers is a man and men can’t be feminists.

And if you think this thread is hostile, for the love of god stay away from AIBU.

Too much catastrophic thinking TooBig. I know it's a bit of a shock to some expecting women to know our place and keep silent, but we're quite good on here at recognising that women have different views on things. It's fine.

Ok, I do agree that some of the posts have been strongly worded. This is, after all, Mumsnet

We regularly get lectured by people for whom being left wing = being a good person, and everything else comes second. I suspect this may be colouring people’s responses

but they have actively chosen to be less effective at getting their message across. While it’s their choice, it is a bit tiring to watch

they clearly judge people who do go on Tucker Carlson. That is implicit in their statement and their actions

it therefore seems reasonable that they also get judged for their decisions

The whole thing is not credible.

Turning an invitation down quietly isn't putting it on Twitter.

And then "oh look we got all these tweets about it so we just had to put out a longer statement". On Twitter.

I'm not surprised posters haven't any patience for it. It can be fairly interpreted as childish behaviour - about a serious topic. A topic we need many more women to be alive to.

I am not surprised that Fox don't seem to have responded - as a response would give them a lot of free publicity. However, knowledge of the incident does seem to be confined to those who already knew about the issues. I think that can fairly be characterised as shooting yourself in the foot.

But of course it will be very interesting to see which outlets are good enough and which ones give them an interview. I really doubt you can find an outlet that doesn't have connections you'd prefer not to be associated with. Hopefully one will emerge though.

I just think their tactics are idiotic. If they're trying to promote their film, they have totally fucked themselves over.

I have no opinions of them personally, since I don't know who they are. But their statement sounds like they refused to publicise their film and instead took the opportunity to virtue signal about how left wing they are.

It just seems silly to me. Why don't they want right wing/centrist women to see their film?