Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

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

483 replies

IwantToRetire · 01/01/2023 19:10

So not satisfied with appropriating the work, ideas and campaigning of one woman and many active supporters, some complete set of nobody film makers have taken it upon themselves to school us silly air heads on how to behave and who to talk to.

Leaving aside the smug condescension of believing the have the right to tell us how to behave, this is a perfect example of where complete nobodies who exploit other people to further their own media career, then assume they are as politically relevant and analytically acute as actual activists.

kaygreen.blog/2022/12/31/model-response-to-a-dilemma-for-women-in-the-left-right-storm/

This is the problem with the media at the moment, presenters and film makers who are just the vehicle to get voices and ideas heard, then think they are entitled to become the spokes person.

Apart from anything else, did these nupties even think maybe we should ask those who the film was actually about. I know they would, having been hand selected as the appropriately politically aligned voices, also refused, but even within the unethical world of these self promoters, do they really think they take precedence.

But it does gives us a clear idea of their moral compass and how they felt able to bandwagon of others work and go to extreme lengths to make sure they are never referred to or acknowledged.

OP posts:
TooBigForMyBoots · 03/01/2023 21:05

@toomanytrees I'll rephrase. What have these GC activists done to attract so much hostility from the GC feminist posters here?

TooBigForMyBoots · 03/01/2023 21:02

Ereshkigalangcleg · 03/01/2023 20:47

Well, I'm sure they'll get over it.

I hope so. They have faced a backlash from TRAs, MRAs and right wingers, which is to be expected.

Accusations and vitriol from GC feminists here in FWR? Why?

toomanytrees · 03/01/2023 20:56

What have they done that's so bad, or even bad at all?

It is not a moral question of bad or good, that is not what is being argued. It is a question of whether it has been or will be effective. If their goal is to reach as many people as possible their actions seem sub optimal. What do you think their goal is and how well do you think they have done? How do you suggest they spread the message.

As to focussing on Europe this seems an expensive option, what with the need for translation.

BernardBlacksMolluscs · 03/01/2023 20:55

TooBigForMyBoots · 03/01/2023 20:50

They're not nobodies, they are other GC feminist women.

Turning down TC on Fox News does not mean purity spiral. It's certainly pales into insignificance next to the negativity and refusal of support because they said "No" to a right wing man. That's a very tight purity spiral for feminists.

The ‘because they said no to a right wing man’ is interesting framing

I don’t think they said no because Tucker Carlson is right wing? At least that wasn’t the reason given?

AlisonDonut · 03/01/2023 20:51

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

TooBigForMyBoots · 03/01/2023 20:50

They're not nobodies, they are other GC feminist women.

Turning down TC on Fox News does not mean purity spiral. It's certainly pales into insignificance next to the negativity and refusal of support because they said "No" to a right wing man. That's a very tight purity spiral for feminists.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 03/01/2023 20:47

Well, I'm sure they'll get over it.

TooBigForMyBoots · 03/01/2023 20:41

BernardBlacksMolluscs · 03/01/2023 20:17

I scrolled back through the thread looking for this ‘nastiness’

I found that people think the statement sounds smug (it does)

they’ve been called nobodies (I’ll grant you that’s a bit mean, although I don’t have a scooby who they are to be fair)

And accused of being in a purity spiral. From my perspective they’ve actively passed up an opportunity to publicise their film to a huge new audience and bring their message to people who won’t have heard it to stay pure to their ideals in some way. Their behaviour does look a bit…counterproductive from where I’m sitting

Heads so far up their arses they need head torches.

See what we did. Aren't we good girls,
now please, please talk to us. Kinda thing.

Preening, posturing, smug piety. Its all a show for their mates. And people can see right through the shallow vitue signalling because these types are cut from the same cloth as TRAs.

smug and condescending

And that's just page 1.Shock

BernardBlacksMolluscs · 03/01/2023 20:17

I scrolled back through the thread looking for this ‘nastiness’

I found that people think the statement sounds smug (it does)

they’ve been called nobodies (I’ll grant you that’s a bit mean, although I don’t have a scooby who they are to be fair)

And accused of being in a purity spiral. From my perspective they’ve actively passed up an opportunity to publicise their film to a huge new audience and bring their message to people who won’t have heard it to stay pure to their ideals in some way. Their behaviour does look a bit…counterproductive from where I’m sitting

Ereshkigalangcleg · 03/01/2023 20:14

For some maybe. Not for others, it's the way they communicated it.

TooBigForMyBoots · 03/01/2023 20:10

The why seems to be because the film makers said "No" to a right wing man.ShockConfused

Ereshkigalangcleg · 03/01/2023 20:03

If you're talking about this thread, people have made it quite clear what they think and why.

TooBigForMyBoots · 03/01/2023 20:02

Ereshkigalangcleg · 03/01/2023 18:21

directed at these you GC feminists.

Are they particularly young?

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 all?Confused

TheWitchesAreBackInTown · 03/01/2023 18:52

I see that the film makers are saying they are not particularly interested in the American market and they are looking at Europe.

Which is a strategy, I suppose. I would like to know why though because it seems bizarre to restrict your message like that.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 03/01/2023 18:21

directed at these you GC feminists.

Are they particularly young?

Onnabugeisha · 03/01/2023 17:20

AlisonDonut · 03/01/2023 16:23

You know the people commenting are different people, right?

Not all the same people.

So not a pattern, but a collection of opinions, some agreeing and some not agreeing.

Show quote history

Of course I know. Yes not all the same people and not all different people.

Within the collection of opinions, is a subset of people persistently maintaining their opinion which is insistent behaviour.

Youre not seeing the tree for the forest.

TooBigForMyBoots · 03/01/2023 17:18

Sorry, that should say young not you.

TooBigForMyBoots · 03/01/2023 17:13

I get differing opinions, what I don't understand is the name calling and nastiness directed at these you GC feminists.Confused

AlisonDonut · 03/01/2023 16:23

Onnabugeisha · 03/01/2023 14:12

Insistence is a pattern of behaviour. You don’t have to declare it to be doing it.

Show quote history

You know the people commenting are different people, right?

Not all the same people.

So not a pattern, but a collection of opinions, some agreeing and some not agreeing.

Onnabugeisha · 03/01/2023 14:12

AlisonDonut · 03/01/2023 13:11

I've also read it and didn't find anyone saying 'I insist that you go onto Tucker Carlson's show'.

Insistence is a pattern of behaviour. You don’t have to declare it to be doing it.

TooBigForMyBoots · 03/01/2023 14:08

There just been a lot of criticism and name calling becausing they chose not to go the TC show. Why?Confused

AlisonDonut · 03/01/2023 13:11

I've also read it and didn't find anyone saying 'I insist that you go onto Tucker Carlson's show'.

Onnabugeisha · 03/01/2023 12:59

AlisonDonut · 03/01/2023 12:25

You responded to ResisterRex on my screen.

And even in the post you quoted, she said 'opinions were split'. There was no insistence. Nobody is in a position to insist. People are allowed opinions. If they don't like other people having opinions, perhaps don't post virtue signalling stuff on twitter. Twitter being the social media platform where anyone and everyone can see what you have written.

Show quote history

Yes, because Resister Rex was objecting to my use of the word “insisting” in my response to witches.

Obviously, I have also looked at the responses and replies by the people on Twitter and I see insistence as in the persistent maintenance of an opinion. Anybody is in a position to insist- no idea why you think people cannot persistently maintain an opinion about something. Yes people are allowed opinions and people are also allowed to be insistent. It’s not the insisting by itself that makes behaviour authoritarian, I made that clear in my comment so not sure why nit picking my vocabulary furthers your argument.

SapphosRock · 03/01/2023 12:50

Who is Kay Green who wrote the blog post? She's not actually in the film or one of the producers is she?

She has admired the way the Reality Matters film makers dealt with Fox News and wrote a blog post about it.

FWIW I think it was a great response.

AlisonDonut · 03/01/2023 12:25

Onnabugeisha · 03/01/2023 12:21

I didn’t say you or anyone on this thread were insisting on anything, so there’s been no over-reach just like there was no hyperbole.

My post was to @TheWitchesAreBackInTown and was responding to her about the responses on Twitter:

”Back on point, had seen the full statement the film makers had put out when it was first posted on Twitter. I didn't engage with it. Had a look this morning at the responses and opinions do seem very split. I wasn't surprised to find that lots of people think it's virtue signalling.

I've said it before but it bears repeating. That statement shows its exactly the authoritarian behaviour as TRAs and other leftist groups engage in and the only difference is these film makers believe in biological sex.“

to which I said:
“The authoritarian behaviour being displayed is by all the people insisting that these film-makers should have accepted the interview request and gone on tucker carlson’s show.”

the word ‘people’ in my post is referring to the same ‘people’ in her post, as in the people on Twitter which is nobody on this thread.

Show quote history

You responded to ResisterRex on my screen.

And even in the post you quoted, she said 'opinions were split'. There was no insistence. Nobody is in a position to insist. People are allowed opinions. If they don't like other people having opinions, perhaps don't post virtue signalling stuff on twitter. Twitter being the social media platform where anyone and everyone can see what you have written.