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:
Onnabugeisha · 03/01/2023 10:16

ResisterRex · 03/01/2023 09:49

"Quietly turning down" identifies as telling everyone with Twitter access, then.

Not everyone, telling their 365k followers…out of 35 million women in the U.K. and 200 million women in the USA….So announced to a whopping 0.15% of their target audience.

I may not understand why you think it’s not a quiet announcement…how far below 1% of target audience do you have to get to be considered quietly announcing is a question I certainly have but you have a right to your opinion.

Helleofabore · 03/01/2023 10:16

Making any twitter or public social media post is making a public statement. That is marketing basics.

You can disagree. I don’t care whether you agree or not. You trying to say it is not, doesn’t say it is not a fact.

And you were the only person saying ‘Id take that with a grain of salt tbh. Twitter is the most notorious fake news hub on the planet, with Facebook a close second.’

It was lazy. You didn’t go and check whether it was true. You tried to discredit the information though.

So, you making a two sentence post in a thread shouldn’t be criticized? And according to you, two sentences on twitter shouldn’t be considered a ‘statement’ and should be ignored as a virtue signaling exercise?

Ok. Should we all just post two sentence posts then?

Onnabugeisha · 03/01/2023 09:59

Helleofabore · 03/01/2023 09:54

Did you even bother to read my post or just vainly assumed it was to thwart you?

I already had read about this last year. And I checked it out myself after reading others mentioning it.

And they didn’t ‘quietly’ turn down the offer. They posted about it. Quietly turning it down is not posting that you have done so in the fashion they did, even initially.

Both actions of mentioning turning down were virtue signaling.

Show quote history

I read your post, and if it were simply to inform you wouldn’t have thrown that dig in there would you?

I think a two sentence update is quietly turning down the offer. We will have to agree to disagree on that. You think a two sentence update is making a virtue signalling song and dance…ok, that’s your right to think that.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 03/01/2023 09:56

And they didn’t ‘quietly’ turn down the offer. They posted about it. Quietly turning it down is not posting that you have done so in the fashion they did, even initially.

Both actions of mentioning turning down were virtue signaling.

This.

Onnabugeisha · 03/01/2023 09:55

Ereshkigalangcleg · 03/01/2023 09:47

And it's very obvious that certain posters are only posting on this thread to sow division.

Division of what exactly? You sound like there should be a purity of opinion on MN…and obviously this should be a perfect match to your own opinions.

Helleofabore · 03/01/2023 09:54

Onnabugeisha · 03/01/2023 09:30

Labelling it potentially ‘fake news’ because it was on twitter is just lazy.

Not accepting tweets on Twitter at face value due to their poor record on fake news is “lazy”…🙄 what-ev-er. If I hadn’t questioned it, would you have taken the time to dig into it? Hmmm? Probably not.

Did you even bother to read my post or just vainly assumed it was to thwart you?

I already had read about this last year. And I checked it out myself after reading others mentioning it.

And they didn’t ‘quietly’ turn down the offer. They posted about it. Quietly turning it down is not posting that you have done so in the fashion they did, even initially.

Both actions of mentioning turning down were virtue signaling.

ResisterRex · 03/01/2023 09:49

"Quietly turning down" identifies as telling everyone with Twitter access, then.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 03/01/2023 09:47

And it's very obvious that certain posters are only posting on this thread to sow division.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 03/01/2023 09:46

Just because they received criticism, they still could have left it like that, rather than making a big deal of writing to Fox News and tweeting about it. Yes, it's the pompous statement most people are rolling their eyes at here.

Onnabugeisha · 03/01/2023 09:38

If it was genuinely about personal integrity, they would have quietly turned down the media request from the Tucker Carlson show and left it at that

They did do that according to the blog:
Initially, they simply announced to the world that they’d been invited, and declined…

”Have been contacted by the Tucker Carlson show to discuss a potential interview about our 'amazing film' of course we won't be responding.”

but immediately, the storm stirred and there were messages and social media posts growing increasingly heated. Seeing the heat rising around their announcement, Reality Matters put out a second, in which they said they’d decided after all to reply to Fox News, and published the reply itself.

The full reply they published after suffering backlash for quietly turning down the interview is what you are criticising.

Onnabugeisha · 03/01/2023 09:30

Labelling it potentially ‘fake news’ because it was on twitter is just lazy.

Not accepting tweets on Twitter at face value due to their poor record on fake news is “lazy”…🙄 what-ev-er. If I hadn’t questioned it, would you have taken the time to dig into it? Hmmm? Probably not.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 03/01/2023 09:14

If it was genuinely about personal integrity, they would have quietly turned down the media request from the Tucker Carlson show and left it at that. I'm sure they are being inundated with media requests (😏) so it's simply a case of saying yes to the ones you want to do and no to the ones you don't for whatever personal reason. No boasting required.

But it had nothing to do with any kind of personal integrity.
The whole point of the tweet was a form of performative piety. It was to publicly show people from their 'in group' (which includes TRAs) how pious they are - that of course they turned down those horrible, evil people. Preening, posturing, smug piety. It's all a show for their mates. Look how virtuous and pure we are. And people can see through the shallow virtue signalling because these types are cut from the same cloth as the TRAs.

YY. The whole statement reads as if it could have been written by TRAs.

beastlyslumber · 03/01/2023 09:06

NonnyMouse1337 · 02/01/2023 09:26

Model response?? 😂😂 That's pretty big headed of them to think so.

If it was genuinely about personal integrity, they would have quietly turned down the media request from the Tucker Carlson show and left it at that. I'm sure they are being inundated with media requests (😏) so it's simply a case of saying yes to the ones you want to do and no to the ones you don't for whatever personal reason. No boasting required.

But it had nothing to do with any kind of personal integrity.
The whole point of the tweet was a form of performative piety. It was to publicly show people from their 'in group' (which includes TRAs) how pious they are - that of course they turned down those horrible, evil people. Preening, posturing, smug piety. It's all a show for their mates. Look how virtuous and pure we are. And people can see through the shallow virtue signalling because these types are cut from the same cloth as the TRAs.

It’s been hard going for women’s sex-based rights campaigners, slandered and misunderstood at every step, and – because women’s rights are a matter of direct concern to over half the population of the planet, a campaign that reaches across every divide – of politics, of nationality, language, culture and class.

Hahahaha 😂😂😂😂

I'm sick to the back teeth of this line that lefties keep pulling out of their arse in the same way that I'm sick of them talking about how they support racial minorities and migrants. No you don't, you genuinely don't - you only care about the ones that fit your ideological agenda so just fuck off with the sanctimonious claptrap.

Why can't they just be honest? Say 'yes this a matter which affects all women, but as left wing activists and campaigners, we're only interested in talking to those who are in agreement with our politics'. See - that wasn't so hard, was it? What's the problem?

If they genuinely believed that "women’s rights are a matter of direct concern to over half the population of the planet" then they would use whatever opportunities they could to reach out to any and every woman.
I'm a brown woman and I would happily talk to anyone, even someone labelled far right, because I actually care enough to say 'you might hate me, but the safety and rights of the women and children in your own group is more important than whatever irreconcilable differences you imagine there are between us'.

I'm no media expert but it can't be difficult when on air to say 'thanks for having us on the show - there's actually plenty we vehemently disagree with the show itself and the network - but we feel this issue affects all women and children and we hope our work resonates with people of all political affiliations and makes them think about why it's important. There are genuine issues around prejudice and discrimination against trans people (as well as gays and lesbians) but this shouldn't come at the expense of the rights and protections for women and children.'

This.

It's crazy for them to refuse to promote their own film!

ResisterRex · 03/01/2023 08:42

Meghan Murphy has about the same figure here:

meghanmurphy.substack.com/p/if-feminists-want-to-be-heard-they

"Fox News pulls in a huge numberr_ of Democrat voters — 39% is a lot of people… Indeed, Carlson ranks very high among Democrat viewers, in terms of cable news outlets — the top four programs among Democrats include Fox News’ The Five, Tucker Carlson Tonight, and Hannity, competing only with MSNBC’s The Rachel Maddow Show."

I think her figure must draw on the same data but from a different link using that data. This is from Feb 2022:

www.thewrap.com/tucker-carlson-liberal-viewership-fox-news/

Helleofabore · 03/01/2023 08:30

reviews on mainstream media be how many sales were from people with some

be = vs

Apologies. I even checked this one but my eyes are struggling today.

Helleofabore · 03/01/2023 08:16

FemaleAndLearning · 03/01/2023 07:28

Thanks Helleofabore I did a quick Google after the comment about Twitter but couldn't find anything useful.

I find the discussion - preaching to the converted rather lazy too. Because this opportunity was one that required no budgetary expenditure yet would have increased the audience viewing to a wider reach.

It is a very bold assumption that even people who know about this issue, should not know about this video. Or to assume that they already know about a video made in the UK and really only know by word of mouth so far.

How many people would have purchased Trans or Material Girls who didn’t know about the issue already, from seeing the reviews on mainstream media be how many sales were from people with some knowledge about the issues or due to personal recommendations?

And how many people who are already ‘converted’ did or attempted to attend the film premieres vs those who had little knowledge about the topic? The logic doesn’t hold up.

Either the film makers wanted this video to be viewed mostly by an already involved (moderately to highly motivated) audience, or they made it so new people can see it and understand. Or both.

Getting new people to watch requires taking advantage of the personal selling aspect of the moderately to highly motivated audience and/or mainstream media.

The media is needed to make sure that the highest percentage of those already motivated or involved know about it and to alert anyone who is completely new or is starting to see the issues that don’t have someone talking to them about it.

I believe that there is only a selection of that broader moderately to highly motivated segment who would know about the video in the USA. And if that is the way the film makers want it to be, that is fine. It is their choice.

Anyone with a modicum of marketing experience would know that for a product to be successful, it still needs the ‘converted’ to be ‘preached’ at for a whole variety of reasons. Assuming that the USA audience that needs to know (even within the ‘left voting democrats’ category) knows already seems to be a strange one.

Helleofabore · 03/01/2023 07:32

And if we wait a one the new data for last year will be released and we will have a fresh perspective available.

that would be wait a month… the yearly figures will be out soon.

FemaleAndLearning · 03/01/2023 07:28

Thanks Helleofabore I did a quick Google after the comment about Twitter but couldn't find anything useful.

Helleofabore · 03/01/2023 06:31

For those querying the Tucker Carlson audience claims, I believe they come from third party data collection agencies.

Labelling it potentially ‘fake news’ because it was on twitter is just lazy.

I read this last year when it caused ripples.

“According to Nielsen MRI/Fusion data (from October) Fox attracted more “Democrat and Independent viewers in both total day and prime time than CNN and MSNBC.” Additionally, Tucker Carlson Tonight ranked as the number one program among Democrats in the demo while Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, and The Five placed among the top four cable news programs with Democrats in total viewers.”

www.msn.com/en-us/tv/news/who-is-the-most-watched-host-in-all-of-cable-news-for-young-democrats-tucker-carlson/ar-AATpn8o

Now I have no idea about the author of this article but it doesn’t matter because if this is Nielsen data it is easily verified by any person who has access. And none of these stats have been debunked that I can see. Happy to see the debunking if it is out there.

I have extensively used and interrogated Nielsen data professionally. I have friends who work for Nielsen who were initially work colleagues- is there a reason that I should distrust Nielsen data in this instance?

Or is it just an inconvenient truth.

As I have said, happy to see the debunking of the statistics.

And if we wait a one the new data for last year will be released and we will have a fresh perspective available.

TooBigForMyBoots · 03/01/2023 01:23

Going onto Fox is preaching to the converted whilst contributing to the profits of an anti-feminist, non gender critical organisation. I completely understand why a feminist would turn them down. It isn't weakness nor is it fear.

It's focus and integrity and the refusal to allow the patriarchy to monetise women's labour and fear.

toomanytrees · 03/01/2023 01:01

I think what the film makers fear most from appearing on Fox news is being cast out by the leftist community, which is very good at keeping their adherents in line. That said, on a get the message out level, the shunning could mean that if they appeared on Fox News, they would never be invited on CNN or MSNBC. So it could be a strategic move. However, the protestation was more emotional than logical. They appear weak rather than savvy.

TooBigForMyBoots · 03/01/2023 00:36

The Democrat voting viewers of TC will already be aware of the threat to women caused by TWAW ideology. Going on Fox is preaching to the choir in opposing trans ideology.🤷‍♀️

Onnabugeisha · 03/01/2023 00:30

FemaleAndLearning · 03/01/2023 00:26

That's a good point. After hearing how they guestimated the viewings for the Queen's funeral this would be even more difficult.

Yes, I agree it is their choice and I'm not them but I don't share your optimism in thinking they will be reaching a new audience.

Fox is also a cable channel….it’s not free to watch. So everyone that watches Tucker Carlson is already a more well heeled demographic as well.

FemaleAndLearning · 03/01/2023 00:26

That's a good point. After hearing how they guestimated the viewings for the Queen's funeral this would be even more difficult.

Yes, I agree it is their choice and I'm not them but I don't share your optimism in thinking they will be reaching a new audience.

Swipe left for the next trending thread