Why Justine Roberts should not give in to demanding celebrities

[IwantToRetire]

Please note this post is NOT about the politics of the letter itself but about the ill advised attempt by celebrities to put one woman on the spot in public, and misunderstanding what the power of mumsnet is.

Irrespective of whether anyone does or does not support the letter written by self regarding luvvies https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XJv6qEHsa8XAQHfc_wjzUvNTqI2uCrvU0k45uk8H-UM/edit?pli=1&tab=t.0 they have no right to put one woman in the public spotlight by demanding Justine Roberts works with them.

So this was my first reaction to this situation. It is about as rude and unsisterly as demanding that Starmer's wife joins their campaign. Or like those immature tv presenters who long for a gotcha moment and go on and on asking the same question to try and get some celebrity or politician to make a public statement.

Secondly, with all due respect to Justine Roberts in her skill and willingness to create such an important forum for "mums", what makes mumsnet important is the wide range of contributors who do not look to JR like hive bees do to their queen!

So if these self publicists want mumsnet to get behind them, have the decency to sign up to mumsnet or request a guest post and then be prepared to respond to what will be a wide ranging and no doubt intense debate.

So not only should they not have put JR on the spot in the public domain, if they suceed in getting a "mumsnet" response via MNHQ then it leaves mumsnet open to any number of no doubt sincere campaigners demanding that they to get MN recognition.

So stop the public bullying of JR.

It is not a very nice thing to have done.

(for those who want to discuss the campaign itself there are a number of threads, one on AIBU and one on FWR)

You lost me at "luvvies". So cheap and facile.

Mumsnet is a powerhouse, and your advocacy for the protection of women and children carries real political weight. With every Prime Minister since David Cameron fielding your questions, it’s clear that when you speak, policymakers listen.

It's an interesting letter and of course (of course!) I agree with the sentiment. But those PM fielded questions mentioned came from the users of the site. Justine was the conduit through which those questions filtered. So I guess what she needs to do is a Site Stuff post with this letter stickied and ask for our votes? Input? (Apologies if this has been done. I couldn't see it).

It's also interesting (in a letter to MN) that the women identify as 'actress'. I guess using the diminutive to cement they are women/mothers?

It’s not that the issues themselves are directly connected (although it has become an omnicause it seems), it’s the celebrity attitude that’s sickening. Asking JR to jump on their specific cause, to use her for that - is typical of it.

I agree with you OP. With that level of celebrity they could direct their letter many places- why go for Justine? Horrible vibe to it

It has got a vibe of 'we dont want to touch the poo we just want the poo removed and to post on social media we were responsible for the removal of the poo'.

So all these well known women are definitely only asking Justine to join them, and nobody else?

bizarrely, Yes. A single open letter addressed to a single individual even though there's a whole world out there they could have sought support from

You have missed the point. Imagine if men had all supported the cause too. That's the point. Not that women shouldn't support it but that men should to o. So why aren't they asking men to o.

These ladies clearly haven’t realised how JKR has been a beacon of light and validation, perhaps influence, to millions of women and girls in the UK (at the very least), who thought the world was going mad.

But then, JKR doesn’t suit them does she.

Please post a link to their other open letters to anyone other than a politician or someone with actual power to act.

According to the Independent on 9 Jan, 'Mumsnet told The Independent that it has received the letter and are arranging for a meeting with Dame Judi and other signatories to discuss the issue.' I can't see what the problem is. Please be clearer about why you are objecting.

And the point is they are mot asking her to join them they are asking her to act for them.

They don't want her to sign the letter - she is the target of the letter.

@BlossomToes I can't believe you interpret a letter to JR/Mumsnet asking if people who've changed to Reform would be in touch to be interviewed, as "signing people up to Reform". It's just a standard journalist's reach-out.

Nicely done. It politely puts the ball back in their court.

OK, thanks, got it. The letter is just for Justine and they are asking her to speak out in support of the women of Gaza. Why is this a problem? No doubt they are also speaking out on their own account. I genuinely can't see any issue with this. Not saying there isn't an issue.

Re the letter - I think whatever the cause is, and whatever her own feelings, JRoberts should refuse to sign. She started and facilitated Mumsnet, she doesn't represent it - no one does.

Reasonable open letters

• Dear Foreign Secretary. Please apply international sanctions to Israeli until they allow in aid agencies.
• Dear CEO of Unilever. Please stop selling your products in Russia until they withdraw from Ukraine.

Not reasonable open letters.

• Dear Justine. Please make Mumsnetters fix the potholes in my road.
• Dear Dame Judy. Please get Holywood to sort out the imequality of the 11 plus exams.

Judy Dench doesn't control the opinions of the entire Holywood industry, and if she did they don't have the power to reform the UK education system.

Justice doesn't control the opinion of Mumsnetters, and if she did we still don't have the power to compel the actions of foreign governments. As the MN maternity campaign shows we can't even compel our own government.

Who else has been the target of an open letter?

Target of a letter? Recipient surely? If nobody can explain why they are so wound about it, this discussion will go nowhere!

There’s always a motivation behind actions.. subjective mindset before objective thinking.. etc

A private letter has a recipient. An open letter has a target.

Are there similar open letters asking Elon Musk to act, as the voice of all Twitrer X users? Richard Branson as the voice of everyone who takes Virgin flights? Duncan Bannatyne on behalf of the members of his gyms?

I still don't see the problem. Justine can reply to the letter or ignore it, or she can meet with the writers to discuss the situation, which is what she's chosen to do. I'm going to leave the thread now because nobody will be clear about what they mean. If I'm supposed to pick up some hint, it hasn't worked.

You are surely being disingenuous here? This is obviously not a precedent we want to set, where random private individuals can be called upon publicly to take responsibility for issues they have no direct control over.

If Justine does respond to it in any way she is paving the way for this type of mob rule to be the way that all sorts of politics is conducted and that's not a route I think any of us would want to go down. These issues are complex and nuanced and should not be laid at an individuals door unless they have an actual role to play in fixing them

Open letters of historically being used to address the prime minister or a senior government minister not private individuals. Sometimes they might be used to target a company where that company is directly itself doing something problematic but no one can say that that is the case here.

Recipient if the letter is private, yes. But when it is an open letter sent to the press that is something quite different and target is absolutely the correct word to use here.

The sooner people stop defending The indefensible the sooner that we can get on with actual sensible nuanced discussions and a campaign that targets UK politicians and the international political community

Exactly!!

It's astonishing anyone thinks that what these celebrities did is acceptable.
It's quite possible to say that you agree with the sentiment but feel it was alarmingly misdirected.