Meghan has been named one of 25 most influential women by FT

[antelopevalley]

"Meghan Markle has become a symbol of resilience for many silenced women. Specifically speaking, for women of colour and, even more specifically, mixed-race and black women. Her experience within the royal family resonated with those who have had to navigate historically white, elitist institutions that are, at best, not built with them in mind and, at worst, outwardly hostile.

The royal family is an establishment largely maintained through silence and complicity. It’s this, in part, that makes Meghan’s choice to use her voice so powerful. This year she launched a podcast, Archetypes, where she interrogates the labels used to contain and inhibit women – fitting, given the projection and smears she has endured from the press. For the black community in particular, it was hard to watch her demonisation by the British media and public. But seeing her come into her own, and use her platform to speak about what matters to her, has sent a message even louder than she may have intended."

www.ft.com/content/8428d275-a9ba-46e7-9c39-78b847c5cef7

Your link led me to this one:The Daily Beast

2 minutes long , ‘Telling your truth’

But is it ‘quite rightly’ to pile on a woman - like people have piled on Meghan Markle?

There’s nothing right about it - it’s abhorrent. I have never seen a woman spoken about in such mean and venomous terms to such a degree ever, before. And by other women?

People really need to look at themselves, examine their motivations. I can’t think of ANYTHING she could possibly have done that is so bad that she deserves this.

Radio 4 this morning;
Spokesperson for the company producing the podcast , " "It's going to be much worst than you can imagine".

Harry; "those Brits need to be taught a lesson"

Ooo! Fightin' talk Haz!

Wider context? What was main topic for the podcast producer?

What was Harry talking about? Brits in general or a specific group/team?

WinnieTheW0rm · Today 07:31
Wider context? What was main topic for the podcast producer?
What was Harry talking about? Brits in general or a specific group/team?

I don't know for sure - it was on the radio as I was getting out of bed to go to the loo....
The spokesperson's bit sounded like a "teaser". And Harry's seems pretty inclusive.

What podcast? I'm confused.

Twitter is a cesspit but It’s frankly delusional to imagine that there’s a coordinated conspiracy of bots and trolls posting criticism of H&M elsewhere online

if anything, the opposite is true - and it’s their (hugely outnumbered) supporters that seem in some way coordinated.

Whenever H&M launch another self-sabotaging assault on the RF, as last week, it generates an organic negative reaction among huge swathes of the public.

This is borne out all over the place online, not just YouTube but also newspaper comments, including those where readers must subscribe to comment. All that I have read this week on this topic are universally critical of them - the NYTimes, Times, Telegraph, NY Post etc etc

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/dec/02/harry-meghan-royal-family-netflix-windsors

I thought this article was good. It mentions bot activity btw.

Susan

So, as I said, on twitter there is a coordinated lot of bots posting anti Meghan stuff -according to twitter. Proven. I posted twitters analysis.

But It’s your opinion that it’s delusional of me to think it seems it could be happening elsewhere on sm eg you tube?

But you are not delusional to think that the opposite may be true - pro Meghan bots on the same sm sites eg you tube?

Have I understood this correctly?

Then you write that there are huge negative responses to H&M on you tube, commenters in newspapers etc. whenever they do something you label an ‘assault.’ Because that’s how it appears to you. You give me the name of 4 news papers you say bear that out - for you.

(I can’t address your opinion about the four newspapers’ comments sections. I tried to look at The Telegraph, and New York Times but need a subscription. The other two papers, Times and NY Post are Murdoch owned and could be free or subscription but I wouldn’t know, as I wouldn’t knowingly go anywhere near anything the Murdochs own after their appalling, self interested support of Donald Trump for, and as, President. They supported and helped put into power a highly questionable man as President because of sheer self interest and greed).

Overall, I am confused by your reasoning but okay, maybe this is a misunderstanding commonly caused by trying to communicate by posts.

You know, I’ve never written a thing here that is negative about Kate or Meghan. I think both have been victims of the media in very similar and also different ways. I’ve been respectful of both women.

But you can’t be respectful of a fellow poster on mn - indeed, calling her opinions ‘delusional’.

It is good. I read the guardian most days - but mostly the Australian section, though I did come across this earlier, but I read it again when I clicked your link because it’s worth two reads. The journo has good perspective, in my opinion, and it’s a well rounded essay - lots of interesting points.

Aspiringmatriarch · Today 09:26
What podcast? I'm confused.

I think I may have been confused, is it properly called a docuseries? Is there a difference? Do forgive me - I'm nearly as old as Lady Hussy

I've just discovered that there's no vomit emoji available on MN. We need one for this sort of thing.....what an insult to women the world over to say that she is in the top 25 who have influence.

So, as I said, on twitter there is a coordinated lot of bots posting anti Meghan stuff -according to twitter. Proven. I posted twitters analysis

There was a similar report outlining the use of bots to post positive tweets about Harry and Meghan.

www.macleans.ca/royalty/meghan-markles-twitter-bot-network-the-whole-thing-is-a-bit-insane/amp/

In all those places which are harder for bots to penetrate, such as subscription only newspapers, or even Mumsnet & other fora, the overwhelming majority of posts are negative.
Equally, successive opinion polls have echoed these negative perceptions.

Pretending that all the negative attention they attract is manufactured is delusional because it simply doesn’t reflect the reality.

In all those places which are harder for bots to penetrate, such as subscription only newspapers, or even Mumsnet & other fora, the overwhelming majority of posts are negative.

Interesting. Anyone who has been around MN long enough knows that it's regularly targeted by organised, prolific posters - remember the Brexit referendum campaign, the run up to Trump's election, the days before Boris' resignation... the FWR section has resident ploppers. It only takes a minute to get an account.

Certainly there seem to be a number of posters that just cannot leave MM threads alone and must come to drop a disproportionately vicious comment clearly not having read the thread. All while simultaneously telling us how insignificant MM is. I just find it baffling.

@DewinDwl I agree with that assessment.
Strangely when I was criticising the racism in the Royal Family I had someone post a reply to me that made no sense. That evening on twitter I saw another accusation and I realised the poster had replied in defence of the accusation even though no one on the thread had talked about it.

Susan, I never ‘pretended that all the negative attention is manufactured’

also saying a woman is delusional is the same as saying she is mad/crazy etc. Those words have been used, mainly by men, to disempower women for centuries. I would have thought that on a woman’s forum like mn, no woman would say that to another woman. It’s an insult. Please don’t.

There are four or five posters on these threads, very pro Meghan and Harry and anti the royal family who are incredibly prolific - hundreds of posts, possibly even thousands, and with few exceptions no (of very, very few) posts on any other topic. It does make you wonder. The sheer amount of posts suggest it's some kind of 'job' for them. It's very strange.

She must be absolutely thrilled to be nominated to a list of women barely 5 percent of the population have heard of. What an achievement

I was thinking that ! Am guessing a poster called Roussette is paid to comment or she has a weird obsession!

Roussette does post elsewhere to be fair - I’ve seen her quite a bit on Great British Sewing Bee threads (we must share some niche interests 😀)

Roussette been here for ever and a day, across all sorts of threads. We sometimes chat on political threads, where she's often very informative.

I don't frequent Meghan threads, but if you do you'll come across other posters who... frequent Meghan threads. <shrug>

I think it looks like Roussette crops up a lot because, afaik, since I've been on MN she's never changed her name.
I suspect that other people post masses more but under various names.
And, yes, I've seen her on other, non-royal threads too.
Also, although we don't necessarily agree re H&M, I've found it's always possible to have a civil exchange (and the odd joke ) with her, which I couldn't say about some other posters.

Fancy that, you follow me and where and what I post?😮😮. Sorry I don't know you!
Even if I don't post on H&M threads I get talked about 🤣
There are some very prolific anti M&H posters about ....funny they don't get mentioned personally by name!
It's only those who feel there's been bullying of M&H who are 'obsessed'.. .funny that ho hum

As others have said (thank you Serenster). I post in a variety of places, particularly politics threads, does that make me 'obsessed' with the political situation?!

Thank you LaM

Yes... Only a day or so ago a poster who said she had only just joined MN and not posted before (yeah, pull the other one!) told me I had a sad life, I was aa schoolgirl bully and I needed to grow up. All out the blue for no reason!
New to MN my arse
Namechanging is prolific, at least I stand by my posts
(Disclaimer...lots of people don't NC also)