Getting into bed with the Daily Mail!!

[stillamum22]

Looking at the posts re the disturbing activity of some people who claim to be Trans Activists, I see that some of us are a little embarrassed at referencing the Daily Mail (who wouldn't be!?). And it has been used against women defending women's spaces etc. by some high profile commentators.
It's interesting, as in the 1970s angry women (mothers) protested against the vile activity of the paedophille Information exchange (who were supported at the time by the liberal elite and civil liberty orgs), found themselves on the same side as the national front and Mary Whitehouse! In my opinion it's unsettling to realise right wing religious groups, the Sun and the Mail may be allies at the mo - but even a stopped clock is right sometimes!!

Allies? I don't think they are friends to feminists. I think most GC feminists support the third space option. I don't see the DM talking about that.

We are talking about the same subject but not from the same political position, we don't have the same agenda and probably don't want the same outcome.

I thought it was the Mail on Sunday?
I havent clicked on any links but the MoS is a different paper from the Daily Mail as far as I am aware.

See where you are coming from upstartcrow good point, I was trying to express something different in my post. Probably poorly written on my part ....

Hands across the aisle is an interesting alliance OP. This is a very good panel presentation from all concerned.

handsacrosstheaislewomen.com/

You beat me to it, BirrhCanal. Hands Across the Aisle is a good example of what in other circumstances would be political adversaries working together over this one issue.

Trans ideology poses such a threat to women across the board that it's not surprising to see such alliances

The gutter press is well versed at handling lawsuits - and they aren’t afraid of offending.

That doesn’t make them allies - we’re simply utilising them as (temporary) ‘proportionate response to a legitimate aim’.

I don't really care if it is the more "right-wing" press covering the story. I do think certain outlets, like the Mail, try to speak for the "common people." They can be crass, they get things wrong sometimes, but the older I get the more I realise that the "prestige" outlets (hello Guardian!) can be just as ideologically driven - except they cloak themselves in "liberal respectability." I don't think commentators like our good friend "wrong side of history" Owen Jones are any less biased than right-wing views in the Spectator, for example.
Personally, I am just glad if this message is getting out there - so people can look into these issues and make up their own minds.

Cheers heresyandwitchraft! Some uneasy alliances of course have borne fruit - miners and gays being one. But the likes of Owen Jones dismissing feminists as being allies of the Mail is a smoke screen.
When the party you assume would want to support safe spaces throw women under the bus, it's easy to despair.

My answer is very very simple: if any left or liberal paper other than the Morning Star would cover the issue fairly, nobody would need to link to Mail articles.

The DM is neither an ally nor an enemy. They are a paper (actually a few fairly distinct news outlets, the print, MoS and online are not all the same.)

I don’t get this angst over the DM publishing stuff. There is no need to divide the world into absolute goodies who we must love and agree with 100% and absolute baddies who must be vilified constantly - that’s a thought pattern mostly associated with:

Toddlers
Adults with cluster B personality disorders
People who can’t deal with nuance.

This has been posted on here a few times and frankly I’m getting suspicious of motive - it’s basivally saying ‘the dk have printed something and you have found it interesting and NOW YOU ARE A BADDIE!’

No. In the real world, papers print stuff. A lot of what the DM prints is bilge. Some of it is downright offensive. And sometimes they get it dead right. Incidentally I feel the same way about the Guardian.

You do not have to agree 100% with someone or something to interact / read something. Who honestly expects to agree 100% with anyone, ever?

If the newsletter of heaven itself printed a sidebar of shame they’d be in the wrong. If the DM exposes something that really should see the light then they’re in the right. It doesn’t change either of their track records.

So frankly: so what? How is anyone allying themselves to the DM? It’s a paper not a club, cult or political party. they printed a story. The story was interesting.

What’s the interest in continually trying to link the nasty feminists with the DM?

Most of the time is is just the lefty and righty d00dz arguing over how to position the boot on women's necks.

This is also a big danger with left/right politics and tribalism and identity politics.

If you’re blindly following a party just because they’re left, or right, or because you feel they’re ‘your people’ then you risk being blind to their actions.

I’d always considered myself left wing. But a critical look at the current political landscape and I can’t vote labour. I just can’t. I used to read the guardian - now I find 95-% of it apologist bilge (one or two stalwarts excepted...)

I find myself politically homeless but at least my eyes are open.

I'm getting very tired of being told what I can and can't think / say / read / agree with.

I'm an adult capable of discrimination and critical thought, as are the majority of adults in this country - even the ones I disagree with about everything. The only sensible thing to do with an argument is judge it on its merits, not find out who made it and then accept or blacklist it depending on their perceived moral standing.