Posie Parker on Fox News

[FiftyWaysToWinInDenver]

www.instagram.com/tv/Cbd5e6WISdd/?utm_medium=copy_link

Apologies if this has been shared already. I haven’t watched Fox or Tucker Carlson before - I know they are biased obviously - but he did seem to grasp the wider problem of the ideology in terms of making people lie and affecting how you think being dangerous etc.

I really can't explain why people thought this was a good policy idea, although my understanding was that it was broadly unpopular. Though I do not think it's equivalent to bombing a hospital with civilians in it which has a fairly clear goal of killing said civilians.

That being said, what's your point in that context? The discussion is about appearing on what are fairly mainstream media outlets with a lot of viewers of different perspectives.

Because I think you can support a republican supported position or a republican or a piece on fox (I’m pretty sure I don’t extend that to tucker Carlson himself, if he’s right on this it’s a stopped clock), but it is dismissive and antihuman to call objectors
and their position trite and pathetic, when the reasons driving the objections are neither. They are valid and fundamental. Try explaining that instead.

I don't like this defence of hateful or far right news outlets just because they are the only ones that air GC views. There's a reason they give airtime for GC views: because the intention is hate and the stoking of it, not because they give a shit about women.
The GC cause is valid. No need to cosey up to dubious people just because they'll give you a soapbox.

You tell your daughter that you’re not “aligning” with any political side, it’s just that sensible, logical, not-in-the-cult people of all political persuasions can see through the bullshit. Tell your daughter that bullshit detectors aren’t political.

And we see the apotheosis of this sort of logic in stuff like the Family Sex Show, or extremely age-inappropriate sex stuff in schools.

It becomes a matter of principle to subject children to that, because to complain about it would be aligning with the "evil" right. You have to do totally wrong-headed things because "bad" people disagree with those things.

This sort of "purity" thinking leads to very dark places, and can induce you to do things you would never countenance otherwise, out of pure tribalism.

You aren't wrong. I've had a few "you are stupid" Twitter replies for sarcasm

Someone telling me that insisting transwomen are men is, apparently, a tautological behaviour. I replied "Tautological? You misspelled BIOLOGICAL wrong". And had the most brilliantly vituperative response, telling me I was thick as a brick and should have used a dictionary 🙂

He then doubled down and said I can't have been being sarcastic, I was just being a dick... So blue haired yoof, American or not, can't cope with sarcasm. They are so boringly literal. Makes poking them far less fun than it should be

😁

The alternative is women not getting a platform at all. Because the hateful news outlets on the Left and Centre, from the Guardian to the Independent, won't publish us at all.

I can’t work with people who thought taking children and babies was a great deterrent and then didn’t even bother to look after those children they had stolen. That’s on a par with Russia bombing a maternity hospital

This is just one of the many things the Republican party approved of under their watch. They are also on the warpath to remove the right for any woman or teen girl to get an abortion. In some states, they have created laws to deny an 11-year-old girl to get an abortion if her rapist disagrees. American women's reproductive autonomy is under attack. While not all who voted for Trump are bad people, there are a lot of awful people dominating the far right in American politics - including white supremacists - and almost all of them are misogynists of various flavors.

Tucker Carlson may have GC views, but he's a vile POS who twists and manipulates information with no care for who he uses - and yes, he's using Posie Parker to create drama, which is good only for his brand. To claim he's arguing in good faith and just happens to have a different opinion on other things than most of us is a woefully naive take on his motivation. I don't know who Posie thinks she's flipping to our side by appealing to Tucker Carlson's audience. I mean, what is the strategy, exactly?

I often think UK feminists on MN don't have the experience of up front and personal interactions w/ Trump Maga types and American-style far right, because if they did, I don't think you'd easily wave away appearing on Tucker Carlson as simply, "a platform to share our views." Tucker Carlson's main audience are the kind of people who have stockpiles of guns and cheer on plots to kidnap women governors.

I strongly question any strategy where feminists agree to be used by right wing media, just on the off chance they might persuade someone who wasn't before persuaded. There's absolutely no strategic value in singing to a conservative choir. Being strategic means we have to convince those on the left...and sharing platforms with far-right nihilistic pot-stirrers like Tucker will only detract leftists from listening, in fact, it may turn them off the message because humans are tribal. Every time a feminist goes on a Fox-like media outlet, I see us taking two steps back.

because the intention is hate and the stoking of it

Again with this nonsense. Posie was there to talk about sport. Do you ever stop to consider that the reason right wing - not far right 🙄- organisations and publications don’t want males in women’s sport is because they know it just isn’t fair?

Delphinium 20. We don’t have experience with Trump and MAGA types, Because so far we haven’t become so polarised and tribal.

Tucker Carlson is far right.

Your Tories are more like our Joe Bidens! I wish American conservatism was like UK's.

Once upon a time there was a consensus. Left wing or right wing, people knew that water was wet, and what a man was and what a woman was. They might not agree on much else, but some things were universally accepted.

Now for some people being a woman is supposed to based on identity rather than biology. With all the safeguarding and other issues this brings to adult human females.

This is not a left wing/right wing issue. Dislike Carlson, Fox News, GBNews and the Daily Mail, but the message needs to get out there and if other media won't carry it, you go to the media who will.

More generally I wonder about causation. I believe Fox and Trump are not the cause, but the effect. People feel disenfranchised: Americans from the rust belt, rural French, Red Wall Brits. The left wing no longer speaks up for them and their concerns. Fox and Trump tackle issues of general concern including something as basic as "what is a woman". They may well be false prophets. Trump may claim to speak for the poor and unrepresented but his fiscal policies benefitted the rich. Whose fault? Trump the opportunist, or left wing politicians and media who forgot their core constituency.

The big hope is that the Guardian notices its declining readership, the Labour Party notices the loss of core voters and so on, and thinks about why. The reason those readers and voters became homeless is not down to the DM or Tories, but down to the parties and media that abandoned them.

I just criticized the strategy of feminists going on far-right media, without any solutions. Here you go:

While the mainstream left-wing media won't platform us, that's not a reason for a kneejerk reactionary stance. We shouldn't throw up our hands and say, "well, it looks like my only way to make change is to talk to the devil!" I reject this argument.

Instead of tainting ourselves w/ our abusers, women speaking up against the insanity of gender ideology needs to continue to be grassroots. Talk to your friends who might be peakable, go on Ovarit, keep posting on Mumsnet, add GC comments on MSM articles, write letters to government officials, write letters to small-town newspapers, your local papers/newsletters etc., etc. It's not a race, it's still a marathon. Don't blow it by getting headpats from men who don't care if we win, but just want to use us as pawns in their patriarchal games of chess.

I was alluding to organisations generally but it doesn’t matter. Far right organisations think males shouldn’t be in women’s sport because it’s unfair. Centre right organisations think males shouldn’t be in women’s sport because it’s unfair. Anyone with any sense, regardless of where they sit on the political spectrum thinks males shouldn’t be in women’s sport because it’s unfair. If Posie had appeared on a left wing tv show in the US, and they had agreed with her, say Anderson Cooper, would that have been considered to be motivated by stoking hate? All organisations that think this unfair see a story in it because people watching at home go “that is crazy, letting that guy swim”. Is the most likely explanation that these organisations see crazy unfairness as a way to attract viewers, or because there’s some evil agenda designed to “stoke hate”?

Delphinium 20 but you seem to be arguing for polarisation and tribalism by saying that gender critical women should stay off right wing media.

The polarization and tribalism already exists...feminists going on rightwing platforms only encourages more division, not less...it doesn't foster openness. It would only foster openness if the left MSM was equally hosting feminists on this topic, but they aren't. So, by feminists only being on rightwing media, we are being associated w/ the tribe of conservatives. It doesn't matter if we aren't rightwing, it's the perception that matters.

Far right organisations think males shouldn’t be in women’s sport because it’s unfair

I'd argue that far right orgs think males shouldn't be in women's sports because it's a way to own the libs...they really don't give a shit about women in sports. There are, of course, many conservatives who do care about the unfairness, but to think far right orgs actually care about women is a stretch.

Far right organisations think males shouldn’t be in women’s sport because it’s unfair

I'd argue that far right orgs think males shouldn't be in women's sports because it's a way to own the libs...they really don't give a shit about women in sports. There are, of course, many conservatives who do care about the unfairness, but to think far right orgs actually care about women is a stretch.

While the mainstream left-wing media won't platform us, that's not a reason for a kneejerk reactionary stance. We shouldn't throw up our hands and say, "well, it looks like my only way to make change is to talk to the devil!" I reject this argument.

This is brilliant. You are telling women who we should or shouldn't talk to. Come back when you have persuaded the left-wing media to let women speak!

While the mainstream left-wing media won't platform us, that's not a reason for a kneejerk reactionary stance. We shouldn't throw up our hands and say, "well, it looks like my only way to make change is to talk to the devil!" I reject this argument.

This is brilliant. You are telling women who we should or shouldn't talk to. Come back when you have persuaded the left-wing media to let women speak!

While the mainstream left-wing media won't platform us, that's not a reason for a kneejerk reactionary stance. We shouldn't throw up our hands and say, "well, it looks like my only way to make change is to talk to the devil!" I reject this argument.

This is brilliant. You are telling women who we should or shouldn't talk to. Come back when you have persuaded the left-wing media to let women speak!

While the mainstream left-wing media won't platform us, that's not a reason for a kneejerk reactionary stance. We shouldn't throw up our hands and say, "well, it looks like my only way to make change is to talk to the devil!" I reject this argument.

This is brilliant. You are telling women who we should or shouldn't talk to. Come back when you have persuaded the left-wing media to let women speak!

I'm not accusing feminists of this on here, so please don't think it. But if Posie Parker going on right wing media is so damaging to our cause, why do transactivist constantly trying to stop her and undermine her credibility for doing so.

Again, I'm not accusing feminist women on here of doing that, because I'm perfectly willing to accept that American politics does not operate in the same way that British politics does.

But it's entirely understandable to interpret the outrage from transactivists and their desperation to stop her, as a fierce attempt to prevent her reaching that audience. Which, if it was damaging to her message, they wouldn't do.

Why do we need to please those who might perceive us as being associated with conservatives? Who gives a shit what a load of misogynists think about my politics? I don’t care about the optics at all. That people aren’t grown up enough to see that I agree with conservatives and right wing organisations on this issue and not others isn’t my problem. You don’t see right wing people sooking “oooh no, I’m associated with left wing feminists on this issue, don’t let anyone see me, lest it impact my credibility.” Why do we have to appease our observers?

Feminists going on right wing platforms raises awareness of unfairness affecting women and girls to right wing audiences, people who otherwise might not even pay attention. That’s a good thing, I don’t care who thinks I’m a Tory/right wing fundamentalist, their opinions doesn’t bother me.