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.

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.

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.

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.

Oops, glitching like crazy, apologies for repeated post, I got a “server not available” message.

NotBadConsidering I agree. The left wing seems to have turned basic biology into a political issue. Its not, and it is perfectly possible to agree with other humans on this issue without in any way suggesting that you agree with whatever political views they hold.

Why do we need to please those who might perceive us as being associated with conservatives?

Because they have institutional power, from the US President to universities to news media to our K-12 schools to Democratic power brokers. We absolutely need them them to change their minds. They don't trust Tucker Carlson and they won't trust us if we appear on his show. PP are right, I AM suggesting who prominent GC feminists should talk to on national TV, because the optics actually do matter in convincing people. If that makes you want to stomp your feet and say, "you can't make me," that's on you. I'm advising on strategy in US media. Take my advice or don't.

We talk often of how sex is binary. So is American politics. It's red or blue. I don't like this, but it's true.

And Posie isn't sharing any revelatory content on Fox...Fox spends an inordinate amount of time already on trans everything, from a very GC and often anti-trans POV. She's not reaching new viewers - they've been hearing about this over and over because it's the juiciest thing the right has over the left at this moment in time, so they can't get enough of it! Posie is just one more tool the far right will use to create divisions.

I actually like Posie and much of what she's done. I hate that she's getting played like this.

Because they have institutional power, from the US President to universities to news media to our K-12 schools to Democratic power brokers. We absolutely need them them to change their minds.

But they won’t have institutional power come the mid terms and come the next election because left wing media organisations ignores women like Posie and no Democrat-leaning candidate is willing to back the ridiculously simple notions that humans can’t change sex and males don’t belong in women’s sport. We don’t need them to change their minds; they need to open their eyes to how much of a vote loser their position is and react accordingly. If not, then the people who gain institutional power will back women’s sport and stop kids being medicalised.

They don't trust Tucker Carlson and they won't trust us if we appear on his show

That’s their problem, isn’t it? The fact they automatically assume that just because someone appears on Tucker Carlson means they don’t have a valid point is just stupid. If I was a Democrat Party strategist all I would do is watch Fox News, to figure out how to get the votes of those that do. But in the meantime if they’re willing to dismiss women because of where they appear instead of what they’re actually saying, more fool them.

I hate that she's getting played like this.

This is so patronising, firstly as if Posie is beholden to any particular political ideology and has to toe the party line, and second to assume Posie doesn’t do things because of what she wants to do, rather than the puppetry of US far right media organisations.

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.

All the people talking about Carlson/Fox as a "far-right" platform seem to be unaware of these stat:

"Tucker Carlson’s primetime show was the top-rated news show among Democrats between 25-54."

44% of Dems watch Fox; 33% watch CNN; 25% watch MSNBC. 58% of independents watch Fox.

So even if it was true that the other content is "far-right" (which I doubt, mainly because of the inaccuracy of almost every other claim about people being far-right), the audience isn't.

twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1489258034865971205

www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/02/02/democrats-fox-news-entertainment-conservative-liberal-00004843

The Nielsen finding also provides succor for ideological maverick Glenn Greenwald, who almost daily is attacked as a traitor by lefties for his scores of appearances on the network. With the Nielsen report in his hand, Greenwald can now accurately say he appears on Carlson’s show to share his wisdom with everybody, not just Republicans but Democrats and independents, who come from the choicest demographic. Carlson’s show led among Democrats in the 25-50 age group in all cable news for the month measured (October), and took third among Democrats in total viewership, The Wrap continued.

She's not reaching new viewers - they've been hearing about this over and over because it's the juiciest thing the right has over the left at this moment in time, so they can't get enough of it!

Another common misconception. On any political topic, the vast majority of the population aren't even vaguely aware of it.

I don't recall who said this, but there's a general rule here - if you're involved or interested in a topic, then by the time you're absolutely sick of hearing it and think there's nothing more to say, and it's being flogged to death in the media - that's about the point the median citizen will first notice it and say "what's all this about then?"

Stuff like JK Rowling tweeting about Alex Drummond yesterday, which in turn got it into the Daily Mail today. For a huge number of people, that will be their very first concept of the idea of a "beardy lesbian".

We have to keep hammering away at this, over and over and over, just to raise consciousness. Which means people like Posie going onto platforms like Carlsons with huge numbers of "normie" viewers who do not spend their lives on Twitter in the middle of GC vs TRA bunfights.

So, women have to earn the trust of career politicians (who are mostly in it for their own benefit) whose job it is to serve citizens. The very same politicians who are enabling the rape of women who are locked up with convicted rapists and violent men. The very same politicians who are obliterating women's rights to equality, safety, dignity and privacy at the behest of lobby groups and donors. And the scandalous sexualisation and medicalisation of healthy children.

Sure maybe they'd prefer it if women didn't insult or sully their misogynistic agenda by giving them their X at the ballot box.

Or maybe sully, via clicks or through coffers, those propaganda tools media outlets who tried to say the women and children who didn't want to be perved on by men at WiSpa were 'right wing' too. Those outlets are 'good' non right wing, those women hating and diminishing apparatchiks, aren't they?

I've heard it all now. Attempted manipulation much, by misogynists telling women they shouldn't annoy this shower of genderists who are vandalising women's rights. Where is for the people and by the people? You know women are usually more than half of any population? Those politicians need to try to earn women's support and vote.

Bit of a rant as I an so incensed by people basically telling women to shut up, so the self proclaimed 'decent' non right wing can continue ripping up our rights.

Sunlight, sunlight and more sunlight. It is only those who want their deeds to remain uncovered who pull an Aunt Sally, and try to get people to ignore the message.

Is it really a good strategy to allow men to go on any platform they wish while women must confine themselves to those full of really nice people who already agree with everything women want.

It sounds like such an own goal for women that I'm thinking the concept must have been invented by an MRA

I know quite a few Trump voters, all women, who are also very much against gender ideology and are pretty normal people. Some voted holding their noses, others not so much, all were pretty disgusted by the Democrats and see them as dominated by racists and sexists and as promoting seriously dangerous social/political views. None of them are keen on separating kids from parents at the border and some are Hispanic themselves, but they tend not to be pro-illegal immigration either. They all think men in women's sports is appalling because it is unsafe, unfair, and stupid. They are generally pretty well educated and do normal things like go to work and send their daughters to university.

A lot of this depiction of people who vote republican or even for Trump seems pretty reductive to me.

"Tucker Carlson’s primetime show was the top-rated news show among Democratsbetween 25-54."

Well, I never. I think that's the definitive response, right there.

Absolutely no justification necessary, because she's not doing the thing her detractors say she is.

This is interesting about Fox News' audience for Tucker Carlson

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

Thanks for the link. According to the apparent belief of some posters, that must mean that most of the Democratic voting viewers (between 25-54) who were surveyed are literally far right supporters.

Goodness, I hope it didn't hurt Posie's image that she may have been viewed by such people!

I'm still getting my head around the notion that it is the voter who need to gain/earn the respect of the political party. Or that a political party needs to be appeased as it has some sort of institutional right to tenure; not voted in or out at the behest of the voters.

That's so interesting about his audience. I'd love to have more information about those watching him.

I'm also curious about what "far right" includes. Obviously there is a spectrum, but I'd tend to think it includes people who want ethno states or seek very authoritarian means of imposing their views? Which I would not have said Fox particularly seems to push.

Carlson knows exactly who is his audience and that is precisely why he invites someone like Kellie-Jay to appear in his programme and it's why KJ accepts. They both know they are talking to Democrats mostly. [Hint neither Carlson nor KJ are stupid!]

The same is true for Kara Dansky - she knows she is talking to Democrats and she is most definitely not stupid.

Do we know why those Democrat viewers tune in? Have any of you regularly watched Tucker? If you have, I'm surprised you can't suss out how Tucker's show is massively obnoxious, full of misinformation and quite bigoted. It's entertainment, not serious news programming. Could it it be hate watching from those Dems? The Politico report describes it as entertainment watching. There is no way I could convince ANY of my liberal friends to tune into Tucker Carlson to listen and take seriously one of his guests. They would consider anyone who showed up on that show as either an idiot or problematic. If I shared this video with ANY friend or colleague in blue America - even those who think our progressives have gone too far- they wouldn't trust it and they'd wonder if I'd lost my mind. I do show them news on the Karolinska Institute in Sweden, Bari Weiss on Substack, Jess Singal and others in The Atlantic, PITTstack, Genspec, articles on Self ID from the BBC and show pictures of Lia Thomas, but a Fox News Tucker Carlson show? Suicide. My message would be dead in the water.

His misinformation is documented: web.archive.org/web/20210414182829/www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/01/tucker-carlson/579460/

Again, love you UK women, but y'all don't get our culture nor our politics. We don't need to convince conservatives, we MUST get the left persuaded, and the left-leaning moderates (the people who show up to vote and change elections). I care deeply about the children being hurt by gender clinics, and don't think these kinds of strategies change the minds that need changing.

Some people may be gleeful thinking that the Democrats will lose in midterms and possibly presidential election...but I'm terrified. There's a war in Ukraine and Trump is friendly w/ Putin. There's climate change, abortion, healthcare and many other things that the Democrats have superior policies over...the right is using this issue to help Democrats lose, which is terrifying to me because our far right is dangerous.

You're wasting your time @Delphinium20, they praise Matt Walsh as 'an important GC voice' and for 'defending women's rights' here.

Needmoresleep*: kI 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.'
*
Yes to this. I am horrified that Labour have thoroughly disenfranchised so many of its traditional voting base - red wall brits, and now GC left wing women. And it's doesn't seem to care, or even notice.

Also, love Posie. She doesn't give a fuck about where she appears - she just wants to get the message across. And she is doing an excellent job. She does not need or want feminist approval, or anyone else's, for that matter. There is something freeing about that.

Just in case you weren't aware, quotation marks are conventionally used for indicating something someone has actually said.

No, no we don't.