Interesting take from Sunday Times on Gervais/Netflix

[McDuffy]

I've enjoyed Josh Glancy's columns before but can't remember him writing on this subject.

I showed the Gervais clip to a school dad at a jubilee party yesterday after he told me that Stonewall were a disgrace and started on about queer theory, thought he was a safe bet

Article:

Don’t be offended, but we may have passed peak outrage

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/d97f7738-e424-11ec-a6dd-97fa9f1901cf?shareToken=ef1b20b8aaa56ae2dee2b143267da95e

Yeah, well that’s great that all those MEN don’t get backlash but it’s probably scant comfort to the restaurant owner whose business was trashed due to hosting JKR.

but let’s hope things improve.

I think we have passed it. JKR faced the gauntlet first, and her book sales weren’t affected. Obviously she is an outlier but people were watching.

I hope that companies have learned that giving in to the wokescolds isn't the way to do business.

I also hope that governments will learn this too, sharpish.

Men are more protected against being canceled, and now there are some men speaking up. Sadly, this is not much of a consolation for all the women who were doing the truly hard work for a long time, many of whom lost their livelihoods.

Still, I hope that he indeed is correct about things perhaps changing a little bit. I am so parched for real debate, and more impartial coverage of issues affecting women.

Hmm, rich middle aged males get to do and say as they please, tale as old as time.

Difficult times lay ahead where we need people to care about what is happening. Yesterday the winning women in a women's cycle race placed third, by the Olympics in France women may not place at all.

"It may also be that the rest of us are starting to shy away from the kind of vicious and unforgiving expressions of group outrage that have been so common. That we’ve had enough."

I don't think so. The mobs are still there and those who believe in (and enact) cancel culture are still there. The difference, if there is one, is whether those in power bow to their demands. I need to see more examples than Gervais, Chapelle and Rogan before I believe we are beating the crybullies.

Not always. Remember Jimmy Carr getting cancelled recently for his Netflix stand up?

I think the public is ready for the material in Gervais's set. (Written for him by TRAs 😉)

Digital McCarthyism is still one protest that people can control even with the uncertainty of the world around them.

As PPs note, there has been lesser issues for men and the burden of the outrage has fallen on women.

Difficult times lay ahead where we need people to care about what is happening. Yesterday the winning women in a women's cycle race placed third, by the Olympics in France women may not place at all.

A lot of women will have lost so much by then and it will be difficult to recover in a number of areas in sports.

When and if this clears, it will look like The Men sorted it, as Helen Joyce has said. The women used the wrong tone, the wrong voice (too high-pitched and squeaky).

When and if this clears, it will look like The Men sorted it, as Helen Joyce has said. The women used the wrong tone, the wrong voice (too high-pitched and squeaky).

Sad but again, tale as old as time. Nothing changes, we've just been allowed to think it was.

Yes, although one thing is that some men have had a glimpse of the mechanisms that have kept women subdued/oppressed/ignored.

Citing Douglas Murray and the Triggernometry presenters, for example, who I think were fairly firmly anti-feminist before all this <waves> took off.

Interesting comments below the line with countless commentators pointing out Josh has ignored what happens to women and the capture of so many agencies by the trans extremists.

"The anxieties of spiralling costs at home and the horrors of Putin’s war machine abroad hopefully make ruining people’s lives over dumb cultural solecisms seem appropriately petty."

This part chimes with me. I could hear my grandmother in my head, saying 'What he/she needs is some real problems to deal with!' in an exasperated tone, whenever she was told of someone fretting over something - well, over something petty.

I'm sure that thought could be gussied up by talking about Maslow's hierarchy of needs or 'luxury beliefs', but I think my gran cut to the chase there.

I agree

“if you find it hard to support our content breadth, Netflix may not be the best place for you.”

I forgot that Netflix had said this.

This also now plays into the fact that we no longer have posters who claim regular posters on FWR are an extreme minority.

Because they were always the ones in an echo chamber telling them that gender identity is fully supported and understood by the majority and only those true haters disagree. Despite the numerous MN polls that blew their claims to dust.

They stopped a while ago and I don’t think I have seen a post like that for a while.

But I also think businesses are looking at the sales figures. There will likely be a retreat to the bankable stuff. I wonder what Helen Joyce and Kathleen Stock’s sales figures have been. Hardbacks don’t usually shift above 1,000 copies, especially non-fiction

I think the videos circulated online of the TRA demos in the US and UK are cutting through too - the individuals shrieking 'witch, witch', the 'black pampers' surrounding the statue in Manchester. The individual leading the anti-Netflix demos was a 30-something white male who was formerly a showrunner on a Netfliix show aimed at black teenagers, who has a penchant for wearing spaghetti-strap tops to better display to passers-by his upper-arm tattoos of a near-naked person with an erect and spurting cock sticking out of their knickers and underneath it a tattoo showing a trussed up and dismembered, headless, limbless naked female torso.

Repent motherfuckers.

Repent motherfuckers!

REPENT motherfuckers!

REPENT MOTHERFUCKERS!!!

Really. You cannot best that at all!

Really. You cannot best that at all!

For me, the tambourine was an outstanding addition to that incantation although I accept that YMMV.

This has been scarcely a perturbation for men. It disproportionately affects women and will continue to do so. Not least because women traditionally police the behaviour of women more restrictively than that of men and we have a number of women who are eager to establish their allegiance to the dominant sex class by demonstrating their allyship through vigilante action, denunciation, and mobbing of women who assert sex-based rights.

How many threads do we have on this board attempting to tone police or at worst, undermine other women who are out there discussing this?

There are two running on Helen Joyce’s words right now. It was Kellie Jay a few days ago.

It seems like an increased number of posters have come onto threads saying ‘I am 100% GC… but …’ recently. I am suspicious of any new post leading with this.

I look forward to just getting on with fighting to uphold already established rights for women and children to be honest.

Not much - not any - 'tone policing' coming from their side, is there? Imagine how different things might be now if every time over the last few years a TRA had posted an online death or rape threat, an image of them posing with a baseball bat or gun, sent a dick pick or anus pic, the anime schoolgirl with her tongue out pointing the gun, groups like Stonewall and the blue tick activists had spoken out, distanced themselves, and said 'not in my name', and acknowledged that women who don't want to open up single sex safe spaces to males who behave like this are fully justified in their stance. Instead it's been 'acceptance without exception' and hugging them close under their ever expanding umbrella and alphabet.

Yes, ivy.

The narrative is 'they have been hurt and have every right to respond in that way'.

Didn't Medick say this under oath? And they were not the only one.

There is this infantilising happening in plain sight and yet, no one is addressing it from the top down.

Didn't Medick say this under oath? And they were not the only one.

Was that Stonewall's then Head of Trans Inclusion, Kirrin Medcalf? I have a little blurred the testimony and cross-examination of Kirrin Medcalf and Shaan Knan - (LGBT consortium, there to discuss STAG, the Stonewall Trans Advisory Group).

ETA before posting, it was Medcalf who is reported to have said the following.

KM: These are very much different to the ones you showed elsewhere with threats of violence. These are people responding to someone who’s actively trying to harm them. To a minority of trans people and yeah, people who would be angry and have the right to respond in that way. So yes, some of them use the term; others use gender-critical, others use transphobe, they’re just trying to, in the short amount of words you’re limited to in Twitter, to explain why they’re particularly unhappy with this perspective and expressing their displeasure with it.

TERF isn’t a slur here, it’s people being angry. Just because they’re angry it doesn’t mean it’s a slur. A slur has to have a connotation from a majority in power to a minority in power…TERF is people in power wanting to harm others, rather than being a word that’s someone in power to oppress someone else. Trans people don’t have the power. Trans people are a minority in power.

sex-matters.org/posts/updates/kirrin-medcalf/

Oops. Yes Medcalf.

Medick is an Australian MP with a transitioned male child who is TRA. The adult child that is. The MP called out an ‘assault’ on their child as being politically motivated and the Australian PM at the time offered support. Only, it wasn’t politically motivated at all and the adult child, having been caught tagging threw a spray can at a passerby who told them to stop. The passerby threw said spray can back and hit 20 something adult on head and adult child staggered to a bar to claim victimisation.

So. Completely unrelated incident but not necessarily an irrelevant example of ‘spin’.

And never letting truth get in the way of such claims and motivations of ‘responding to someone actively trying to harm them’ stories.

It seems like an increased number of posters have come onto threads saying ‘I am 100% GC… but …’ recently. I am suspicious of any new post leading with this.

YY.

*“if you find it hard to support our content breadth, Netflix may not be the best place for you.”

I love this quote. So much snark.

Probably just repeating what others have said, but this is very much a business decision. I think it's dawning on some large corporations that the fact that trans extremists are very vocal in their protests doesn't mean they represent a large number of people. Quite the contrary, in fact. Gender-critical views are much more widely held, even if most people who hold them don't realise that's what they're called. Finally, in terms of spending power, who has it? The people buying books and paying for Netflix subscriptions are, I would guess, a bit older, a bit more politically mainstream. In the case of books, they're about 80% female. If I were a corporation focusing on profit, I know which audience I'd be aiming at.