Model response to a dilemma for women in the left-right storm (really?)

[IwantToRetire]

So not satisfied with appropriating the work, ideas and campaigning of one woman and many active supporters, some complete set of nobody film makers have taken it upon themselves to school us silly air heads on how to behave and who to talk to.

Leaving aside the smug condescension of believing the have the right to tell us how to behave, this is a perfect example of where complete nobodies who exploit other people to further their own media career, then assume they are as politically relevant and analytically acute as actual activists.

kaygreen.blog/2022/12/31/model-response-to-a-dilemma-for-women-in-the-left-right-storm/

This is the problem with the media at the moment, presenters and film makers who are just the vehicle to get voices and ideas heard, then think they are entitled to become the spokes person.

Apart from anything else, did these nupties even think maybe we should ask those who the film was actually about. I know they would, having been hand selected as the appropriately politically aligned voices, also refused, but even within the unethical world of these self promoters, do they really think they take precedence.

But it does gives us a clear idea of their moral compass and how they felt able to bandwagon of others work and go to extreme lengths to make sure they are never referred to or acknowledged.

Why are you so cross? It seems perfectly reasonable. Some people will go on Fox News, others will decline, for the reasons set out. L

Fair enough, I assume they've got an interview with Owen Jones or Zoe Williams instead.

I thought declining was bizarre. Would the women (and therefore indirectly, the children of those women) who watch Fox, not also benefit from hearing about these issues? Or is the message only good for some parts of society?

In the UK at least, I don't recall seeing such moral dilemmas playing out among Stonewall, GIRES, Mermaids, Gendered Intelligence et al about working with the Tories and LDs, then the Tories.

Apparently it's only left wing women who have to stick to, and be judged by, rules that the TRAs definitely don't. Truly strange.

I thought declining was bizarre. Would the women (and therefore indirectly, the children of those women) who watch Fox, not also benefit from hearing about these issues? Or is the message only good for some parts of society?

Their explanation as to why they made that choice is towards the bottom of the post in OP's link. They address the point you make.

Ok but who are they talking to instead? Guardian? BBC? Independent? Pink News? Novara Media?

Yes I read it. And I had already read it on SM. But there's no evidence put forward that Fox is a political project. Maybe it is, but they've just given an opinion with no supporting evidence. I think if you're going to say you're not doing it for political purity, you've got to anchor that in hard evidence. Otherwise it's just opinions.

So not satisfied with appropriating the work, ideas and campaigning of one woman

Who's work and ideas is the documentary appropriating? It's mostly interviews around the the idea of women's sex based rights, how can it be taking one person's work?

Leaving aside the smug condescension of believing the have the right to tell us how to behave

Nothing about that statement told women how to behave. It was about why they declined an interview and Kay Green agreeing.

Apart from anything else, did these nupties even think maybe we should ask those who the film was actually about.

If Fox want to interview the subjects of the documentary they can ask and those people can decline or accept as they choose. I don't think documentary makers should go to interviews based on what their subjects tell them to do.

Your OP appears needlessly combative about a documentary covering a subject I think you support and which has been well received. What context am I missing please?

cor, some people do take themselves ever so seriously don't they? I don't think I've ever assumed that me speaking to someone would confer legitimacy on them.

it's not the choice I would make, but it's their movie and their decision

luckily there are other women who will speak to anyone and everyone

wouldn't it be nice if those women didn't get a load of shit?

But there's no evidence put forward that Fox is a political project. Maybe it is, but they've just given an opinion with no supporting evidence. I think if you're going to say you're not doing it for political purity, you've got to anchor that in hard evidence.

I think what they mean is that Fox's bias and lack of accuracy mean it falls short of even the most basic standards for news. If they go on they feel they will be allowing a kind of feminist-washing of an organisation which seeks to remove women's rights.

Ultimately that's simply their choice. I don't think it needs evidence, surely it's obvious what their concerns about Fox are? It certainly is about 'political purity' but everyone draws that line somewhere- feminists have the right to work with organisations like Fox or not as they wish.

If they go on they feel they will be allowing a kind of feminist-washing of an organisation which seeks to remove women's rights.

I think this would have been a punchier, and far more accessible and easily understood point for them to have made, plus some evidence about removing women's rights on Fox.

She Killed Two Women. At 83, She Is Charged With Dismembering a Third.

www.nytimes.com/2022/03/10/nyregion/harvey-marcelin-shopping-cart-body.html

If the filmmakers would reject an interview request from the New York Times for similar reasons (that NYT's reporting of MVAWG as crimes committed by "women" is part and parcel of the campaign to remove women's rights to single-sex DV shelters and prisons) then I would respect their position.

Forgive me if I'm skeptical that they would turn down such an offer.

If the filmmakers would reject an interview request from the New York Times for similar reasons

They essentially gave two reasons for thinking appearing on Fox would do more harm than good (although, as @ResisterRex rightly points out, they could have been much more to the point):

1. It doesn't really have sufficient editorial quality to qualify as a news organisation by UK standards:
2. It's consistently and strongly pushed removal of abortion rights.

I think it's comepletely fair to say that the NYT is not remotely equivalent to Fox in these respects. Everyone draws their own lines.

I genuinely don't understand why the criticism. Is it literally the decision not to go on Fox news?

They publicised the fact they'd been invited on to the Tucker Carlson Show and declined and when they found that generated interest in the film they released a longer statement to milk even more attention. It's not a bad strategy but they don't seem to acknowledge they have used Tucker Carlson for that purpose so he has at least been of some use to them.

As for the statement.... I couldn't manage anything more grown up than a lol, it reads like something written by a very ernest 20 year old media studies student. Heads so far up their own arses they must need head torches.

I completely agree with their strategy to decline Tucker Carlson. He's been using feminists for awhile now for his own ratings so I have no empathy for him. I have been frustrated with the lack of serious journalists being allowed to interview feminists on this topic, and I believe the producers of this show deserve much better press than they are getting. In the states, we need the mainstream left to be persuaded and that won't happen if feminists keep lowering their standards to appear on sensationalist programs. We deserve to be taken seriously.

That occurred to me too as I was reading the response. Would they also reject the Washington Post? Mother Jones?

If it is about integrity and quality of editorial content, are there any mainstream media outlets that they would accept?

I don't blame them. Why should they contribute to Fox News content, views and profit?

If the filmmakers would reject an interview request from the New York Times for similar reasons (that NYT's reporting of MVAWG as crimes committed by "women" is part and parcel of the campaign to remove women's rights to single-sex DV shelters and prisons) then I would respect their position.

In that context I'd be very happy to see them go on and illustrate exactly what a woman is. Get their film seen by the readers. Shunning NYT over that would reach none of the people they're trying to reach. It's a different political landscape in the US and why terf island is terf island and not terf US continent.

Fairly split over this, I do understand why they've said no. And they've that right to say no. I think the statement was rubbish and could have been more succinct.

"We don't think you're a news channel, just click bait peddling fake news and we don't want to be seen as click bait. Plus your abortion rights stance is abominable and at odds with women's rights."

It could have reached more audiences and in the uk I do think ignoring the left / right divide is v important - the daily mail is sterling on this and I would have never read them previously. It's important also in many contexts in the US, but they're trying to maintain a certain journalistic stance in order to get into places like the NYT. To reach the types who read it.

Emma Hilton and Meghan Murphy have had quite a show down about this.

twitter.com/fondofbeetles/status/1609663501638971392?s=46&t=qJYe7LiV41FZh8TRWJvp5w

From where I'm sitting it feels like a pretty blatant attempt to get into the good books of the left wing media: 'See what we did? Aren't we good girls, now please, please talk to us' kind of thing. Otherwise they'd have just declined the invitation and not made a performance out of it.

I'm quite curious to see if it works. If it does it could turn out to be a clever move. If it doesn't they're left with a film, which presumably they made because they made because they had something to communicate, which very few people will know about.

Yes, absolutely you deserve that.

And I'm not in the US so it might be different there, but for years UK feminists couldn't get any even vaguely left-leaning programme or publication to touch GC ideas with a bargepole. So it was the baddies, or nothing.

GC ideas are now in the debate because speaking with the baddies got enough women aware that the goodies had to start engaging.

What are the suitable outlets in the US that will platform GC ideas and satisfy the left?

Model response?? 😂😂 That's pretty big headed of them to think so.

If it was genuinely about personal integrity, they would have quietly turned down the media request from the Tucker Carlson show and left it at that. I'm sure they are being inundated with media requests (😏) so it's simply a case of saying yes to the ones you want to do and no to the ones you don't for whatever personal reason. No boasting required.

But it had nothing to do with any kind of personal integrity.
The whole point of the tweet was a form of performative piety. It was to publicly show people from their 'in group' (which includes TRAs) how pious they are - that of course they turned down those horrible, evil people. Preening, posturing, smug piety. It's all a show for their mates. Look how virtuous and pure we are. And people can see through the shallow virtue signalling because these types are cut from the same cloth as the TRAs.

It’s been hard going for women’s sex-based rights campaigners, slandered and misunderstood at every step, and – because women’s rights are a matter of direct concern to over half the population of the planet, a campaign that reaches across every divide – of politics, of nationality, language, culture and class.

Hahahaha 😂😂😂😂

I'm sick to the back teeth of this line that lefties keep pulling out of their arse in the same way that I'm sick of them talking about how they support racial minorities and migrants. No you don't, you genuinely don't - you only care about the ones that fit your ideological agenda so just fuck off with the sanctimonious claptrap.

Why can't they just be honest? Say 'yes this a matter which affects all women, but as left wing activists and campaigners, we're only interested in talking to those who are in agreement with our politics'. See - that wasn't so hard, was it? What's the problem?

If they genuinely believed that "women’s rights are a matter of direct concern to over half the population of the planet" then they would use whatever opportunities they could to reach out to any and every woman.
I'm a brown woman and I would happily talk to anyone, even someone labelled far right, because I actually care enough to say 'you might hate me, but the safety and rights of the women and children in your own group is more important than whatever irreconcilable differences you imagine there are between us'.

I'm no media expert but it can't be difficult when on air to say 'thanks for having us on the show - there's actually plenty we vehemently disagree with the show itself and the network - but we feel this issue affects all women and children and we hope our work resonates with people of all political affiliations and makes them think about why it's important. There are genuine issues around prejudice and discrimination against trans people (as well as gays and lesbians) but this shouldn't come at the expense of the rights and protections for women and children.'

I respect their decision to not want to engage with TC. As it’s their film, they have every right to decide who platforms it.

BUT

Because of the smug, condescending way they talk to people on Twitter, their organisation is not one I will support in any future endeavours.

I saw some of this last night. It did make me think...not engaging from the position here, where self-ID has crept in but is not legal, and the Graun eventually did a piece on Mermaids, and the Observer has more freedom. That might feel hopeful.

But imagine it from the POV of US and Canadian women. I wonder if some of them wish they'd spoken to each and every outlet while they had the chance.

You could always go on Fox and mention you don't agree with X while being interviewed. I doubt all the viewers agree with everything said on there. And I suspect there will be US women who know that coverage of gender ideology will only be on there, so they watch clips for that reason.

I have a great deal of time for Emma Hilton, but I think MM has the right of it in this exchange.