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.

And I hear you but, I am sorry, I don’t agree with painting Riley Gaines as something she is not because of who she voted for.

You can tell me off all you like, I am still not going to portray someone as 100% supporting every single manifesto point
of a candidate unless they expressly say so.

I am sure though that you are doing everything you can to make the changes you want for your local area, your state and your country.

And I can applaud you on that because that is democracy.

what do you think, other than a celeb voice, will swing it? Or just as you say, when the damaged children and the suing gets too much?

Warrior. I also follow PITTstack and hear rumblings of lawsuits on there. It makes me sick that we need to wait for more kids to get damaged. Maybe it will be a few parents w/ connections?

Another thing I've noticed in left-leaning political FB groups is the lessening of pro-trans kids posts and also the limited 'likes' to such posts in contrast to lots of likes on other posts like abortion rights or 'stupid things Trump said'. I'm sensing a growing silent majority.

Another thought experiment I've had is what if CNN platformed KJK and she was able to get in her regular message PLUS a plug for 'US is behind on its abortion rights'? That kind of media platform would likely quell some of the 'agree w/ you but you scare me when men w/ guns show up at your protests'. It would also show Americans that UK women have GC AND abortion rights/ women's rights views (there's an assumption from many Americans that you are all more progressive than we are). Plus, your accents make us think you're smarter than we are. It is known.

She's really good on air and if asked sensible questions, she'd shine. I do believe the platform matters if you want to tip the scales. It's not fair, but I think it's reality.

I am sure that Kellie Jay would consider any platform.

I think she would have the nerves to remain calm even if she was on a platform that was high pressure. For instance like that Dr Phil episode with Matt Walsh. Now I don’t agree with Matt Walsh on some, maybe many, topics but I can say that he can hold his discussion without losing his nerve or his temper.

The entire thing is, just like Kara Dansky said on Twitter the other day - will it ever happen?

Speaking of Dr. Phil and Kara Dansky, she filmed an episode of his show back in August 2022 and got the go-ahead from his producers to mention it online:

twitter.com/WDI_USA/status/1557835765945577474

It's still yet to air.

I'm only occasionally on Twitter, so totally missed that.

That is really exciting! Not the MSM gravitas I can wish for (as Dansky has the ability to speak on news stations), but definitely the cultural/general public audience.

In an earlier post you mentioned lacking a cultural figure in the States. I wish Oprah would stand up and say something. I am not even aware is she has said anything either way tbh.

Don't hold your breath. Oprah has uncritically interviewed E. Page about how cosmetic surgery remedies personal distress.

I'm disappointed in Oprah. Oprah should be fully cognisant of how abusive Hollywood can be, especially after #Me Too campaign. Page is a former child star experiencing distress around having breasts, who describes having panic attacks at the thought of wearing standard hollywood women's evening wear (i.e. revealing) to film premieres. I think there's another explanation at hand than having a blue soul that accidentally got put in a female body.

For example, whether Page admits it or not, I think Page's life as a child actor and then a teenage actor meant gaining firsthand knowledge of how lecherous men in powerful positions behave, including how they treat actors and actresses whose careers depend on their favour. I wouldn't want to wear skimpy evening wear around exploitative, abusive men either...

www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56952345

And this is Oprah's website , with a piece dated 09/28/2007, which talks about children being born in the wrong body.

One of the children interviewed for it is a female teen who had an elective double mastectomy before 18.

Quote

At age 16, Jake had surgery to remove his breasts. Before that, he would bind them every day. "It's so much easier now to pick out what I want to wear because I don't have to worry about if my chest is showing or not," he says.

Oprah on gender identity

Anyone else watched this yet? KJK weighing in on these issues and criticising academic feminists for not raising the alarm.

And who is the feminist who told Paris Lees that men could be lesbians? Not Julie Bindel, surely???

https://www.youtube.com/live/8M04Pe7A3HY?feature=share

I've just finished watching that link. The 40 seconds intro to her upcoming film is grest.
I'd like to know who the feminist was too that said that Paris Lees could be a lesbian. I know KjK is critical of Woman's Place for having Debbie Hayton in the early days. Would they still do that now I wonder?

The AHF film currently has 79k views on u tube and I know you can view on other platforms too.
How does that compare to Matt Walsh's film (I've not seen it yet).

Really looking forward to KJKs film coming out.

Matt Walsh’s film was behind a paywall until a work around was released wasn’t it?

I have looked back on last night’s posts and I think I can safely say that some posters on MN FWR seem to be very heavily invested in trying to force women who disagree with them to fit into prejudiced definitions that seem shaped that poster’s perspective rather than what is the truth.

I know that I am not alone in finding this a too frequent occurrence because it seems to be stuck on repeat. Different posters, same outcome. Some posters, even those who have been hear a long time, think they have know what the majority of posters on this board believe, yet when the finer points start being discussed, the knowledge seems to be based purely on prejudice and misinterpretation. Not on perspective gained from openly asking questions and going further in depth.

No wonder we are constantly seeing posts from a wide range of posters aimed at shaming women for their stances.

I think that too often those posters attempting to shame others are doing so partly, maybe even a large part, out of their own lack of understanding and narrowness of views. Despite evidence that some of those posters believe the contrary about themselves.

It becomes very apparent then, why the manipulative tactics used by activists across social media and oft repeated here, really do come down to pure emotional manipulation. Because I don’t think those tactics come from having any depth in understanding this board and the people who post here.

This comes across as polarised thinking. By an absolute belief that if a group are not falling into alignment with you and your beliefs, they must all be the opposite. Good vs bad. It comes across in language used too, and usually involves over exaggeration and hyperbole.

Those absolute beliefs in turn seem to come from a view that seems to have been formed with only ever a prejudiced viewpoint shaping bad faith interpretations, determined misrepresentations and the assumptions derived from
these.

Yet if those assumptions are questioned then the distractive tactics start. Telling a group of people what they, the group, believe and being told that that description is wrong should immediately raise questions in people who are open to new information and motivated by truth.

I rarely see this in twitter dialogues but we do thankfully see it on MN threads. Where someone gets it wrong, has the self awareness to accept that they have it wrong even just partly wrong, and then through explanations and discussion form a differed opinion. It might be just a small adjustment or more significant.

And the cycle goes on.

What I want to know, is where is the 'this is what a feminist must think' checklist?

Surely allowing women their freedom of thought is just as feminist as forcing women to think what the self-appointed feminist truth tellers tell them to think?

People saying 'she can't be a feminist as she did this' - well isn't she allowed to think and do what she thinks is in her best interests as a woman? She might be wrong [in my eyes] but having her own thoughts is as feminist as anyone else who self declares they are a feminist?

It isn't a club you can get kicked out of. It is a nebulous concept that each individual decides on their own terms.

In fact, does 'feminism' even exist? Or as soon as a decision is made by a feminist does the concept automatically fail as at least one woman might be affected by it and therefore they are then not a feminist by anyone's definition.

We need to constantly think about these things before we go shouting about 'her, she's no feminist' because as soon as a woman gets to a high office, she is in a position where she needs to make decisions that will affect other women, so if might follow that the most feminist thing women can do, is not go for any high office in the first place. Which is not what most feminists want.

It's a conundrum that's for sure.

Great post, Hellofabore.

I have looked back on last night’s posts and I think I can safely say that some posters on MN FWR seem to be very heavily invested in trying to force women who disagree with them to fit into prejudiced definitions that seem shaped that poster’s perspective rather than what is the truth .

In light of the above statement, the following seems pertinent:

As this thread shows, there are plenty here with an inbuilt filter that rejects anything connected to the left.🤷‍♀️ Not only can they not see the nuance, they have a purity spiral so tight, left wing GC feminists are excluded.

I think Toobig said this yesterday. I meant to respond to it but got sidetracked and forgot.

I'm struggling to respond and I don't even know where to start because I am completely gobsmacked by the sheer hypocrisy but luckily Hell's quote does cover it somewhat.

I am still hoping to get an answer about how feminists who believe that sex should be prioritised above gender are not also focused on equality of opportunity.

That seems like a bizarre accusation right there.

However, I think it reflects that absolutist perspective as well. Quite clearly, some people believe that woman on this board either cannot focus on more than one thing at a time, or seem to forget the endless threads about the very prevalent negative sexist discrimination that underlines a male participating in female sports, or males receiving opportunities that are meant to encourage female people to overcome historic negative sexist discrimination or how many threads are angry about the female half of the population who have lost representation because a male has been appointed/recognised instead.

Do some of these posters honestly believe that we discuss toilets all fucking day?

I’d like to know why feminists who are prioritising sex when sex matter have been accused of not also maintaining a focus on “equality of opportunity”. I am obviously very stupid and have missed a definition of this terminology. Or it has changed still I last looked.

( although apparently we on this board are expected to write posts to academic peer reviewed standard with journalistic integrity- whatever the fuck that actually means these days!)

So please, can someone explain what I have missed here. What feminists working to protect women’s rights are not also working, even unintentionally, on females achieving equality of opportunity with males.

Seriously, detaching women’s equal opportunity from the fight that is clear in so many fucking posts on so many fucking threads seems to be incredibly dishonest.

But I am very happy to have someone explain it clearly and tell me what I have missed.

Because admittedly, I come from it from a legislative perspective, from an industrial relations perspective and how that translates in workplaces etc, and not a political perspective. So, they could well be very different despite my searches about it last night.

I'm . Are you accusing me of "hypocrisy" @TheWitchesAreBackInTown?

I think she's saying you said something similar to Helle, too, but she forgot to give praise where it was due then.

I think there are some basic litmus tests for who is a feminist. If you are actively anti-abortion for all women, not just yourself, I can't see how that is feminism. If you actively fight to keep FGM in your culture, I can't see how you can be a feminist. If you think all women would be better off married and not having the vote (in the US, there are evangelical women who not only believe this but push it in their communities), then I don't think you can be a feminist.

If you are actively trying to cause harm to women or actively trying to curtail women's freedoms, you can not call yourself a feminist and we should not fear pointing that out. If you can't define feminism and use this definition to show when policy choices are anti-feminism, how useful is it as a term?

I have today looked at Riley Gaines. I have found no information as to her opinion towards abortion

While much has been made of her ‘campaigning’ with Rand Paul, let us be very clear what that involves. If anyone has something to prove her opinion on abortion please post it.

From what I can see, she did an ad about female sports with him. And people can extrapolate that out to whatever they want, but be very upfront about what it is that she has done.

And very clear about what he has said. Yes. He is upfront about being pro-life with exceptions. I am not excusing him. But he has also been upfront about not ‘banning’ all abortions.

“The senator, who co-sponsors a bill that would largely ban abortions at or after 20 weeks of pregnancy, indicated he thinks it's best, at least for now, to let state governments decide if (and how) to restrict abortion.”

Currently law in the UK is abortion is legal til around 24 weeks.

He has also expressed he supports abortion when either child or mother are at risk.

So to recap - Riley has campaigned for female only sports categories. Paul has supported this campaign.

I think it is very important to be very clear about who believes what and supports who.

Sometimes posters seem intent on discrediting women for being single issue. And for not being ‘left wing’.

This seems to be another example of that. Feel free to post links to the contrary.

Again, I agree with and applaud Riley's work on women and sports. When Ron Paul asked in Congress, "where are the feminists?" I wrote him and my own senators, "here we are! Invite us to testify!" But funny, no one did. I think Rand Paul worked with Riley in part because she was not a leftist and in part because she wasn't one of those pesky women who wants abortion rights. Maybe Paul would welcome feminists into his work on women's sports, but I don't know.

Riley campaigning for women in sports may indeed be a feminist act but I don't know if that makes her a feminist anymore than it makes Paul one.

Voting for Trump does not mean you are automatically anti-abortion, but it's more likely. I'd say we don't have any information that Riley is a feminist. Unlike Kara Dansky, we have loads pointing our her feminist activism, not to mention she calls herself one.

Funny enough, as much as KJK rails against recent feminists and won't call herself one, all the evidence points to KJK being very much a feminist. I guess you could say she fits my definition of a feminist based on her activities and policies that promote women's liberation and protections. She actively campaigns to protect women from the patriarchy in ways more than just GC (eg her work on DV).

And I don't agree with her on everything (dear goddess, I cringed on her ignorant comments about Jan. 6) and I don't have the same interpretation of academic feminism as she does (maybe we read different writers as i was influenced by Dworkin, Rich and Steinem) but I do agree with her on what constitutes women's issues.

Naming women as feminists or not is okay IMO.

You wrote to him? Well done! I cannot applaud him for anything but his efforts for making women and sports an issue he wants to discuss. I am sure some of his motivations were also from a different aspect that may have intersections with feminists but certainly not 100% the same motivations.

And of course he utilised Riley because she was from Uni of Kentucky and had already had a media presence about her races. And she could well have approached him.

I frankly cannot be arsed in the continued discussion as to who thinks Riley Gaines is a feminist or not. I am not even sure she has said so.

What I have objected to very clearly on this thread is to not agree with unfounded claims that she supports a ban for abortion.

And I think it is also quite clear that some posters have exaggerated Rand Paul's position on abortion as well, or it is simply a continued reflection on their very own absolutist positions.

I call for honesty in giving reasons why people support others or not. I also won't judge posters for saying they support Riley or not. Just be honest and don't spread misinformation or draw negative conclusions based on an assumption about what a person believes without evidence.

And I don't know many people who 100% agree with KJK either. Most of posters defending her, defend her right to hold her events and for her to choose her own path. And object to sin pages being published by those who decree themselves to the 'real' feminists.

I also accept that if you are producing that much unscripted content, you are going to say stuff that lands wrong, or is wrong. Having done unscripted video content before without having someone there to help or doing it live without editing, it is hard work to keep it up.

Relevant to the question of whether or not Tucker Carlson’s audience is already “converted” against gender identity or may benefit from hearing feminist perspectives, a fascinating thread today:

mobile.twitter.com/njhochman/status/1610987138635497472

A powerful, well-funded coalition is working to bring the transgender movement to red America.

And it's winning—even in deep-red South Dakota.

This is the story of how one of the most conservative states in the country was conquered by gender ideology.🧵