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.

Good for them.

This has pleased me today.

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

I saw that and assumed there was back history. Usually I find Dr Hilton reasonable. Maybe cheeky and reasonable is a better description.

The women featured within the documentary could go on TC.

They are also potentially considering those within it who do not want to (though I doubt many care.)

Well said.
I completely agree and you said it all much better than I could have.

if this gets them head pats ( and coverage) from the left wing media, I'll eat my hat

I would take every opportunity to speak up for women’s rights.

Most people know little if anything about the current assault on our rights, eg to single-sex spaces. And the trans lobby benefits immensely from people’s innocent belief that it’s all about being kind to a tiny harmless and oppressed minority.

If you get onto a purity spiral about who you’ll talk to, you simply reduce your audience and miss those who are least likely to hear your message elsewhere.

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.

This, exactly. It's so unnecessary.

Kara Dansky:

twitter.com/kdansky/status/1609332006789201922?s=46&t=JoSArASI0dyD8l4OBdHn9A

"What an insufferably arrogant response. You could have simply said no thank you. If I am ever offered a platform on UK media, I will probably accept. In the unlikely event that I decline, I will do so with a sense of decorum, not lecture them on their own county's politics."

I genuinely don't understand why anyone would go through the expense of making a film to demonstrate what is going on and then choose to keep it from the mainstream media.

As far as 'TC uses people to get what he wants' the same could have been said that 'feminists use TC to get what they want [coverage]' but no, it never goes in that direction does it?

This. Thank you NonnyMouse

It's their choice who they want to interview with. I have no probs with that.

It's the smug, sanctimonious, holier than thou, purity spiral shit of a statement I can't get over. The only difference between these and other authoritarians is that these film makers believe biological sex matters.

I think the decision to engage or not engage hinges on what you perceive as the biggest single issue of the time. I don't want to trivialise matters, but go back to World War II. The communist Soviet Union was no friend of Britain's but when Germany was trampling all over Europe and invaded Russia in July 1941, which two countries aligned against Germany (before of course the USA entered the war)? Britain and it's erstwhile foe, the Soviet Union. This was because the importance of stopping Germany outweighed the fact that the Soviet Union and Britain were fundamentally politically opposed to each other.
Normal "hostility" was resumed after the end of the war.

It is pragmatic that your enemy's enemy is your friend if you rate the issue as the single most important political question of the day, which most of the gender critical movement does. It does not stop you from fighting on the other side over issues you don't agree with e.g. abortion. I don't think those who agree to use whatever outlet aligns with their argument on this issue are as stupid or naive as the left appears to think they are.

It is pragmatic that your enemy's enemy is your friend if you rate the issue as the single most important political question of the day

This is basically what Stonewall and co have done in the UK. No qualms about getting into bed with a right wing government, to advance their cause. Yet the standards for left wing women seem to be so high as to be impossible to achieve, and so high that it means you have to shut up.

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

They haven’t, they’ve only decided who they wish to align with and I applaud their decision. Tucker Carlson’s show isn’t benign.

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.

You’re denying other women agency because they’re “just the vehicle”? God, how much more dehumanising can you get.

An absolutely correct decision not to go anywhere near Tucker Carlson and Fox New generally.

We're not talking about a news organisation that generally has a right-wing slant - we're talking about a show that tries to undermine democracy and promotes repellent Putinist apologism.

In the days when GC views couldn't get near mainstream media there wasn't much option than to deal with media outlets where you didn't agree with their general stances.

But when you can get pro-GC editorials in the Observer the general public aren't going to buy that the only reason you're going on Fox News is because you can't get a message heard any other way. They're going to assume you're on there because you agree with them.

It's the smug, sanctimonious, holier than thou, purity spiral shit of a statement I can't get over. The only difference between these and other authoritarians is that these film makers believe biological sex matters.

Quite. Their spokesperson on Twitter comes across as very immature, and I have no words for how foolish the statement is.

Purity spirals? Would you listen to yourself? Yous are eanging on about GC feminists because they refuse to sppear on Fox "News".🙄

@teawamutu thanks for the comments.

You asked about "suitable outlets in the US that will platform GC ideas and satisfy the left?"

Of course, the gold standards would be the New York Times or the Washington Post. But even middle of political center like the Wall Street Journal would be very helpful and lend credibility (Abigail Shrier has written for them). While CNN has its sensationalist tendencies like Tucker, they do have a large audience. The Nation should cover it - I've been always curious what Kathy Pollit really thinks.

The Atlantic did a critical piece almost 12 years ago on dysphoria and included people who desired to be amputees, plus those who had dysphoria related to being the opposite sex. So, there are left leaning journalists who've been on this topic, but the media institutions are chicken.

I'd push for Oprah to interview a detransitioner, but not sure she's the right place for a political discussion from a feminist point of view.

Who cares if they come off to some of you as smug? I personally wouldn't advise trying to be smug but if that's the worst thing a feminist can do, goddess help us.

If we look purely at numbers, there are more woman and children and families who are suffering from loss of abortion rights than gender ideology. It will have far-reaching economic impacts, possibly for generations. Women and girls will and have died because of it.

Before anyone bites my head off, I do NOT think women raped in prison are in any way acceptable collateral damage for abortion rights. But there are plenty of people with GC interests who are not feminists and do not care about women's rights. Refusing to go on their platforms is not purity, its strategy and, IMO a moral stance.

Agreed.

I'm sure you're 100% right about who's more likely to be taken seriously by lefties; I guess the critical point is the one you touched on. To whit, who in the right-on media is going to have the balls to cover the issue?

And what to do if they won't?

I was thinking this earlier but it was hurting my brain too much with purity spirals about purity spirals to make any sense to form a logical sentence.

Purity spirals? Would you listen to yourself? Yous are eanging on about GC feminists because they refuse to sppear on Fox "News".

No she didn't. Read her comment, before jumping on it. She said they have every right to do so. She has an issue with the statement, as do I. It's up to them if they want to alienate people, but I'm not going to support it. Just like it's up to Kellie-Jay what she does, but we always seem to have people pulling that apart.

Fox is up front about their "biases". The other mainstream US networks are as biased but pretend they are not. CNN is losing viewership. Even leftists are abandoning the captured NPR. Many Democrats watch Fox news. Tucker Carlson recently interviewed Libs of Tiktok twitter creator Chaya Raichik. This twitter account exposes the insanity of what some teachers are doing in US schools. If you want your message to get out, Tucker Carlson will reach many democrats as well as conservatives/republicans.

To whit, who in the right-on media is going to have the balls to cover the issue?

Good, good question. I've been impressed with Bari Weiss's substack - she's a former NYTImes writer who did have the ovaries and was fired for it, but she came back fighting. I don't agree with her on all issues but she's ethical and smart. The more readers she gets, the more NYTimes can't ignore her.
*
And what to do if they won't?*
One strategy I've been suggesting is local news, 1:1 conversations. We can't underestimate the power of grassroots activism. The YMCA coverage in a small town in Washington state was primarily local. A lefty, kinda crunchy older woman spoke out about a man in the women's changing room. While this didn't get MSM coverage, local papers DID cover it, and there were certain local people who, as a result, have changed their minds as to the wisdom of TWAW when girls need to change their swimsuits.