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.

Like others, I think if they were going to make a "statement" to Fox News when they'd already said they were going to turn it down, it could have been made much much better.

In addition, it's hard to think why else there are two statements, other than to demonstrate the purity of not doing X interview.

It's their decision but it doesn't seem the best idea, not least as they've tied their own hands. Any and all future media appearances will be seen through this decision. And judged on it by some on the left, too.

Given the tiny number of seemingly approved left wing media outlets, you have to wonder if they may have inadvertently set on a path to never really being heard by anyone who doesn't already know. Which won't aid further public understanding of the issues.

Wow. Purity spiral sure pushed some buttons.

Any and all future media appearances will be seen through this decision. And judged on it by some on the left, too.

Agreed.

GC feminists make film about the damage done by TWAW narrative.
GC feminists refuse to show their film on the TC show on Fox "News".
GC feminists on MNet FWR slag them off, calling them smug and nobodies. Accusing them of being in a purity spiral because they chose not to be exploited by TC and Fox "News" who are neither feminist or GC.

What's the agenda here? Right wing politics or keeping men out of single sex spaces?

I saw on Twitter, but don't have a screenshot that 40% of Tucker's viewers are democrats. I think this is missed opportunity.
I watch GB News because they do cover gender identity ideology a lot. Also when they do interviews they allow enough time to get into the detail. That doesn't make me a UKip or Reform voter.
Surely they could have gone on and slipped in something about being pro choice near the end linking in from 'pregnant people'. I wonder if they even have someone experienced in dealing with the press? Have they done a press release?
The film is good and needs to get out there and though I respect their decision I think it is naive. Who else will be running to them for an interview?
(Sky News Australia also do some good stuff on gender woo, but I watch this on You Tube.)

They are not you @FemaleAndLearning. They are other GC feminist women. You may view it as a missed opportunity, they've weighed it up and come to a different conclusion and that is OK.

They are still GC feminists getting the word out there, hopefully to a new audience.

I saw on Twitter, but don't have a screenshot that 40% of Tucker's viewers are democrats.

Id take that with a grain of salt tbh. Twitter is the most notorious fake news hub on the planet, with Facebook a close second.

Left winger here who is inclined to think we should use every resource available to talk about women's sex based rights. Surely all of us regularly work/converse with people we don't agree with on substantive issues?

That's a good point. After hearing how they guestimated the viewings for the Queen's funeral this would be even more difficult.

Yes, I agree it is their choice and I'm not them but I don't share your optimism in thinking they will be reaching a new audience.

Fox is also a cable channel….it’s not free to watch. So everyone that watches Tucker Carlson is already a more well heeled demographic as well.

The Democrat voting viewers of TC will already be aware of the threat to women caused by TWAW ideology. Going on Fox is preaching to the choir in opposing trans ideology.🤷‍♀️

I think what the film makers fear most from appearing on Fox news is being cast out by the leftist community, which is very good at keeping their adherents in line. That said, on a get the message out level, the shunning could mean that if they appeared on Fox News, they would never be invited on CNN or MSNBC. So it could be a strategic move. However, the protestation was more emotional than logical. They appear weak rather than savvy.

Going onto Fox is preaching to the converted whilst contributing to the profits of an anti-feminist, non gender critical organisation. I completely understand why a feminist would turn them down. It isn't weakness nor is it fear.

It's focus and integrity and the refusal to allow the patriarchy to monetise women's labour and fear.

For those querying the Tucker Carlson audience claims, I believe they come from third party data collection agencies.

Labelling it potentially ‘fake news’ because it was on twitter is just lazy.

I read this last year when it caused ripples.

“According to Nielsen MRI/Fusion data (from October) Fox attracted more “Democrat and Independent viewers in both total day and prime time than CNN and MSNBC.” Additionally, Tucker Carlson Tonight ranked as the number one program among Democrats in the demo while Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, and The Five placed among the top four cable news programs with Democrats in total viewers.”

www.msn.com/en-us/tv/news/who-is-the-most-watched-host-in-all-of-cable-news-for-young-democrats-tucker-carlson/ar-AATpn8o

Now I have no idea about the author of this article but it doesn’t matter because if this is Nielsen data it is easily verified by any person who has access. And none of these stats have been debunked that I can see. Happy to see the debunking if it is out there.

I have extensively used and interrogated Nielsen data professionally. I have friends who work for Nielsen who were initially work colleagues- is there a reason that I should distrust Nielsen data in this instance?

Or is it just an inconvenient truth.

As I have said, happy to see the debunking of the statistics.

And if we wait a one the new data for last year will be released and we will have a fresh perspective available.

sorry. Wrong link

www.mediaite.com/news/january-ratings-fox-news-hits-20-years-at-number-1-while-cnn-and-msnbc-see-massive-drops-from-last-year/

Thanks Helleofabore I did a quick Google after the comment about Twitter but couldn't find anything useful.

And if we wait a one the new data for last year will be released and we will have a fresh perspective available.

that would be wait a month… the yearly figures will be out soon.

I find the discussion - preaching to the converted rather lazy too. Because this opportunity was one that required no budgetary expenditure yet would have increased the audience viewing to a wider reach.

It is a very bold assumption that even people who know about this issue, should not know about this video. Or to assume that they already know about a video made in the UK and really only know by word of mouth so far.

How many people would have purchased Trans or Material Girls who didn’t know about the issue already, from seeing the reviews on mainstream media be how many sales were from people with some knowledge about the issues or due to personal recommendations?

And how many people who are already ‘converted’ did or attempted to attend the film premieres vs those who had little knowledge about the topic? The logic doesn’t hold up.

Either the film makers wanted this video to be viewed mostly by an already involved (moderately to highly motivated) audience, or they made it so new people can see it and understand. Or both.

Getting new people to watch requires taking advantage of the personal selling aspect of the moderately to highly motivated audience and/or mainstream media.

The media is needed to make sure that the highest percentage of those already motivated or involved know about it and to alert anyone who is completely new or is starting to see the issues that don’t have someone talking to them about it.

I believe that there is only a selection of that broader moderately to highly motivated segment who would know about the video in the USA. And if that is the way the film makers want it to be, that is fine. It is their choice.

Anyone with a modicum of marketing experience would know that for a product to be successful, it still needs the ‘converted’ to be ‘preached’ at for a whole variety of reasons. Assuming that the USA audience that needs to know (even within the ‘left voting democrats’ category) knows already seems to be a strange one.

reviews on mainstream media be how many sales were from people with some

be = vs

Apologies. I even checked this one but my eyes are struggling today.

Meghan Murphy has about the same figure here:

meghanmurphy.substack.com/p/if-feminists-want-to-be-heard-they

"Fox News pulls in a huge numberr_ of Democrat voters — 39% is a lot of people… Indeed, Carlson ranks very high among Democrat viewers, in terms of cable news outlets — the top four programs among Democrats include Fox News’ The Five, Tucker Carlson Tonight, and Hannity, competing only with MSNBC’s The Rachel Maddow Show."

I think her figure must draw on the same data but from a different link using that data. This is from Feb 2022:

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

This.

It's crazy for them to refuse to promote their own film!

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.

YY. The whole statement reads as if it could have been written by TRAs.

Labelling it potentially ‘fake news’ because it was on twitter is just lazy.

Not accepting tweets on Twitter at face value due to their poor record on fake news is “lazy”…🙄 what-ev-er. If I hadn’t questioned it, would you have taken the time to dig into it? Hmmm? Probably not.

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

They did do that according to the blog:
Initially, they simply announced to the world that they’d been invited, and declined…

”Have been contacted by the Tucker Carlson show to discuss a potential interview about our 'amazing film' of course we won't be responding.”

but immediately, the storm stirred and there were messages and social media posts growing increasingly heated. Seeing the heat rising around their announcement, Reality Matters put out a second, in which they said they’d decided after all to reply to Fox News, and published the reply itself.

The full reply they published after suffering backlash for quietly turning down the interview is what you are criticising.

Just because they received criticism, they still could have left it like that, rather than making a big deal of writing to Fox News and tweeting about it. Yes, it's the pompous statement most people are rolling their eyes at here.