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.

Heads so far up their arses they need head torches.

See what we did. Aren't we good girls,
now please, please talk to us. Kinda thing.

Preening, posturing, smug piety. Its all a show for their mates. And people can see right through the shallow vitue signalling because these types are cut from the same cloth as TRAs.

smug and condescending

And that's just page 1.

Well, I'm sure they'll get over it.

They're not nobodies, they are other GC feminist women.

Turning down TC on Fox News does not mean purity spiral. It's certainly pales into insignificance next to the negativity and refusal of support because they said "No" to a right wing man. That's a very tight purity spiral for feminists.

The ‘because they said no to a right wing man’ is interesting framing

I don’t think they said no because Tucker Carlson is right wing? At least that wasn’t the reason given?

What have they done that's so bad, or even bad at all?

It is not a moral question of bad or good, that is not what is being argued. It is a question of whether it has been or will be effective. If their goal is to reach as many people as possible their actions seem sub optimal. What do you think their goal is and how well do you think they have done? How do you suggest they spread the message.

As to focussing on Europe this seems an expensive option, what with the need for translation.

I hope so. They have faced a backlash from TRAs, MRAs and right wingers, which is to be expected.

Accusations and vitriol from GC feminists here in FWR? Why?

@toomanytrees I'll rephrase. What have these GC activists done to attract so much hostility from the GC feminist posters here?

I just think their tactics are idiotic. If they're trying to promote their film, they have totally fucked themselves over.

I have no opinions of them personally, since I don't know who they are. But their statement sounds like they refused to publicise their film and instead took the opportunity to virtue signal about how left wing they are.

It just seems silly to me. Why don't they want right wing/centrist women to see their film?

The whole thing is not credible.

Turning an invitation down quietly isn't putting it on Twitter.

And then "oh look we got all these tweets about it so we just had to put out a longer statement". On Twitter.

I'm not surprised posters haven't any patience for it. It can be fairly interpreted as childish behaviour - about a serious topic. A topic we need many more women to be alive to.

I am not surprised that Fox don't seem to have responded - as a response would give them a lot of free publicity. However, knowledge of the incident does seem to be confined to those who already knew about the issues. I think that can fairly be characterised as shooting yourself in the foot.

But of course it will be very interesting to see which outlets are good enough and which ones give them an interview. I really doubt you can find an outlet that doesn't have connections you'd prefer not to be associated with. Hopefully one will emerge though.

Ok, I do agree that some of the posts have been strongly worded. This is, after all, Mumsnet

We regularly get lectured by people for whom being left wing = being a good person, and everything else comes second. I suspect this may be colouring people’s responses

but they have actively chosen to be less effective at getting their message across. While it’s their choice, it is a bit tiring to watch

they clearly judge people who do go on Tucker Carlson. That is implicit in their statement and their actions

it therefore seems reasonable that they also get judged for their decisions

Too much catastrophic thinking TooBig. I know it's a bit of a shock to some expecting women to know our place and keep silent, but we're quite good on here at recognising that women have different views on things. It's fine.

And if you think this thread is hostile, for the love of god stay away from AIBU.

@TooBigForMyBoots

smug and condescending
And that's just page 1.Shock

Just to clarify my comment (I can’t speak for any one else).

When I said that this is how they come across when they speak to people on Twitter, this was happening way before the TC/FN thing. I made no comment about their statement and I’ve acknowledged they are entitled to set their own boundaries.

Please don’t make generalised accusations.

Secondly, one of the filmmakers is a man and men can’t be feminists.

OK then, I don't understand the name calling and nastiness towards these fim making GC feminists. What have they done that's so bad, or even bad at

I don't understand it either. There is huge vitriol towards these women who campaign tirelessly for women's rights.

I can guess what the reason is though. The clue is in the OP.

All these amazing psychics who can guess the real reasons for things!

lucky you to have this astonishing imagination talent

I can guess why people who persist in being hugely divisive and obsessed with political purity to the detriment of effective campaigning are fans of others who do the same.

There is huge vitriol towards these women who campaign tirelessly for women's rights.

The irony! It burns!

Look, I don't feel any vitriol towards the filmmakers. I don't know who they are. I just think their tactics are ineffective and divisive. And their statement is virtue signalling nonsense. And their film is boring. I wish they'd be more interesting and effective, that's all.

"Smug and condescending" can hardly be classed as vitriolic though.

That is how the statement comes across. TBF, considering at least one of the talking heads in the film who has made her views quite clear re being leftist blah blah guilt by association blah blah, I'm not surprised at the film makers.

Im not convinced that having some ethical red lines in the means you are willing to employ to attain a goal is to the detriment of effective campaigning.

For example, KJK did significant damage to US women fighting for sex based rights by doing her US tour all because she has a by any means, align with anyone, go on any show mentality. I have family in 5 states in the USA and they’ve all said that in their local areas, her tour has resulted in a general impression that all GC views are utterly transphobic and literally hate speech.
And posters here have wondered why the USA seems a lost cause and have lamented things going backwards….it’s obvious to me and the filmmakers really.

So, getting the message out to the most people possible is the end goal for the short sighted. Because getting the message out is only step 1. You also need the message to be agreed with and to garner support. You don’t want the message receivers/audience to be biased against and thus reject the message because of the messengers’ clear alignment or association with movements that are extremist or anti-feminist in any way.

You can deride this as “purity spirals” all you want, and call it “divisiveness” but that’s the reality of the world we live in. Is it fair? No. Should people consider content over talking head? Yes.

But the reality is that the messenger matters as much as,(if not more than) the message itself. Ignoring this fact of life, is what is counter productive in the long run, for the end goal of defending womens rights and single sex spaces.

This is why the warning not to enter AIBU should be heeded!!

ah, the bad lady not staying pure has made some people in the US think understanding that humans can't change sex is transphobic

what an excellent imagination some people do have

So, getting the message out to the most people possible is the end goal for the short sighted.

What should be the strategy to get the message out?

If it were up to me, the strategy would be to say 'yes' to every offer of an interview, especially from those with a huge viewership, like TC or Fox News.

I don't think it's hard to work out that if you want to get your message to the largest number of people, you need to do a lot of publicity and marketing.

You mean people who say things like:
they clearly judge people who do go on Tucker Carlson. Or they don't want right wing women to see their film.

@MrsOvertonsWindow, I don't expect women to be silent, I'm a feminist. But plenty on this thread have said the film makers should have been silent.