89

170 comments

[–] MidnightLanguor 74 points (+92|-18)

The comments here are incredibly depressing. So many women here saying Parker is "problematic" and basically implying you'd be OK with her being cancelled or censored for her (allegedly) right wing views, but you're upset she's being censored for gender critical ones. Do you all not see the hypocrisy? Do you not understand that this impulse to censor and reject others for their views you see as terrible and bigoted is EXACTLY the same as the TRAs censoring us gender critical feminists?

Stop promoting the censorship and cancellation of opposing viewpoints, even if they are Republican or religious or whatever. That breeds the same authoritarian cancel culture that has canceled us.

[–] GracieM 59 points (+61|-2)

I really don’t get how people don’t see this. I’m more moderate politically but I want to pull my hair out. It’s not ok to censor anyone! Not anyone! Censoring instead of engaging is the issue in our communities. And I’m not saying it’s anyone’s responsibility to engage, you can always ignore, but you can’t deplatform just because you don’t like it.

[–] somegenerichandle 1 points (+11|-10)

I don't think private companies need to platform things they disagree with. Especially with the Section 230 of the CDA holding them responsible for the content they host from users.

[–] KBash 23 points (+24|-1)

I agree.

However, social media has become the modern public square, in which everyone should be able to participate. It has a huge influence on business and politics.

So how should the conflict of interests you mention be resolved?

[–] itsnotaboutewe 13 points (+14|-1)

Isn't that an American law? Posie is in the UK and if she hasn't broken any UK laws she should not be penalised. Zoom, when used for live services, is a platform and not a publisher. Publishers get to edit and they can decide not to publish something but a platform is required to allow anything that is not strictly prohibited by law.

[–] GracieM 5 points (+5|-0)

No, section 230 “generally provides immunity from third party content”

[–] Boudicaea 3 points (+3|-0)

What does CDA stand for? If you are talking about the statute that gives immunity from what users post on the internet, I think it stands for the opposite.

But in general, I agree. These are private platforms, and I don't think any person or company should be required to propagate points of view that they do not agree with. However, I do think they should he accountable for the ones that they do propagate in some fashion. Maybe not in terms of libel or slander, but for violent conduct planned on their platforms? For abuse of children and unwitting women, via pictures spread on their platforms? Absolutely yes, they should be held accountable for that.

[–] Hollyhock 33 points (+43|-10)

C'mon, that's not what we're saying. We're saying that Posie Parker has said things far more problematic about topics outside feminism, but it's her feminism that's getting her cancelled.

While I don't want censorship, I feel we can rightly criticize Posie for stupidly not vetting a Nazi, calling for men w/ guns to enter girls bathrooms and making light of an insurrection of the U.S. government. That's not simply an opposing Republican view point nor a different religious view. Despite her blunders on those fronts, I don't think she should be cancelled or kicked off Zoom.

How can you not see that she is problematic? If she hadn't said/done all those stupid things, we'd have a very, very tight case of 'Zoom hates women's rights', but we don't now, do we?

[–] Gabble 20 points (+22|-2)

I don’t know much about the other situations, but I know Posie did not call for men with guns to go into women’s bathrooms.

What she did was suggest that the sort of men who say they carry guns to protect women and children, whose self-image is tied up with being the big manly protector of women and children, should be called upon to prove it in a less macho way using this macho framing. That this is the real way they can protect women, rather than with guns or by beating someone up.

That they should step up and carefully, in a fully public way with all eyes on them, declare that they are women and go to the women’s toilet (publically, in a way that doesn’t surprise any woman in there, etc), and then on exiting declare that they are now a man again. That the whole point of this is to be completely visible, and show how absurd it is. That it should be done in a situation (like a parents’ evening at school) where lots of people hear the declarations before and after, and where the whole thing is done very openly, to show the danger of how this can happen less openly in situations where women will be surprised without other people around.

I think there is definitely a danger of encouraging people who get the wrong end of the stick, or who just wanted an excuse to harass women in the toilets, but then I think that ship has already sailed. But the only way you get “calling for men with guns in women’s bathrooms” from what she said is by willful misinterpretation. Unless the “with” means “they own them, but they have left them at home”.

[–] Flower_tsuji 4 points (+10|-6)

Agreed- the way people skew posie parkers words is disgusting, and she has honestly been doing more to protect woman and girls then the radfems in the peanut gallery. Nor is this post even about the “other things” Posie has said, its about censorship. So they are just bring up reason they don’t like her to make it reasonable to take away her freedom of speech.

[–] Hollyhock 2 points (+3|-1)

I listened to that entire video as well and I heard a call to the sort of men who carry to do something. So, why call on men w/ guns? Don't other men have protective sensibilities towards their families?

[–] MidnightLanguor -12 points (+12|-24)

Let's try an exercise, shall we? Your own words:

*We're saying that Rowling has said things far more problematic about topics outside trans rights, but it's her trans rights views that's getting her cancelled.

While I don't want censorship, I feel we can rightly criticize Rowling for stupidly writing a bigoted essay, calling trans women men and criticizing the Equality Act. That's not simply an opposing gender critical view point nor a different moral view. Despite her blunders on those fronts, I don't think she should be cancelled or kicked off Zoom.

How can you not see that she is problematic? If she hadn't said/done all those stupid things, we'd have a very, very tight case of 'Zoom hates women's rights', but we don't now, do we?*

[–] Hollyhock 18 points (+26|-8)

That's a false argument because I AGREE with Posie on her women's rights issues but I DISAGREE with her on her issues regarding US events, gun culture and hosting a Nazi.

[–] georgiaomeuf -12 points (+21|-33)

A bunch of unorganized idiots wandering through the US Capitol is hardly an insurrection. There was at no point they had any chance of actually opposing the US military industrial complex

[–] Elizabelch 22 points (+28|-6)

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/insurrection

Definition of insurrection

: an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government

Just because it wasn't successful doesn't mean it wasn't an insurrection.

[–] Womancup 17 points (+21|-4)

It was an unsuccessful insurrection done by complete idiots being led by a moron that can't organize anything. Just because it was unsuccessful doesn't make it any less of an insurrection. The intent surely was there.

[–] SarahTheGreen 30 points (+32|-2)

It's possible you have to be a bit problematic to be an effective feminist.

My take is that if people can afford to be tribal/cliquey/whatever, then maybe their problems aren't that bad.

[–] Boudicaea -1 points (+6|-7)

Part of our problem is no one takes our feminism seriously when people who claim to be feminists and who make GC arguments are also making right wing arguments and espousing right wing views unrelated to feminism or in contradiction to it. Gina Carano and Posie Parker are part of a big problem for us in that regard.

Until we kick out the right wingers, no one is going to listen to us. We just sound like crazy people to them, because we are talking out of both sides of our mouths.

We don't have anything in common with right wingers. I don't know why so many women on this site are so desperate to pretend that we do. Just because our work benefits all women, and therefore right wing women (in spite of themselves, quite often), doesn't mean right wing women are feminists or worth defending in spite of their right wing views. Which undermine everything we are trying to accomplish.

[–] SarahTheGreen 6 points (+7|-1)

Personally, I disagree with this whole left vs right thing. I think we need to integrate the best of both perspectives to get good policy. Left or right, pure ideology is not going to work. We need both wings to fly (which is probably why most people are in the centre). But I realize that many people don't think like that. One of the reasons I think the way I do is that I have problems (disability) that both left and right are incompetent to solve. It's easier to be pragmatic when you need it to survive.

Also, I'm pretty sure that most people don't take feminism seriously even when it is purely on the left.

[–] pennygadget 5 points (+6|-1)

Until we kick out the right wingers, no one is going to listen to us. We just sound like crazy people to them, because we are talking out of both sides of our mouths

Painting EVERY right winger (or anyone with one or two right-leaning opinions) as a cartoonish villain is just as stupid and reductive as TRAs painting every GC feminist as a NAZI who wants a trans genocide. People are complex. And you can't build a movement if you write off everyone to the right of Bernie Sanders

[–] LOriginedumonde 15 points (+20|-5) Edited

I haven’t seen anyone here saying that she should be censored. There are rarely any post about Posie on Ovarit and my interpretation is that no one on here cares enough about her “problematic” views to write a whole separate post about them so they’re airing them here while simultaneously condemning Zoom’s censorship. The two things aren’t connected. I’ll take that back if and when I see a comment saying Posie deserves to be censored because they disagree with her views.

[–] MidnightLanguor 7 points (+17|-10)

I'd say about once a month there are threads on Twitter that start out like this implying Posie condones Nazis or other critiques of her non-left wing politics where feminists DO call for her to be canceled and for other feminists not to work with her. Famous feminists like Dr. Jane Clare Jones and Julie Bindel have done this and created huge divisions in our movement, just because they don't agree with her non-feminism related politics. It is a real problem, and this thread has those same strains. I feel it's worth calling it out every time because it's so destructive.

[–] LOriginedumonde 16 points (+19|-3)

But not everyone on here has a Twitter account, and it’s disingenuous to equate the few women on here who mildly aired their complaints to those activity calling for her to be canceled. Cancel culture is wrong but so is jumping down everyones throat who disagrees with your view while accusing them of doing that very same thing.

[–] Hollyhock 15 points (+22|-7)

I've listened to almost every single Posie Parker video and these critiques are not without merit. I know women who have reached out to her in good faith to help her fine tune her message so as not to cause divisions in the movement. Posie is responsible for what she says and for any divisions her message may cause...calling us out for calling HER out makes her a cult figure. This isn't a religion.

[–] pennygadget 3 points (+4|-1)

Stop promoting the censorship and cancellation of opposing viewpoints, even if they are Republican or religious or whatever. That breeds the same authoritarian cancel culture that has canceled us

AMEN!!

It makes me sad to see GC women shit talk women like Parker and Cerrano for having a few right leaning opinions or talking to the Heritage Foundation or whatever. We don't have the luxury of being that picky because, unlike TRAs, we're not propped up by billion dollar corporations.

Also, you don't change minds by singing to the choir. Shutting out right wing women (and men) who want to ally with us on this issue is foolish

[–] georgiaomeuf 3 points (+10|-7) Edited

I think it's because Europe is asleep and this is a symptom of American triblism politics. I just happened to wake up at 4am but I'm sure when the UK wakes up they'll chime in.

[–] GCat 67 points (+68|-1)

I wonder how she ended up on Zoom's radar. It is terrifying how much power tech companies have over our lives, and even more terrifying how people don't see that tech companies controlling speech is a major problem.

I don't love Posie Parker, but her uncompromising stance on this issue is refreshing.

[–] WatcherattheGates 24 points (+24|-0)

The Zoom logo is at the bottom of some of her videos because she records them off the app.

[–] MidnightLanguor 10 points (+11|-1)

Was that their only complaint are are they deplatforming for her views?

[–] itsnotaboutewe 25 points (+25|-0)

I assume someone reported her to zoom saying she was using zoom to disseminate hate speech but they didn't need to provide examples. Probably a group effort to report her without evidence.

Well, they want to deplatform her because their logo was on the videos they decided they didn't like . . .

[–] BlackMoonLilith 3 points (+3|-0)

She shared a video yesterday through zoom that was a recording of the House of Lords proceedings. Someone probably snitched on her somehow.

[–] pennygadget 0 points (+1|-1)

I wonder how she ended up on Zoom's radar. It is terrifying how much power tech companies have over our lives, and even more terrifying how people don't see that tech companies controlling speech is a major problem.

I love to ask cancel culture lefties how they would feel if these tech companies were run by Republicans who booted out every mildly left leaning person. Sadly, they're so delusional they honestly believe these platforms are right wing & transphobic! They believe this because the platforms occasionally refuse their childish demands and don't boot people like Steven Crowder everytime they trigger someone

[–] Hollyhock 56 points (+62|-6)

The irony in this all is that Posie Parker has made some off remarks about U.S. politics and events that I found pretty offensive (and wrong). But she's not getting thrown off Zoom for dismissing the attack on the US Capital....she's getting kicked off Zoom for daring to talk about how trans ideology hurts women and girls...that's the problem.

[–] CacaoGudem 26 points (+28|-2)

Agreed, she doesn't always know what she is talking about, especially when it comes to US politics. However, she is a regular person who got involved in this issue and not really a professional campaigner who would be more careful about their words. She does a good job of peaking people though. I liked her content when I was first learning about the issue but now I read more 2nd wave lit and spend more time on Ovarit.

[–] NotCis 44 points (+44|-0)

I find this kind of big tech censorship very chilling, regardless of what I might think about her views. This will be a slippery slope to ban all gender-critical discussion on the platform.

[–] Elizabelch 40 points (+40|-0)

Zoom has way overstepped here. Cutting off her access would not just punish her, it would potentially punish her kids by making it difficult if not impossible for them to participate in schooling. That's wrong.

[–] Kevina 4 points (+4|-0)

mmm, doesn't really work that way. the kids would typically have their own login assigned from the school.

[–] somegenerichandle 14 points (+14|-0)

It's mentioned in the link. I suppose it depends whether they block her account or full on block her IP for fear she'll make another account.

[–] BlackMoonLilith 7 points (+7|-0)

I know when she got banned from Twitter, her whole family was banned since it was the IP that was blocked and not just her account.

[–] Kevina 5 points (+5|-0)

That wouldn't work well either. IP addresses for home users usually aren't static, they're DHCP. So they can and do change from time to time. There's other technical problems with that approach as well with the long and short of it being that it just wouldn't work, black lists are considered expensive, etc.

[–] Astraea1284 30 points (+30|-0)

I note that they give no specific examples of this alleged "hate", which you'd expect of someone making a serious accusation like that.

[–] itsnotaboutewe 16 points (+16|-0)

I have a feeling that if they get enough complaints about the same account they can warn the account holder even if no evidence is put forward. If they do cancel her service they should be required to show reasonable evidence of her breaching the terms of service. During this pandemic the evidence would have to be pretty strong to have her service terminated so I don't think their threats will lead anywhere. This might actually show them up to be just another agent of cancel culture that has decided to silence the enemies of the woke.

[–] [Deleted] 27 points (+28|-1) Edited

ew! why is sex a non-protected status?!

wtf, might as well pull them out of distance learning. what a fucking joke this has all become.

[–] sensusquaeram 17 points (+18|-1)

So yeah, that's a thing. Silicon Valley has a lot to say about hate speech and gender as a protected class (it's not), nary a mention of women as a protected class (legally established). What I'd like to know is when Big Tech started legislating reality.

tbf, they list gender AND gender identity. So, perhaps they are just using gender instead of sex.

[–] [Deleted] 2 points (+2|-0)

gender is too wishy washy. i wanna know i'm protected cause i am called a bitch cunt on a daily basis, simply because i have a vagina, not because i also sometimes wear frilly dresses

[–] DebraKadabra 23 points (+23|-0)

My school site requires that I use Zoom to conduct lessons and participate in meetings. This is infuriating.

[–] dixiechick547 7 points (+7|-0)

My son’s speech therapist uses it for his sessions. I don’t know about her kids or the laws in England but if they came at me with this bullshit I’d sue for violations of the Americans With Disabilities Act.

[–] dixiechick547 22 points (+22|-0)

PP pops off at the mouth. Oftentimes about this Fs she knows nothing about like the men with guns comment. Not least because in the parts of the US where guns are common a lot of women carry. I grew up in the rural south, and probably a gun before I hit puberty. I carried for more than a decade and may well do so again once my kids are out of the house.

Having said that, IMO GC Twitter overreacted. The need to be like Caesar’s wife is ridiculous when you’re dealing with blatant liars who harbor rapists and pedophiles. I will not be held responsible for the words of a grown ass woman. Especially when the main complainer is Katie Montgomerie! Seriously? I might criticize PP here but on Twitter I will not criticize any GC woman publicly. I will and had bloody fights in DMs but in public I will not.

As for this shit with zoom. Oh. Fuck.No. Some green haired pervert complains and they’re willing to deprive her kids of their education? Congress needs to regulate the hell out of these companies. They’re out of control.

We have to decide how we’re going to handle such situations in the future. I have no desire to hash it out in public. That’s counterproductive.

[–] MyBodyMyself 15 points (+16|-1)

So I looked up this interview of Posie Parker on Triggernometry — fascinating interview

https://youtu.be/Pdpc2r4cBxQ

But it’s interesting how stubborn she is about refusing to acknowledge that TWAW...

And I remember a time when I might have cringed at the aggressive misgendering — but when she speaks of “reading a TW as a man” due to aggressive speech and everything else about how TW talk and behave and when she mentioned violence committed by TW against women and when news articles refer to the TW assailants as “she” and the when she mentions trans-widows and their children and AGP men — I realize how much I am now in agreement with her... I would not count TW as literally women now — not out of politeness or kindness and especially not now because I can see what belief in TWAW gets women — namely the erosion or complete dismantling of sex-based rights, women’s sports being demolished and also the growing violence of TW in women’s spaces is very concerning

At the same time — I would probably hesitate to use language that Posie Parker uses and I take it that she is highly conservative in other ways that makes her unpopular— but even I would probably trip over claiming that all TW — even those who transition fully — are just “pretending” to be women.

Her point on how many late transitioners seem to be AGP and fetishistic is spot-on in my opinion and as a trans-widow myself, I feel she understands the plight of women and children deeply affected by late transitioning AGP men... though I feel that’s a very different experience to someone who is not leaving a grieving “trans-widow” and confused children behind in their wake and very different for people who genuinely have persistent and lifelong gender dysphoria... for those people — I don’t feel they are “pretending” to be the opposite sex — but I do firmly believe they are endeavoring to live their lives AS the opposite sex — which is a nuanced take but also very different than claiming a trans person IS the opposite sex and therefore we must change all our laws to allow biologically male people to have access to all women’s spaces (which I feel is wrong — particularly for women’s sports - but for lots of other important matters).

Also — I wasn’t aware (though I should have known) that Posie Parker was a pen name? And if so — that means this zoom thing effectively doxxed her or was her true identity already well known before this recent incident because she’s so vocal?

Anyway — I get it that she has political views that are frustratingly conservative and that her aggressive language choices ends up being a turn off for would-be allies for our cause — but I appreciate her forthright stark honesty and stubbornness and I don’t feel what zoom did was right...

[–] GCat 11 points (+12|-1)

Posie Parker is a fascinating person to listen to, partly because she doesn't pull her punches with language. However, this also makes her very divisive, and not necessarily someone you want to trot out to show the normies how harmful trans ideology is.

Moreover, as you can see in this thread, her heterodox political beliefs make her a lightning rod even amongst those united against trans ideology.

[–] SawItComing 2 points (+3|-1)

Actually I think most 'normies' would be in agreement with Posie's view on trans issues and the language she uses. The vast majority of the population in the UK and US are centre-right and pretty conservative when it comes to protecting the rights of women and children (as in they want to protect those rights rather than throw them to the wolves).

It's a great shame that it increasingly seems to be only conservatives and right wingers who are willing to stand up for women's sex-based protections because lefties and progressives or either too scared to do so or agree with TRA madness. But that's the way it is. I'd much rather cast my lot in with conservatives like Parker in order to protect the rights of my sex class, than equivocate about whether or not she's too 'problematic' to support because of the language she uses or assumptions I might make about her political affiliations.

[–] GCat 3 points (+3|-0)

You are probably right about Posie being more palatable to the average person than I have given her credit for. My perspective is skewed since I live in a highly "educated" academic bubble that is full of polyamorous-demisexual-trans-femme-masc they/thems and people who support TRA ideology because they think it is just an extension of gay marriage. Showing them Posie Parker talking to Piers Morgan would not get me very far in advocating for women's sex based rights in that group.

I find it easier to talk to my few conservative friends about these issues. They are less likely to get offended over disagreement in other areas as well. However, women's issues are not a high priority for my conservative friends, who have indicated that they think that "feminists brought this trans madness upon themselves."

[–] pennygadget 0 points (+1|-1)

I'd much rather cast my lot in with conservatives like Parker in order to protect the rights of my sex class, than equivocate about whether or not she's too 'problematic' to support because of the language she uses or assumptions I might make about her political affiliations.

Agreed. Why are so many radfems loyal to the left/democrats when the organized left has sold out EVERY group it claims to represent (ie females, gays, Jews, the working class, etc)? Yeah, the left protects abortion rights (for now...). But whats the point if we lose every other right in the process (including the very right to define the word "woman")?

[–] somegenerichandle 6 points (+6|-0) Edited

I believe her true name was known long before this. Pretty sure they've said it on that morning show with Piers Morgan.

[–] MyBodyMyself 2 points (+2|-0)

Gotcha... I didn’t know. I was just confused by the name change... or pseudonym? I don’t know anything about her background at all.

I’ve only seen her in that one Triggernometry interview, but what she said seemed to ring true and a lot of it seemed nearly prescient — the concerns she brought up, though her words were harsh, turned out to be really valid concerns re Trans-activism and the TWAW mantra that TRA’s demand that everyone accepts.

I had a nightmare last night that i accidently doxed myself. I think it may be because i was thinking about this ... what a scary thought ::concerned face::

Yes, she started out under the pseudonym and was doxxed, but the pseudonym is better known so she keeps using it. It's basically branding.

[–] LOriginedumonde 13 points (+28|-15) Edited

Am I the only one who doesn’t care much for Posie Parker? I really appreciate her advocacy and bravery but at the same time I fear that she has the potential to severely hinder our cause. There is just something about her that doesn’t sit right with me. I hope I’m mistaken but there have been several instances that have validated my gut feeling and it’s just not something that I can overlook.

[–] bluestocking 36 points (+39|-3)

No, but does it matter in this context? She's not posting hateful content, was already banned from Twitter, and now has another tech company trying to silence her. They could do the same to more woman speaking up about these things as well.

[–] BlackMoonLilith 5 points (+5|-0)

They probably have done it to more women and we just don't know about it because they're not as outspoken or resilient as Posie.

[–] MidnightLanguor 30 points (+44|-14)

Here we go again with the right wing Christian boogeyman and UK feminists hating on PP, WoLF, and any other feminist who doesn't 100% toe the radfem leftist political line. It's so tiresome. Feminist do not all need to think alike. We are allowed to come from a variety of political views. It strengthens us as a group, not weakens us.

What concerns me is people who cannot associate with others who don't 100% share their political views. We as gender critical feminists who are repeatedly cancelled and ostracized should see the irony in this.

[–] GCat 20 points (+24|-4) Edited

I think it is important for people to identify why they hold a bias against someone. Pointing out that Posie Parker might be more conservative when it comes to gender roles is a way for me to interrogate my own bias against her, which allows me to better appreciate her voice in this area.

Edited to add: Speculating on someone's political beliefs is not the same thing as trying to deplatform and cancel them. It also doesn't mean we can't be allies with them when we have common goals.

[–] littleowl12 8 points (+8|-0)

TBF, she has said that while she is highly feminine and traditional in her roles, these roles are still constructs and don't mean anything beyond that. She makes it very clear that gender roles are not evidence of gender souls.

[–] fallingwater 14 points (+15|-1) Edited

are you aware that radical feminism is an explicitly left-wing political ideology? women don't need to all think alike but we do need to have a unifying ideological framework for the feminist label to mean something. and it's fine if you're supportive of working with people who aren't left-wing to accomplish feminist goals - i am too, in all honesty - but i don't blame other women for being hesitant to make that kind of faustian bargain. it's not unreasonable for feminists to be uncomfortable with the politically conservative.

and the issue of left/right politics aside, are you aware that posie doesn't consider herself a feminist in the first place? that she said she doesn't trust feminists? that we hate her because she has high self-esteem? that women have an innate, evolutionary instinct to be "conniving and underhanded?" that female victims of male abuse are responsible for their own victimhood, since "we are only treated in ways that we allow?" that TIFs should be forcibly sterilized?

i don't think posie should be censored and i don't think her conservative, careless, and anti-feminist statements mean we should wash our hands of interacting with her content - and i don't think many other women in this thread are saying that either - but i do think you're giving her more benefit than she deserves.

[–] Hollyhock 3 points (+3|-0)

This is such a good point. Rad feminists are not a right-wing at all...in fact, GC issues tend to be the only issue we share some common ground with conservatives on (possibly prostitution).

[–] MidnightLanguor -1 points (+0|-1)

Why does feminism always get conflated with radical feminism? I have said on many different threads that I appreciate and respect the hardcore radfems even though I disagree with them politically because they prevent ideological drift within feminism; they are like our party whips. But what I reject is that radical feminism (which yes, I know is inherently leftist) is ALL feminism, and that any feminism that isn't radfem isn't feminism. That's the stance I can't abide.

I am aware of Posie's stances on things. I'm also aware of plenty of men I don't like who are gender critical and whom I welcome to be allies for our shared ground. I am not interested in Posie's personal politics or whether she's a feminist. I give her credit for her activism on this issue.

Uhh isn't Posie Parker anti-feminist? This isn't a case of libfems cancelling radfems. This woman straight up is not a feminist at all.

[–] immersang 7 points (+8|-1)

This. And that's my main issue when it comes to her. She was criticized by some feminists once (about the whole Heritage Foundation situation, I think) and her reaction was to start running around saying that she's not a feminist anymore to anyone who'd listen. If some women who consider themselves feminists being horrible to you (assuming for a moment that she was indeed wronged) is enough for you to renounce being a feminist altogether, the question is if you ever really were one.

People might remember that she was interviewed by the guys from the Triggernometry podcast once. Some time later she invited them onto her channel, and one of the guys said that he wanted to apologize for his earlier comment about how "feminists brought this on themselves" (the whole "you told men to shut up and now YOU are being cancelled, haha, karma!" shtick) and that he thought about that and understands now that was wrong. And she actually said that no, she AGREED with his initial statement. And again going on about how "I'm not a feminist anymore".

And that's just damaging to our movement.

Now, doesn't mean she should be "cancelled", doesn't mean she doesn't do important work, but it does mean that I hope other GC voices become louder and "push" her off the spotlight a bit.

[–] pennygadget 2 points (+3|-1)

Uhh isn't Posie Parker anti-feminist? This isn't a case of libfems cancelling radfems. This woman straight up is not a feminist at all.

She rejects the feminist label because of all the libfem baggage attached to it.

Personally, I think this is a dumb reason to give up the word. But its disingenuous to act as if she's on the same level of anti-feminist MRAs

[–] Womancup 4 points (+12|-8)

There's a difference between people having various political views and people expressing sympathy to outright fascists and anti democratic insurrectionists

[–] MidnightLanguor -1 points (+0|-1)

There's a difference between being Republican/not left wing/Trump voter and being an "outright fascist and antidemocratic insurrectionist." I am really sick of the conflation of the two by the left.

[–] [Deleted] 26 points (+26|-0)

i admire her, yes she's clueless about our politics just like i'm clueless about UK politics, i still admire her

[–] Researcher1536 23 points (+27|-4)

Some of her views on US politics really bother me and I do find myself not tuning into her channel as often, but this Zoom letter is concerning.

[–] Hollyhock 24 points (+26|-2)

especially because there are far-right commentators who aren't kicked off Zoom for making very pointed statements on US politics and far more serious statements (Posie doesn't understand our politics or our gun culture and hopefully she'll just stick to the women's and children's rights because that's where she makes sense).

[–] Astraea1284 10 points (+10|-0)

Exactly. I'd wager it's her campaigning for women that got her reported.

[–] LOriginedumonde 13 points (+17|-4)

This Zoom letter is very concerning, and like another commenter said, I also wonder how she ended up on Zoom’s radar. I’m also bothered by some of her views on US politics, and I’m bothered by the fact that she had a literal neo nazi on her channel because she apparently didn’t vet her guest.

[–] RumHam 17 points (+17|-0)

No, I don't care for her at all. But I wouldn't call her hateful either, and she shouldn't be bothered by zoom over this bullshit.

[–] KBash 14 points (+15|-1)

I agree that she can be off-putting.

HOWEVER, we are extremely indoctrinated into the idea that women should be “nice.” So here there is this woman who is not being “nice”- a white woman with the style of a 1950’s era glam housewife- and she’s perceived as being a “Karen.” I think her traditional femininity of appearance in contrast with her blunt outspokenness is working against her here: in a GNC lesbian, like Magdalen Berns, it seems cool and funny; for Posie Parker, it causes cognitive dissonance, because since she’s embraced one gender role (appearance/motherhood) we expect her to embrace another (being nice). It might be the cognitive dissonance which is throwing you off!

Magdalen Berns was such a shero to many of us because she so openly flouted all gender norms, and did it with such wit and style; for an aspiring radfem- which is all any of us are, since it’s impossible in the modern world to live full radfem ideals (yes even for someone like Magdalen Berns)- she represents real freedom. I think it’s easier to dismiss the analysis of a middle-class stay-at-home mom who styles and colors her hair; the cognitive dissonance there is also the reason people dislike the specter of “Karen,” because middle-class middle-aged housewives in the Western world are supposed to put up and shut up.

On the other hand, it’s possible she does have something off about her which makes her less than palatable, apart from the cognitive dissonance she causes (she’s also less humorous than Magdalen Berns, but then again, so is Vanessa Vokey, so that can’t be the only reason). I’m just playing devil’s advocate here!

Load more (1 comment)
Load more (2 comments)