Woman's Hour discusses adult bullying with representative from 'Ditch The Label' providing expert advice

AbsintheFriends: "I'm hoping that they're waiting until they can cover it properly, from the perspective of its impact on women and girls. Which is their entire purpose - and what they do with every other subject. No compromise. No confusion. The facts laid out for listeners to draw their own conclusions and decide for themselves how they feel about self-ID."

"Autumn"'could mean anything. They had better cover it before the GRA consultation closes on October 19th.

I'm pretty much a daily listener and find the silence on this topic is absolutely deafening. It makes me believe (perhaps naively, certainly optimistically) that they aren't discussing it because the presenters couldn't do so without contravening batshit biased bbc policy and risking losing their jobs.

We've heard the way it's played out before on other discussion shows, on TV and radio (Victoria Derbyshire, Jeremy Vine etc) They bring in a TRA and a GC feminist spokesperson, are at pains to give each one equal airtime and the five minute slot gets quickly derailed into bickering about toilets, with the TRA adopting a tone of wounded martyrdom about being accused of being a pervert when all they want to do is live their lives. Point spectacularly missed. Opportunity wasted. Onto the next item, while everyone listening at home is left with a vague sense of bewilderment and storm-in-a-teacup security.

I'm hoping that they're waiting until they can cover it properly, from the perspective of its impact on women and girls. Which is their entire purpose - and what they do with every other subject. No compromise. No confusion. The facts laid out for listeners to draw their own conclusions and decide for themselves how they feel about self-ID.

We'll see.

I was a daily listener until after that article. Afterwards it felt as though the programme had been permanently censored. How is it possible that a programme, aimed at women, cannot be covering the GRA regularly?

*let down

Veering slightly off topic, but I'm so disappointed & let that BBC R4 Women's Hour is seemingly not remotely interested in the GRA debate or wider discussions about the 'erasure of women' & the silencing of women's voices. This thread highlights more of the same.

The absolute lack of consideration of women and girls specific experiences and needs is a massive issue all over the world and always has been. Things are not set up for us, and our interests are never represented unless we have a seat at the table AND shout.

Agree. I am not happy to have males speak for women, trans or otherwise.

No mention of sex in the gaming bullying one.

They have used gender for sex so then are unable to draw any conclusions around sex being a factor in online bullying (which everyone knows it is).

However, this is fine as they make no mention of sex OR gender as factor in the level or nature of bullying that happens.

This one appears to be sponsored by some kind of gaming platform.

Oh that "research" and campaign are sponsored by a make up brand

One research section on "Makeup Shaming".

?

Is that the same Ditch the Label who advise bullied kids to sit back, listen and apologise for anything you may have done which may have upset the bully?

This is why we need feminism and women and girls in decision making / policy forming etc positions everywhere. Because if we are not there - male is defualt - and only the things that they know about and have experience of are on the table.

The absolute lack of consideration of women and girls specific experiences and needs is a massive issue all over the world and always has been. Things are not set up for us, and our interests are never represented unless we have a seat at the table AND shout.

He's white, male and has a beard. Seems to be a pattern. Just saying....

Just looking at their massive report on bullying in schools.

Sexualised / sexually motivated bullying is not a category - they have physical assault, verbal bullying, cyberbullying. They do not mention sex in the document at all. They do not mention sexual bullying (from a search on the word "sex").

This is in massive, stark contrast to the very large survey the GG did around the experience of girls in school.

This seems like an organisation that is blind to or not interested in the particular issues faced by girls in schools and presumably by women as well.

Not very surprised, seeing the comments from the man who runs it, displaying an utter lack of empathy with girls / women nor any interest in trying to develop any.

There was also a rather odd assertion on the WH segment by the 'Ditch the Lable' representative about some massive 'analysis' they had done of twitter comments which showed (I think) that the majority of misogynistic bullying tweets were by women. I need to listen again though.

Women though, or 'women' aka men?

To find some evidence of bullying, the simple thing would be to look at Liam's twitter feed. What research do journalists do these days?

Just having a look, the pic on their "about" page is that of a young woman (sorry for assuming gender!) with her arms in the air so the bottom of her breasts are showing.

Yes using female bodies to add a bit of visual interest to your web pages is very ground breaking and original.

I wonder how interested they are around sexualised bullying of girls by boys in schools and how boys being presented with images of women and girls as consumable sexual objects encourages this.

"Ah, just checked out the other thread. Dr. Liam is the charmer who thinks his wish to be present in an all-female waiting room (where women have removed their bras and are sitting in flimsy medical gowns waiting for breast screening), in a non-medical capacity, simply as a friend of a patient, trumps the female patients' right to have some sort of privacy and dignity while waiting to undergo what's actually a fairly uncomfortable and sometimes painful procedure."

He what?

What is it with entitled men thinking they have the right to be in places where women are undressed and in this case potentially feeling very anxious, just because they want to?

The utter pack of any empathy whatsoever is telling with a lot of these blokes. And this one runs an antibullying charity? Is he mainly concerned with men who get bullied, i reckon?

Is that the one with the Glassdoor reviews? Maybe it's that.

I am surprised that 'Dr.' Hackett - for someone saw fit to grant him that honorary title - doesn't know the plural of shirt is simply shirts, no apostrophe required. Ah me.

I don't want to derail this thread. I did not receive an email to detail my transgressions, so I cannot be specific, but this is how the error message on the other thread reads:

Thread deleted

Message from MNHQ: Thanks to all those who reported this topic. We have some legal concerns about some of the posts so we're taking it down while we go through it.

Heresy, I hadn't realised the thread on this man had been taken down. There were some useful and genuine concerns about the nature of the advice from the charity on dealing with bullies and victims.

Personally, I believe that the head of a charity such as this should be above reproach and I agree that putting out videos targeting a woman (and sending objects to her place of work) with the stated intention that it "will learn her" should disqualify him from such a post.

Heresyandwitchcraft what does 'under investigation mean'? Does it have deeper legal implications or does it just mean they are trying to decide whether or not it should be deleted permanently?

Doesn't that imply that reasoning with the people disagreeing with him was "too easy?" If it's "like shooting fish in a barrel," why wouldn't you just keep engaging in dialogue?

I was thinking that exact same thing! I think Mr Hackett just isn't as clever as he thinks.

My thoughts on this particular man, and this particular charity are well-known (and referenced). Although I will not comment on them further, as my thread on the subject is down and allegedly under investigation.
I am going to question this sentence from Mr Hackett's tweet:
"I've tried to reason with you lot before but it's like shooting fish in a barrel."
Doesn't that imply that reasoning with the people disagreeing with him was "too easy?" If it's "like shooting fish in a barrel," why wouldn't you just keep engaging in dialogue?