Womxn controversy on Newsnight

Ooo we are up to Page 3 of the Daily Mail now are we? That's like Defcon 3 in the culture war. Defcon 2 is front page. When it's repeatedly on the front page full scale cultural war has broken out.

I think we are on course for that too.

Did anyone get any replies to their complaints to the bbc? Or do they just log it, then screw up the log and throw it in the bin?

FreezyBlue
I do indeed!

I also think that its ok to ask politely. If you're told no, then ok. Its also ok to ask why!

Yes, and it would have been in the days when everyone talked about "Man" and "Mankind" when they were talking about the human race.

As far as i know womyn was coined to remove the word men or man

“News night might do well to interview Prof. Kathleen Stock...”
You too can have a dream!

I am still finding the implication that black and Asian women were not viewed as "women" and so needed a new term to be included utterly telling.

Speak for your damned selves, mates.

I think the subtext they were reaching for is that, in their view, all feminism is "middle class white feminism" so it can be comfortably discarded under the guise of being nice to more worthy minorities. Which, in terms of motivations, doesn't actually come across as being anti-racist or especially pro-LGBT.

Newsnight might do well to interview Prof Kathleen Stock this evening (or soon) on the key points made in her speech at The House of Lords.

It raises crucial points and should be a briefing document to use when interviewing Maria Miller MP and others involved with the Women & Equalities Comittee and Trans Equality Report:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3391330-Prof-Kathleen-Stock-WPUK-speech-at-House-of-Lords-Important-disection-of-the-key-issues-for-MPs-policy-makers-etc-with-ref-to-The-Trans-Equality-Report

Exactly Quentin.

I know there are very real issues to do with black women being excluded from feminism and they were particularly acute in the American women's suffrage movement, but the resistance to this was more concerned with claiming the word woman and refusing to be excluded by it, than with abandoning it. For instance Sojourner Truth's famous 'Ain't I a woman?' speech.

kate styles (@bailey6117) tweeted: @BBCNewsnight @sophiecooktalks @MarkUrban01

Mxddlx xgxd
Mxn
Mxnsplxxnxng
What's new

twitter.com/bailey6117/status/1050243949590454272?s=17

Black women do definitely sometimes feel unrepresented by western feminism. We have had amazing threads about it before. We need @quencher.
However I don't think changing the nane if women is going to do anything to address those issues and I have never heard anyone apart from Cook suggest it will.
It's appropriative and patronising on the part of the TRAs

womxn?

fxcks sakes. that can get in the fxcking bin.

womyn? womxyzn? wimmxlshdicnwkshdn? FXCK OFF

Yep. It just replaces woman/women and makes room for anyone else to join in the action. If your’e a news night presenter (Mark Urban was it?) then of course it’s all terribly complicated. And you have to dip your head coyly, put you’re hand up to your heart and look to your interviewee at this point for help and guidance.
I can’t stand Paxman but I’d love to have wheeled him out at this point.

Sorry - being driven by a minority of (white) men.

I've stewed and muttered and finally got off my backside and complained to the BBC. Had enough.

I am appalled that this is the best that the BBC can do. 10 days before the consultation closes. This has really opened my eyes as to how biased the BBC can be

On a positive note, how many people are now waking up to the TW agenda being driven by (white) men, thanks to Newsnight? And thanks to this, I have made my first complaint to the BBC

Why is it more inclusive?

It's not, it's a way of removing the word woman.

Can someone explain the womxn/womyn thing to me? Why is it more inclusive?

It is because it means it doesn't have 'men' in it?

Next two...

Can't see if anyone's linked to this little bit on page 3 of today's DM.

It's very good.

(Have to do two posts as can't attach all 4 photos to one)

...hopefully they're in order...!!

I think there is an argument for saying that black women felt pushed out or ignored by 1970's feminism (especially in the US). But I don't believe I ever came across, during my study of feminism and civil rights, that black women were ever considered as non-women by anyone other than racists. But they may not have felt included by the term womyn as used by radical feminists during that period.

I also think that feminism quickly embraced all women as it evolved during the 1980s and onwards.

I'm not black - so I am more than willing to be put right on this.

I don’t watch Newsnight any more. The presenters are so full of their own importance, but they can never get anyone good or relevant to come on, and what issues they do cover, they present with such bias. The last time I watched it was (I think) a year or more ago when they had a ‘discussion’ about poor menz being afraid to talk to wimmenz in case they got accused of harassment. The women on the panel barely got a word in because of the men talking over them. One or two tried to say it’s about women’s safety, not your offended feelings, and that the whole point was being spectacularly missed, but no joy.

After that I decided Newsnight was not good for my well-being.

I'm loving Twitter on this. Someone said "What about German? Is it Frxu or Frax?"

Yes, worth remembering that the backlash against Feminism that is behind the idea of a 'feminist over-reach' is based on an understanding libfem ideas.

Very much so. And very much tied into general woke authoritarianism.

Yes, worth remembering that the backlash against Feminism that is behind the idea of a 'feminist over-reach' is based on an understanding libfem ideas. That's certainly what I thought I was fighting against when I was involved with Ladies Against Feminism.

I've taken to pointing out to a lot of my conservative contacts who trot out 'Well, the feminists have got what they want' etc. that there are a lot of feminists objecting to this nonsense, and telling them why.

This is one of the reasons partisan purity politics are so dangerous, because misunderstandings are never able to be answered and people just get more and more entrenched in their errors.