Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Baroness Nicholson in Sunday Times

63 replies

BovaryX · 28/06/2020 06:58

I haven't seen this article posted, apologise if it has been. Baroness Nicholson describes her hurt and bewilderment at being accused, denounced, judged and cancelled. If the reports of the source of these accusations are true, have their previous tweets and comments been subjected to the same critical examination? If not, why not?

‘Are activists targeting me?’ Tory peer Baroness Nicholson’s despair over Booker prize trans
Baroness Nicholson said yesterday that she was sad and surprised to be dropped as an honorary vice-president of the Booker Prize Foundation, the literary accolade founded by her husband, after being accused of offending a transgender model, Munroe Bergdorf. The Tory peer, who is deaf, had held the role since 2009. Her late husband, the businessman Sir Michael Caine, established the prize.Asked how she felt, she said: “Sad. Very sad. Somewhat surprised to be labelled by the Booker board members as homophobic, transphobic and racist'^

OP posts:
Original poster
BovaryX · 28/06/2020 08:59

Purity Control

Grin
OP posts:
OliveKitteridgeAgain · 28/06/2020 08:57

They didn't sack her per se. They abolished any honorary positions that therefore rendered her title obsolete. But we all know why, so Booker are no less cowards.

Isn't one of the Booker judges a disgraced former MP? Mixed up in cash for questions? When are Purity Control coming for him?

OP posts:
Original poster
BovaryX · 28/06/2020 08:52

Datun

I take your point and I don't doubt that many of The Times' readers think she has been unfairly treated. But she has been removed from her role in the Booker prize. That is a goal achieved. The laughable statement from Booker about literature being open and questioning is yet more evidence of the Doublethink which dominates SJ. But its pernicious ideology is everywhere. Particularly as Douglas Murray says, in journalism and publishing. And its proponents wield real power.

OP posts:
Igneococcus · 28/06/2020 08:48

Thanks Bovary and Roomba, I'm signed up for the free articles (other computer remembered me) but I reached my limit. I'll get dp or dd to sign up later.

Datun · 28/06/2020 08:44

@BovaryX

Sadly DatunI don't think it is. Baroness Nicholson has been sacked. Goal achieved. That is because the proponents of this SJ movement wield real power. While claiming to have none.
It's only if it strips her of any power tho. A positive spread in the Sunday Times a few days after would suggest the opposite.
Original poster
BovaryX · 28/06/2020 08:37

Sadly DatunI don't think it is. Baroness Nicholson has been sacked. Goal achieved. That is because the proponents of this SJ movement wield real power. While claiming to have none.

OP posts:
Original poster
BovaryX · 28/06/2020 08:34

From the Telegraph:

For how long can this state of affairs continue? Being obliged to parrot propaganda and declare the sky is pink to retain your livelihood is emotionally draining. Neither is it healthy for our institutions to be so consistently out of step with public opinion, overseen by a detached cultural elite that is only occasionally roused from its perch by a disobliging election or referendum result. Few of us wish to inhabit a monoculture, and the quality of artistic output is already suffering; take the Booker Prize’s own deterioration in the literary landscape.Worst of all, it will destroy genuine progress. In liberal California, presumably to pave the way for “affirmative action” measures, the legislature has just voted to strike anti-discrimination commitments from its constitution – a development that should terrify all thinking people. Britain is never far behind America and already ours is a topsy-turvy world, in which bullies feign victimhood, discrimination masquerades as social justice and “feminist” activists use the mantle of progressivism to hound women with impunity. Truly, we are through the looking glass now

OP posts:
Original poster
BovaryX · 28/06/2020 08:32

igneo
Sadly, the Telegraph doesn't do share tokens. I will post more of the article on the thread

OP posts:
Datun · 28/06/2020 08:32

The row broke after Nicholson, 78, sent a tweet, since deleted, which described Bergdorf as a “weird creature”. This weekend she said she had apologised to the model and offered to meet her.

Apparently the term weird creature is a literary reference of some description. Maybe a bit tone deaf but not necessarily the insult Munroe thinks it is.

The word creature wasn't uncommon in the baronesses generation either and didn't carry quite the same negativity. Something that won't be lost on many ST readers I imagine.

Calling her names and stripping her of an honorary title however, looks like a massive over reaction.

She apologised and offered to met Bergdorf. She has zero problem with contrition. A confident, assertive women whose self esteem isn't conditional upon others.

She's not going to stop, is she?

Again, to me at least, this looks like yet another TRA own goal.

ARoombaOfOnesOwn · 28/06/2020 08:31

I think you should be able to register with your email and read a couple of articles for free.

Igneococcus · 28/06/2020 08:29

Is there a way to read the Telegraph article without signing up for a free trial?

Original poster
BovaryX · 28/06/2020 08:23

This Telegraph article I linked here exposes that industrial quantity doublethink

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3951869-Telegraph-piece-on-Orwellian-doublethink?msgid=97843691#97843691

OP posts:
endofthelinefinally · 28/06/2020 08:22

It would be wonderful if people read history books.

Original poster
BovaryX · 28/06/2020 08:21

The biggest joke of all? It truly takes industrial quantity doublethink to write this after canceling Baroness Nicholson.

Literature is open, plural and questioning. We believe every author’s work should be approached by readers in the same spirit

OP posts:
SulisMinerva · 28/06/2020 08:19

@BovaryX

If this is the stance they are taking, I sincerely hope they examine all the writers on their long list and the judges for any evidence of past wrong think. Nothing worse than a righteous hypocrite

Sulis

Yes. Let's have the same forensic examination of the tweets and pronouncements of the denouncers. Why isn't that being done?

Yes, can’t think why this isn’t happening...

I’m afraid Baroness Nicholson was too successful in getting results when exposing the entirely unsuitable ‘education’ materials aimed at schools. Some people do not want sunlight there and now it will be easy for people to dismiss her as a ‘phone’.

The woke contingent would do well to read up on the French Revolution. History has some lessons there. The Reformation could also prove quite instructive.

JoyFreeCake · 28/06/2020 08:18

It can only be there as a justification by means of evidence of oppression, though, because there's no suggestion she's been discriminated against for her deafness.

Original poster
BovaryX · 28/06/2020 08:15

Maybe the reference to deafness is to show that she is disabled which is a protected characteristic

Precisely. Also, the central point is that Baroness Nicholson has been accused, denounced and cancelled for what crime? This imposition of a rigid orthodoxy by a book prize? Isn't diversity of ideas a literary tradition?

OP posts:
Lamahaha · 28/06/2020 08:14

Emma Harriet Nicholson, Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne (born 16 October 1941) is a transphobic British politician...

How the fuck have they done that? Another day, more rage.

It's actually easy. Anyone can be a Wikipedia editor, anyone can create or edit articles. I have done so -- both created and edited articles. I won't edit this one, as it would be outing (especially after this post!) but if anyone here is game, do go ahead.

All you have to do is go to the Edit button at the top right. And you can see who made these despicable allegations by the View History tab.
It's possible to edit anonymously, I believe. That's why Wikipedia has such a bad reputation.

I also believe that this particular edit won't stand, as the admins do flag statements that are opinions rather than facts.

MrsHuntGeneNotJeremyObviously · 28/06/2020 08:12

Every day I seem to be losing more and more respect for people/institutions. Booker prize is now worth less than it used to be - what self respecting author would value a prize awarded by people who have no respect for words?

JoyFreeCake · 28/06/2020 08:11

It just jars, y'know?

"who is deaf"

FOR NO REASON

I'd be pissed off if my disability (and I know some d/Deaf people don't count their deafness as such) was gratuitously and clumsily plonked in the middle of an unrelated sentence in an article that had nothing to do with it.

Original poster
BovaryX · 28/06/2020 08:11

If this is the stance they are taking, I sincerely hope they examine all the writers on their long list and the judges for any evidence of past wrong think. Nothing worse than a righteous hypocrite

Sulis

Yes. Let's have the same forensic examination of the tweets and pronouncements of the denouncers. Why isn't that being done?

OP posts:
PapsofJura · 28/06/2020 08:10

Maybe the reference to deafness is to show that she is disabled which is a protected characteristic.

JoyFreeCake · 28/06/2020 08:08

Although a powerful white male, of course, requires no justification-of-oppression.

JoyFreeCake · 28/06/2020 08:07

Unless, of course, we're getting involved in some sort of declare-your-axes-of-oppression journalism and the Times felt the need to find some way to justify letting her give her point of view. "Shit, she's white and powerful. What are we gonna do? Female? Nah that doesn't count. Aha, disability."