Woman's Hour 20 October: Has Mumnset become too politicised?

Just had a read of the free chapter of the book they're referring to:

mobile.twitter.com/EmeraldSoc/status/1317469172608237572

Looks like an interesting read. I'm intrigued about how much the author will be allowed to say on WH (assuming, of course, that she'll be appearing on the segment).

I was listening to Jane Garvey on WH today and she was talking to Victoria Wood's biographer. She was saying something about one of VW's jokes about periods - she said something to him like, "That's what ladies have" and shut up really quickly about it. I couldn't help but think that was because of the TW debate, or lack of it.

meditrina what you dismiss as 'domestic/first world issues' ARE political. They directly and massively impact the lives, status and actual definition of half the world's population.

I think MN is far less political than when I join Ned.

There are no threads on international relations these days, nor indeed on anything other than a very narrow selection of domestic/first world issues. Its lost both variety and depth.

MN does not attract heavyweight speakers any more, and won't be courted in any future electoral campaigns. A large site, it might get looked over by campaign planners, but it is not one which is not remotely worth putting significant effort in to, because the side which gets the most coverage here has been the losing side in RL votes.

Do you reckon Julie Bindel is on mumsnet? shes a bit of a hero to me, even if I only agree with her about 75% of the time

Yes, the framing of the question is exactly why WH is a pointless, toothless, pandering load of old shite now.

Next week; Has Feminism gone too far?

Women had a point about being fairly treated, but the strident campaigning by some women has led to questions being asked about how much 'equality' is a reasonable aim. We examine, with the help of guests Jordan Peterson and India Willoughby, whether Feminism is really a relic of a bygone age and it's time to move on and give men their due.

I heard it trailed at the end of today's programme, so it may not be in print anywhere yet.

How politicised is TOO politicised (for women) I wonder, and who gets to decide? Why isn't Mumsnet discussing whether Woman's Hour is too politicised, or not politicised enough, more likely? Oh wait, we did.

Well, I guess it's their turn now! Buckle up.

I hope their next episode asks 'has Twitter become a hotbed of incels and misogynists?' Closely followed by 'has Etsy become too politicised now its banning products with dictionary definitions?'

MN has always been political. Unless they think politicians really came here to discuss biscuits

Yep I’d rather

‘Has Women’s Hour become divorced from the reality of what women want?

We are thinking about this the wrong way round.

It's not "Is Mumsnet too politicised?" It's "How can a site that captures the reality thousands of women's lives through their own voices NOT become politicised?"

Yes, I would throw the question back at Woman's Hour who seem to struggle with the idea of letting women discuss women's issues without input from a certain group of men, to the point that they gagged one of their own presenters.

@nauticant

Where did you copy that question in the thread title from? I can't find it on the Radio 4 schedule. As it is annoying people up I would be curious to know who wrote the question.

Fuck the fuck off W(M)H. Too craven to have the conversation but want to host the meta-conversation? Just FFOTTOSOFATFOSM. Arseholes.

Who will argue the yes side to this?

Advertisers that want compliant consumers

Stonewall

How ridiculous. If you take away our rights then we are going to discuss it.

Should we stick to nappies and school gate shite?

When was the last time that (white) men were accused of being 'too politicised'?

The horrors of mummies actually talking about politics

Yes, lets analyse Women's Hour. For a start, lets hear a whole lot of burble about their working definition of 'woman' and then let's hear them defend that as progressive and inclusive for adult human females . As in discussing it only and exclusively with adult human females, as opposed to lining up adult human males to head tilt at and enable to tell female people who they are, what they shall be called, what boxes they shall be stuffed in, what rights and protections in law are being confiscated from them by males for the benefit of males, and why the concept of safety, health care, biological reality and lived experience as a biological female is now a hate crime against males who just don't want to have to hear all that shit.

And who would like to prevent them being allowed to a) assemble, even online, b) talk to each other because then they start sharing ideas and having opinions and get completely out of their box, and c) organise in ways really fucking inconvenient to males. My God, the horror. They can assemble if they talk about prams and their MiLs. That's it. That's all.

And we'll hide that behind a pretty show of faux concern about 'gosh are the mummies getting a bit to politicised? Ugly look for a naice girl'.

The suffragettes and the lesbians have heard it all before. For decades. Your great grandfathers tried all this shit. It didn't work then either.

I'm hoping the fact that this topic is being discussed on Woman's Hour tomorrow may mean some of the WH production team have a quick scan of the boards today. On the off chance, here's a quick message to them:

GET OFF THE FECKING FENCE AND START FULFILLING YOUR BRIEF TO COVER CURRENT AFFAIRS FROM AN UNASHAMED AND UNAPOLOGETIC FEMALE PERSPECTIVE YOU CRAVEN COWARDS.

Thanks!

It's probably about the book on this subject that has been published recently.

Yes this exactly.

Too politicised? Too politicised for what?

Oh no! Mums being policitical! Won't someone think of the children?!?

Well I'm thinking about my daughter here, so yes, I am. As are many of us.