Alison Phipps

What violence can we do, in the name of fighting sexual violence? This talk presents a critique of mainstream feminist campaigns in the UK, US and other Western countries. It explores how #MeToo can become ‘me, not you’: an exclusive focus on bourgeois white women, and a desire for punishment that legitimates systems oppressive to more marginalised people. Such feminism can also become reactionary, in campaigns against the sex industry and transgender inclusion that hoard resources and police borders in synergy with the resurgent far-right. In contrast to these myopic and often destructive forms of feminism, an intersectional framework helps us move from ‘me, not you’ to ‘all of us’ - with a comprehensive understanding of violence and capacious practice of care. This can be enacted in highly practical ways using the abolitionist concept of ’non-reformist reforms’, which move us towards the world we want rather than perpetuating cycles of violence.

I know this thread is old, but thanks for the links.
Her writing gives me the rage.

God help any students who are rape victims in Newcastle /students at the University

Prof Phipps was a professor of gender studies at Sussex University, and has recently taken up a post as professor of sociology at Newcastle University

Criticism leading to Prof Stock’s resignation said to include post by Alison Phipps that accused ‘free speech warriors’ of being ‘bigots’
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/11/04/kathleen-stock-trans-row-professor-forced-tweets/

Alison Phipps is one of the academics in the Sussex University cancel mob. smearing Kathleen Stock as ‘transphobic’, which is to say a hater of trans people and emboldening students to start their campaign against KS

Mumsnet live chat with Alison ... I’d love it!

I do feel sorry for her because I think she does know that. She paid Dr Jess Taylor a very grudging compliment and I thought how obvious it was that she was jealous. Jess’s work is very influential in shaping policy around rape and abuse whereas her research doesn’t even have influence in her own university.

She would never be brave enough to debate Kathleen Stock. 90% of no debate is pure cowardice. She should come and do a mumsnet live chat with the ladies of FWR. We would also eat her for breakfast.

Neither Alison Phipps nor Sally Hines are capable of constructing a coherent argument. They have both embarrassed themselves repeatedly on social media and elsewhere (Sally in particular was hilariously rubbish on Women's Hour), and refuse to engage with anyone on an equal footing because they know their positions are indefensible. What gets me is that they are in receipt of public money to fund their ridiculous projects, and are also supposedly educators. I wouldn't enrol my cat on a course run by either of them

The only thing that would make me take Professor Phipps at all seriously is if she finally agreed to the public debate that her colleague Kathleen Stock offered to set up some time ago.

That would be a serious good-faith gesture. Alison, if you're watching this board, why don't you? You could record it, and you could shake hands afterwards.

We appear to have rattled the good professor.

mobile.twitter.com/anonacademic_uk/status/1367454062313103360

It does not sound very genuine and she has not taken on board any of our points that her ideas harming the most vulnerable women. She loves to talk about how she is a privileged white woman who thinks we should listen to the less privileged but does not acknowledge any of the criticisms that come from black feminists.

It is "feminists" like Alison Phipps and Sally Hines who enable and applaud the vicious bullying and sanctions suffered by these staff and students in academia (mostly women and mostly in the UK), creating a climate of fear and driving out those with a genuine concern for women's rights:

www.gcacademianetwork.org

IMHO they are psychopaths.

These days it seems way too common to dismiss anyone who disagrees with you.

The concept of having a civilised debate is long gone.

The intent of intersectional feminism has been bastardised.

The incursion of USA history, politics etc into everything is not helping.

And feminists can be arseholes the same as anyone else.

[quote Siablue]I am aware that that article focused on white women. Alison Phipps is a white woman who has been subject to sexual assault. She is trying to distance herself from other white women who she sees as doing feminism wrong by rejecting political whiteness. However both she and Sally Hines completely ignore black feminists who disagree with them and claim that only white women are GC (even though they know this is not the case).

I think some feminists on this board sometimes do the same thing claiming to support black feminists at some points while also loving Douglas Murray.

Sister Outrider has done a good thread about all this and why all feminists should learn more from black feminists (even the ones who don’t agree with them).

mobile.twitter.com/ClaireShrugged/status/1359160461221126156[/quote]
Yeah I agree with that. I see it quite a lot too when white feminists expect women of colour to ignore quite blatant racism ‘for the greater good’. I think Hines and Phipps showed that they are total hypocrites in this regard though because they certainly aren’t willing to listen to women of colour when they disagree with them.

Yes, agree, Sia. It's great to see black feminists chiming in on the discussion on Twitter. I am ordering 'why we should all be feminists right now.'

I did enjoy this response to Hines:

'I thought you took a vow of silence on this issue. Or were you just doing t*rfanuary?'

She has lost any shred of credibility that she had by completely refusing to engage with black women on Twitter and instead accused them of bullying her. I am pretty sure I’ve seen her take the moral high ground against another academic who was having an argument where she was accused of being ignorant to the feelings of black women. In that case, Alison patronisingly waded in, told the academic to read Audre Lorde and said how important it is to listen to black voices. When she’s on the receiving end, it’s a very different story.

As others have said already, please please don’t report her to her university though. She is allowed to hold abhorrent views without losing her job. We’re stooping to her level if we try to get her fired (and it won’t even work because she is protected under academic freedom legislation). I hope nobody does this. I think the idea of personally (respectfully) telling her your views though is a good idea. I think she needs to see the detrimental impact her writing has on women.

I agree with the points about simply shifting the problem by abusers moving institutions. But this is simply another example of how universities are failing women by not taking them seriously. It’s not what victims want. She’s focusing on the wrong person by calling the victim a Karen and accusing her of ‘calling the manager’. Her utopia of accountability is ludicrous. It won’t happen. Abusers don’t think they’ve done anything wrong. They won’t amend their behaviour and even if they did, do they not deserve punishment for raping in the first place. Nobody gets to university age without knowing it’s wrong to rape a woman. Many still do commit rape though and they know they can get away with it.

I also sense a tone in Phipps’ work and that of others in this field that implies that only white men are rapists. This is rubbish. The one thing all rapists have in common is that they are men. Rape happens all over the world every day and it doesn’t matter whether the rapist in question is also part of a marginalised group. No woman should ever feel shame or guilt for seeking justice against a man simply because he belongs to a certain group.

I am aware that that article focused on white women. Alison Phipps is a white woman who has been subject to sexual assault. She is trying to distance herself from other white women who she sees as doing feminism wrong by rejecting political whiteness. However both she and Sally Hines completely ignore black feminists who disagree with them and claim that only white women are GC (even though they know this is not the case).

I think some feminists on this board sometimes do the same thing claiming to support black feminists at some points while also loving Douglas Murray.

Sister Outrider has done a good thread about all this and why all feminists should learn more from black feminists (even the ones who don’t agree with them).

mobile.twitter.com/ClaireShrugged/status/1359160461221126156

I find it really interesting (and baffling and unpleasant) this message that white middle class woman are not vulnerable to sexual violence.

I've seen this loads and while other groups may be more at risk, the idea that being white and middle class protects you from CSA, sexual exploitation, domestic including sexual violence, date rape, stranger rape, and street harassment, sexual harassment at work and etc etc is just an anti woman lie.

Sorry, I didn't clarify that bit about the white survivors of sexual assault. I just meant to point out that those are the 'group' towards whom she directs particular ire throughout the whole paper. I absolutely agree with you that her remarks towards black survivors of sexual assault are equally disgraceful, albeit less frequent throughout the paper which uses the word "white" about 120 times.

Also agree that writing to Phipps herself is of utmost importance, but I didn't mentioned that as it seemed too... obvious?

Anyway, people can feel free to write nothing at all to anyone should they choose. I'm just suggesting a few people who might like to hear from us, tis all.

Wanting rapists punished is a bad thing now? Wow, these wokesters are even worse than I thought they were. So white women are never raped by black men...what a load of nonsense. A female prime minister getting upset is apparently criminal. I'm glad this is getting plenty of backlash.

Agree that writing to the uni or others is not a good tactic. If anything, I would possibly write to Alison Phipps herself. I think it may be reasonable to let her know the impact her words have on women who have survived rape/abuse.

Her views are also offensive to black women and all other victims of abuse because she is victim blaming and as black and Asian women are much more likely to die as victims of abuse they would be in more danger if her policies were implemented. She has also accused all black survivors of abuse who disagree with her of political whiteness.

No one knows how to weaponise whiteness better than her. When she is legitimately criticised for racism she turns it around and argues that she may be white but is not politically white but we are.

I think specifically mentioning that her comments are offensive to white survivors of sexual abuse but not non-white survivors is a bit offensive to be honest.

More attacks on white women. How original. These people are pathetic. How come black men aren't accused of "weaponizing" their trauma when they're out protesting? I know why. These male aligned people are a joke.

I'm not saying she should have her paper retracted or that anyone should call for her losing her job. I think any correspondence should make that perfectly clear, as I agree those are not appropriate tactics to use in a liberal democracy.

I'm just saying that people might want to share their concerns with Faculty staff about white female sexual violence survivors being taught by someone who dismisses them as "white" "bourgeois" "damsels in distress" who contrive to use their "white tears" simply to enrage men into protecting them. I'd feel very uncomfortable knowing my daughter was being taught by this person who is clearly a racist and misogynist, and who views "reactionary feminists" (i.e. gender critical) with an alarming amount of disdain. I'd want reassurance that this attitude isn't being taught as dogma.

It also strikes me that journal editors should face the real world consequences of the stuff they publish. When they accepted the paper, did they consider how insulting and hateful it is? If they did, fine. I'm not saying pull it. I'm saying people might want to tell those same editors how such an article makes real sexual assault survivors feel - as opposed to the imaginary ones Phipps has dreamt up as a straw man.

I do totally take your point, though. We don't want to be appealing to 'safetyism' where people are mollycoddled and protected from things they don't like. However, I do also think that, if this stuff goes unchallenged, faculty heads do not realise what kind of research is being pumped out under their university's name, and journal editors sit righteously sniffing their own inclusive farts.

I actually don’t think this is a good idea. It will play into her narrative that she is the victim rather than an academic with offensive views.

I think that she deserves to be criticised for her views but these are the tactics that bullies use and I don’t think we should do that.

I agree with this. I have no problem with academics holding views that I don't agree with. It's important, especially in academia, to be open to persuasive arguments. If Phipps's work is poor, then it should be dealt with in an academic manner, by devastatingly polite journal articles are academic blogs.