The Mary Beard Appreciation Society

[ArcheryAnnie]

Professor Mary Beard was one of about 130+ people who signed a letter to the Guardian this weekend, saying broadly that universities should be a place of discussion and debate, and the current habit of "no-platforming" women (it's almost always women) some students disagree with was inimical to the very purpose of education.

Out of these 130+ signatories, Mary Beard was the one the usual suspects piled on to, and she dealt with the barrage with such grace. The attacks were mostly divided between the "OMG transphobe" type" and the "very sad to see this nice old dear who didn't understand what she was signing" type, which is breathtakingly patronising when referring to one of the most brilliant academics we have. Most of the other signatories weren't attacked at all in the same way or in the same volume, although some signatories who are PoC were labelled "tokens" by the usual suspects, which is also amazingly patronising and dismissive of their choices and their expertise.

When I grow up, I want to be Professor Mary Beard. (But I would probably have to grow an extra couple of brains to do it.)

marybeard that has made my day - thank you for coming here and reading this! I didn't imagine you would see this thread, especially not after the few days you've had.

I think that's the thing - being able to discuss in good faith, and be able to risk getting things wrong, and being able to change your mind, and come to different conclusions from other people (on any side) without them calling you a bigot and shutting you down. It doesn't seem to be possible on twitter at the mo, but I'd have gone mad if I hadn't been able to come on mumsnet and discuss it here.

I dearly hope that if my kid goes to university, the concept of open debate amongst students will still exist. I was SO HAPPY when I saw that Guardian letter, and how many people had been willing to sign it, because it's a step in helping make this possible.

So - thank you, and I hope your week improves!

Of course the other thing with a "privilege" that might come with thin-ness is that of course it is all bound up with sexist, classist, racist, stereotyping stuff too, so it's difficult to extricate and define really

I meant to say earlier MB is a Mumsnetter, not sure how regularly she visits but I'm really glad she's seen this thread.

Yesterday I saw the Twitter storm for the first time, where someone pointed out that No Platforming may not be the best way to kill a daft opinion, e.g. when Griffin was on Question Time and looked like the unspeakable tosspot that he is. This was followed by non-gender-specific hysteria about are you accusing us of being like the BNP. Errr. Way to deliberately miss the bloody point. Mary of course was getting it in the neck merely for having retweeted the point about Griffin.

I couldn't be arsed with debating this on Twitter if I were you, Mary, but more power to you. Thank you for being awesome.

There's an older New Statesman article here which also addresses how misused No Platforming has become. I remember supporting its use against fascists in the early 1990s, but the whole ethos behind it has been horribly distorted since.

Hello Mary! I enjoyed your blog piece, sorry you've had so much of a hard time the past few days.

But how can we say then that women have cis privilege when it's based on on incorrect assumptions about what 'cis' even covers? I am also of the 'gender is not innate' mind, and as such being called cis and accused of having cis privilege is almost nonsensical.

It seems like cis is more about renaming women so that trans is no longer the other. And I understand that desire completely. But if that's the goal, then cis doesn't make sense. Surely the correct terms are biological woman and transwoman?

But being tall is evidence of masculinity. So rather than tall privilege, it's just a higher level (sorrynotsorry) of male-ness and thus more male privilege.

I just... I just don't think I have the energy to give to someone who finds the idea that biologically, as fact, offensive. Speaking strictly from a point of biology, ignoring all the ideas around what 'being a woman' means and how it is constructed and leaving room for discussions around intersex, I'm at a loss. If someone is offended by the truth, then I've got nothing left. It's a viewpoint I can't understand.

*finds the idea that biology, as a fact, offensive. I have lost the ability to type. Nargle.

Yes re tall etc I would see that as part of the same structure where people are judged by appearance, assumptions made about them etc. so it follows from sexism, racism, classism, disablism, appearance-based judgements etc but will affect those groups differently and can't be seen as privilege separate from those -isms iyswim

But doesn't the argument that reality=performance still rest on a man's interpretation of what performing as a woman looks and feels like?

Yes of course, but who else has the authority to decide what looks and feels like being a woman?

In some cases, one gets the impression that it's less about organically feeling like a woman (whatever that happens to be) and more about not feeling like a man.

So is this where trans people seek to be addressed as 'identifies as a woman/man' rather than 'trans'?