Woman’s hour

[Melioration]

Worth a listen today. They had Stella Creasy on, about anti abortion posters attacking her personally (see stop Stella .com) and also one of the people targeting her.
They also had Caroline Criado Perez on with Gina Ripon which gave food for thought.

It was worth a listen. The anti-abortion woman was quite something.

The anti-abortion woman was a moron. The BBC balance rhetoric has gone too far now and just offers a platform for absolute crackpots in the name of "balance debate". It's fucking bullshit.

Bravo to Jane Garvey though, she handled the anti-abortion twat really well. Yes, she showed her bias and good on her.

The anti-abortion woman led me down the #StopStella conversations on Twitter, which were absolutely illuminating. There really are some cunts around.

I have just listened to what I assume was the same anti abortion woman on radio 5 live . The presenter ripped her to shreds.It was awful to listen to. I have no faith in the Bbc anymore but for different reasons to previous posters. I am as pro choice as it's possible to be but I expect the BBC to be balanced. I am capable of hearing a point of view that is utterly opposed to my own. I am not sure I want the BBC to decide what the 'right' opinion is. I can tell you now that women will be screwed if that happens.

I listened to the discussion on Radio 5 Live and thought the handling of the matter by Emma Barnett was also a long way away from balanced.

I thought Jane Garvey tried to give as much balance as she could but the anti abortion woman just wanted to repeat her own stance over and over and would not engage with any issues around it. She justified the targeting Stella Creasy by saying that they planned to target other MPs in future. It was an uphill battle to get any sense out of her even for a seasoned interviewer.

The woman on WH just kept repeating that fetuses are humans and have human rights because life begins at conception (words to that effect). The fucking law says otherwise so I have no idea why the BBC gets anti-abortion tossers on pedaling their bullshit, it's irrelevant because the law's been made, the law exists.

To me, the BBC balance bullshit is not far off getting an anti-rape activist on and having a rapist on the other side of the table for "balance".

Off to listen to Emma Barnett's interview now. I fucking love Emma.

Just listened to Emma Barnett. The woman from the anti-abortion crackpot brigade is a different one from the one on WH. Still the same bullshit, ridiculous rhetoric.

Emma Barnett is a fucking hero and handled the anti-abortion twat beautifully.

It was awful. I think it's one step from censorship and makes me really uncomfortable.

I loved hearing Caroline Criado Perez and Gina Rippon so clearly discuss sex not gender and how clearly they made the distinction. Caroline’s note that so much of the media and science is obsessed with trying to prove that there is such a thing as sex differences in the brain but then wilfully ignores the fact that women and men have vastly different sexed bodies.
Her explanation was that the holy grail of trying to discover that there is such a thing as a female / male brain hinges on the fact that this would allow society to say that the current social structures which disadvantage women are in fact fair and determined by our inferior brains.

Bravo to Jane Garvey though, she handled the anti-abortion twat really well. Yes, she showed her bias and good on her

She very much showed her bias. She should have been moderating between the 2. It's great when the person showing the bias is on your side but that doesn't make it right.

The woman on WH just kept repeating that fetuses are humans and have human rights because life begins at conception (words to that effect). The fuckinglawsays otherwise so I have no idea why the BBC gets anti-abortion tossers on pedaling their bullshit, it's irrelevant because the law's been made, the law exists

Laws change. People campaign for change to existing law. Votes for women and the abortion act being 2 examples. "Anti-abortion tossers" have every right to campaign peacefully for a change.

The posters targeting Stella Creasey were wrong. If the posters had just shown a 9 week old feotus they are statements of fact - like the "adult human" posters.

"Bravo to Jane Garvey though, she handled the anti-abortion twat really well. Yes, she showed her bias and good on her."

Just remember that when the next BBC WH presenter shows her bias and it is having drunk the gender non critical cool aid.

I think that with both the anti abortion item and the sex differences in the same episode, the abortion debate has seemingly obscured the other. I wonder how deliberate that programme planning was?

The Caroline Criado Perez and Gina Ford item would usually, I think, have generated far more interest on here. It is well worth a listen and certainly deserved a longer segment of the programme.

To hear, with no argument, that ’men and women have different physiology there is no argument about that’ and that the reason there has been so much research in trying to finding differences between male and female brains and so little on physiology is to prop up the patriarchy (men CEOs - women nappy changers, it’s all in our brains innit) was a refreshing change for WH.

The thing that gets me about the whole brain and sex issue is this: much/most is because the brain has neuroplasticity and therefore the experiences of individuals shape the patterns the brain uses. Nurture becomes biology. I think there are some minute differences but not enough to be significant. Saying our brains are different because of our sex is like saying athletes have superior bodies because they're Olympians. I know there are subtle brain differences in reacting to smell (smell is considered to be the only sense not informed by modern culture) and that trans individuals brains respond in the same pattern as according to their identified gender. So. Yes. Differences. But not enough to hinder a person's ability to perform a job considered the other sex's. The brain development that can cause that large of a discrepancy is due to the way society nurtures individuals. Look at the sexed toys that are given to children. One set develops the mechanical problem solving parts of the brain, the other develops empathy and creativity. Twenty years of such training and people act surprised there's a difference in neuropathways of the two main cohorts.

I heard Rado 5 Live too. I have to admit i didn't like how Emma Barnett handled it. Her bias was obvious and it's not the first time. She 'leaks' her own attitude rather easily I find. I agree with a PP that it's all well and good on a subject you agree with, but enraging when the boot is on the other foot.

While it seems highly unpleasant to target a pregnant MP in an ad campaign, if the ads themselves did not break the law on content there is an issue of free speech to be considered.

What would have been much more productive would have been for the presenter or Stella or an opposing guest to highlight the inadequacy of the anti-abortion camp's 'Stella is hypocritical' argument. Because she isn't hypocritical just for being pregnant. So
long as Stella believes she herself had a right to an abortion if she had wanted one, which is the choice she is campaigning for on behalf of other women, then her position is actually entirely consistent. But that wasn't brought up.