Selina Todd has been disinvited from "Women's Liberation at 50" because of association with WPUK

[stumbledin]

Have just seen this on facebook and am totally taken aback. She is listed as a speaker here www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/womens-liberation-at-50-tickets-75905313837

Everyone of the other speaker if they go ahead and dont protest should be totally ashamed of themselves.

This is her tweet twitter.com/selina_todd/status/1233456777057964035

Some of the women speaking are those I have told I should and I do admire.

This sickness that is dividing women is so upsetting.

Not sure where or how we can show our disgust at this and make sure they know they do not speak for women.

As yet, I've only watched the video of the objections to Selina's non - appearance. Who is the woman in pink and black, who talks to the audience as if they were misbehaving five year olds, and has the gall to draw their attention to the ground rules? She should be utterly ashamed.

Having read a bit of Olufemi's polemic writing, I'm yet again wondering what they hell they teach them at Footlights College Oxbridge

(Rah-Rah, Scumbag College!)

Regarding the organisers, one of them called Beckie Rutherford is the student of Laura Schwarz the historian from Warwick who was at the conference representing Feminist Fightback (though she also used her professional title there as well). I take that to mean there was a close link between the organisers and the Feminist Fightback group. Beckie R was not there yesterday (one of the organisers said this from the platform, and looked around as if she was expecting to see her there), but the organiser who said this also said Beckie was responsible for social media. Interesting the event Twitter account has disappeared along with Beckie R.

Lead story on the Oxford Mail website:
www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/18272672.oxford-professor-selina-todd-feminist-talk-cancelled/

Great quote from Julie Bindel at the end: "You should hang your heads in shame for giving into this mob

She is entitled to withdraw from the conference for any reason and explain why. The conference organisers could have said, ‘Oh, that’s a pity’, and moved on. They are responsible for the choices they made.

Yes I agree with this but I still disagree with Lola painting GC feminists as white and middle class, that's clearly just wrong and again criticising people not ideas.

Yes @charlestonchaplin I think it's the organisers who have stuffed up on this one. The young woman who made the statement about withdrawal is arrogant and young and careless of those around her (those things are connected!), but it's the organisers' response to her that is at fault, not the young woman. And a group called "Feminist Fightback" who I think were pressuring quite a number of speakers to withdraw ...

Oh I totally agree the organisers shoulder the responsibility. But I also think it's reasonable to wonder why, when push came to shove, they prioritised Olufemi - who, in her statement displayed the writing ability of an average 6th former - over an Oxford professor with expertise in the history of working class women.

And a group called "Feminist Fightback" who I think were pressuring quite a number of speakers to withdraw …

Feminist Fightback members Laura Schwartz and Alice Robson spoke in the afternoon session. Schwartz very disingenuously read out Olufemi's statement (which was defamatory, and which there was no necessity at all to read out, quite the opposite in fact when someone has behaved in this way) prefacing it and concluding with words to the effect of "it wasn't me, that's not my opinion".

The Feminist Fightback duo were the most spineless nas disingenuous speakers there imo. They pushed for Selina Todd to be dis-invited then read Olufemi's tosh letter while pulling the 'don't shoot the messenger' shtick and pretending they hadn't pushed those same views forward. Quite frankly they were as dull as dishwater and added very little value to the talks.

I’ve just watched the video on the Oxford Mail website. The organisers gave the impression that a few people pulled out, at the very least and that they felt their choices were to ask Selina Todd not to speak or risk not having the conference go ahead due to people pulling out. So it seems Olufemi wasn’t the only person to pull out, and perhaps the organisers feared a trickle would become a flood and panicked. Either Olufemi was the only one to publicly withdraw or the organisers are being disingenuous.

Which doesn’t make their decision right but if that’s what happened it makes more sense.

Clearly the hosts were not fit to be hosts.

I often see comments on this board to the effect that society expects women to not speak or act boldly, to only think certain approved thoughts and to centre men. That’s a viewpoint that women here, rightly, have no truck with. But I get the strongest sense that that is exactly what is expected of Olufemi, perhaps by virtue of her youth, and certainly by virtue of her race

It is entirely possible to speak boldly and even in challenging ways - without coming across as wilfully aggressive and self righteous. However, that skill tends to come with age and experience, and from learning that the zealousness that often comes with youthful idealism ( and a privileged education....) is often too brash and too inconsiderate.

She's just, effectively, de-platformed an honourable academic and feminist - by using her own privileged status in the intersectionalist hierarchy, even though talking total bullshit.

Yes I agree with this but I still disagree with Lola painting GC feminists as white and middle class, that's clearly just wrong and again criticising people not ideas

Absolutely! I find this all of the time with intersectionalist thinkers. They most often make personal attacks, rather than debate issues and ideas.

If they had held their ground, even if loads had pulled out, they would have had good press. Not this shit show of supposedly liberated women showing themselves up as remarkably easily bullied. I get the feeling none of them have ever worked a real serious job.

I'll say something for Finn MacKay. While she's a TWAW academic, she's been robust in condemning this stunt. Tweeted that the people who pulled out knew for ages what the programme was, and by issuing threats last minute, had conspired to sabotage the event. She's always willing to share a platform with feminists she doesn't agree with.

twitter.com/Finn_Mackay/status/1233869517249503242

Interesting what she says about Feminist Fightback's origins as a fightback against feminism.

Yes about Feminist Fightback - I posted about them up thread. They are 3rd Wave and quite honestly all of the meetings and their writing seemed totally focused on condeming 70s feminism.

I have no sympathy with the organisers, and (again repeating myself) I think a lot of this was about inter academic rivalry and feminism was just the issue being used.

Clearly even from the start it wasn't about 70s Women's Liberation it was an attempt by FF / Laura S to reframe feminism, presumably yet again to substantiate what she teaches. (In teh same way as FF was to give credibility).

The contact point of the organisers was one of Laura's students. In fact if you listen to the video they say they aren't sure why but she hasn't turned up. I know some women contacted her via the eventbrite page to ask why Selina Todd had been disinvited. So I think she was sort of put in the firing line.

The Feminist Fightback facebook page was used by Lola who directly challenged them to say why are you participating.

And so the social media criticism started.

Maybe the Host group (who are part of the Oxford Festival) were thinking transactivists would turn up and picket. But even as organisers of a festival they should have had the intelligence to work out a better strategy than they did. I suspect they were given the wrong impression by the organisers (ie FF) about how many would pull out.

What they should have done is contacted all the other speakers, to alert them to the situation and ask what they wanted to do.

Even if FF acted like scumbags and Lola got lots of trans applause, and the host group ran around like headless chickens, the worst culprits are the 70s feminists who claim to be the guardians of WLM history who sat there spineless or whining about missing their chance to speak.

As a 70s feminist I am totally disgusted by them.

And sorry because I know this is also a repeat, but not surprising as most of them were (surprise surprise) from a strand of socialst feminism that presented themselves as cutting edge revolutionaries but were very, very aware of knowing they needed the support of the patriarchy to have a voice at the table.

They were also always very intellectually arrogant and probably think WPUK not only as upstarts, but worse perpared to criticise the Labour Party in public.

And they would have loved the opportunity to say to the wider group of radical feminism / feminists you are irrrelevant.

Vendettas and payback can carry on for years.

The fact that not one of them made any attempt to speak up for freedom of speech and truthful history makes diminishes anything they might have been said to have achieved.

To put their little ego trips ahead of principle is just unspeakable.

I have been aware of a trend among some 70s feminist who just love the opportunity to have younger women cluster at their feet to tell them how awe inspiring they are (in direct contradiction to the politics that enabled them to be in WLM). Talk about masturbating your ego in public.

I think a letter should be circulated pointing out how their complicity in this pathetic rivalry means they have lost the right to be listened to.

If they had held their ground, even if loads had pulled out, they would have had good press

Although the anti-feminist and anti-women parts of public opinion would have been given an opportunity to say - “Look how bad at organising these feminists are”

Gosh this hole thing is feeling like the 1970s all over again. Except then, women debated rather than shut people down.

Shame on Feminist Fightback for pulling this stunt.

And I can’t help wondering if part of this isn’t fuelled by professional envy by Laura Schwartz of Dr Todd - they work in the same field of historical research into 20C working class and women’s history ....

www.facebook.com/772580466190136/posts/2771940699587426/?d=n

Statement from Feminist Fightback

society expects women to not speak or act boldly, to only think certain approved thoughts and to centre men. That’s a viewpoint that women here, rightly, have no truck with. But I get the strongest sense that that is exactly what is expected of Olufemi, perhaps by virtue of her youth, and certainly by virtue of her race.

I don't think that's true. Nobody here has said that Olufemi shouldn't have spoken. Nobody here has suggested that Olufemi should have been de-platformed, or should not have attended the conference. It was Olufemi who didn't want to listen to Todd, who tried to stop Todd from speaking.
It was Olufemi, not anybody here, who said she 'didn't believe in the marketplace of ideas'.

And I can’t help wondering if part of this isn’t fuelled by professional envy by Laura Schwartz of Dr Todd - they work in the same field of historical research into 20C working class and women’s history ....

I have to say that this was my immediate thought when I looked up LS's research profile. Time and time again when we see no platformers and cancel culture at work (whether its in the arts, in the poetry world, young adult fiction, knitters, etc.) there's a common denominator: a less prominent / successful person trying to take down a better-known rival. The whole modus operandi is just ruthlessly neoliberal and self-serving.

Feminist Fightback are removing comments from under their facebook statement.
They must not want to give those women a platform either.

I like the only comment so far on that FF FB post, "Ah feck off you cowards"!