Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Munroe and the Barroness

98 replies

DeRigueurMortis · 23/06/2020 17:56

Sorry for the fail link....

Baroness Nicholson is reported to Lords Commissioner for Standards
mol.im/a/8451039

Couldn't see if anyone else had posted this yet.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
5
Campervan69 · 24/06/2020 17:02

Says this about her husband

SirMichael Harris Caine(17 June 1927 – 20 March 1999)[1]was an English businessman. He headed Booker Bros andBooker plc, and helped establish theMan Booker Prize. A president of theRoyal African Society, he created theCaine Prizeand later also theRussian Booker Prize.

Munroe and the Barroness
ScrimpshawTheSecond · 24/06/2020 17:04

I can't honestly believe that anyone in the HoC would see this petition as anything other than a minor irritant. Surely they are accustomed to hearing a great deal of hyperbolic threats on a wide variety of subjects?

CuriousaboutSamphire · 24/06/2020 17:05

I came to exactly about the Booker thing, but campervan beat me to it.

purpleanorak · 24/06/2020 17:05

While completely agreeing with the views on this thread, I am slightly disquieted by some of the recent remarks that Baroness Nicholson has made on gay marriage.

Can anyone debunk the Pink News article which quotes her tweets apparently linking gay marriage to “degrading the status of women and girls”?

I would still defend her right to hold anti-gay marriage views in the past (many people I respect did, even though I strongly disagreed with them!), but I struggle to see how she can legitimately link it to trans activism. It seems to be muddying the waters somewhat - it’s not clear whether various authors are condemning this or the points being picked up by MB (which I think are completely unjustified).

Genuine question - I am just trying to work out whether I can properly write to support the Baroness or not.

SarahTancredi · 24/06/2020 17:17

I have to admit to being curious too. Unless it's about marriage as patriarchal concept overall and whereas two men getting married are more likely on a more equal footing perhaps its surprise that women with an opportunity to abolish or not participate In a ritual that has a past in ownership to men ?

Its the only thing I can think of. But then surely its down to the people involved to decide on what works for them.

FantaOra · 24/06/2020 17:20

My gay BF still doesn't support gay marriage either. He's entitled to. He hasn't changed his mind.

I think heterosexual marriage is an institution that can be extremely negative for women, and would be reluctant to do it knowing what I know now. My views have changed.

All other opinions are welcome. My GBF is not a homophobe and I am not a heterophobe. Such dumbing down, I used to think that was an exaggeration, but here we are well and truly dumbed down.

Lamahaha · 24/06/2020 17:22

@Campervan69

Says this about her husband

SirMichael Harris Caine(17 June 1927 – 20 March 1999)[1]was an English businessman. He headed Booker Bros andBooker plc, and helped establish theMan Booker Prize. A president of theRoyal African Society, he created theCaine Prizeand later also theRussian Booker Prize.

Thanks for this info; however the Prize was originally initiated by Campbell, who had been Chairman of Booker Brothers in Guyana for several decades -- it was Campbell who was instrumental in reforming an outdated and paternalistic company into a progressive and "inclusive" (in the sense of removing its racist structures) one. He had always promoted the arts. From the Wiki article posted above:

"It is after leaving Guyana that Jock, who had always loved great literature, became instrumental in the initiation of a British literature prize.

Jock was an old friend and golfing partner of Ian Fleming, author of the James Bond spy novels, who had recently been diagnosed as terminally ill with less than a year to live. During a game of golf Fleming turned to Jock for advice on securing his estate for his family from heavy taxation. Jock initially advised Fleming to turn to accountants and merchant bankers, but then had a new idea: Bookers could act as bankers for Fleming, beneficially for both parties.

As a result, Bookers acquired a 51% share in the profits of Glidmore Productions, the company handling the profits from worldwide royalties on Fleming's books, and the associated merchandising rights – but not the film rights.

Thus was born the Bookers Author Division, with the injunction:

It should make money, not to mention being entertaining, and there could be advertising interest in it for some of our companies."

ScrimpshawTheSecond · 24/06/2020 17:23

There's this article?

www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-stories/tory-peer-made-unacceptable-comments-about-same-sex-marriage-1-6694644

'Baroness Nicholson said: “I support marriage and family life as the way to offer happiness for most people in the UK for at least 2000 years and more that has meant a man and a woman.”'

and also

' Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne - a life peer since 1997 - said she voted against the legislation put forward by the coalition government 2013 because she feared it would “lead to degrading the status of women and of girls”.'

ScrimpshawTheSecond · 24/06/2020 17:30

And as the Baroness herself notes, all of this is a matter of public record, it's not exactly a scandalous secret that's been unearthed:

Munroe and the Barroness
purpleanorak · 24/06/2020 17:32

This is the article I came across: www.pinknews.co.uk/2020/06/10/baroness-emma-nicholson-same-sex-marriage-equality-tweets-twitter-homophobia/

The first part just seems slightly odd to me (if the reporting is accurate), and is why I am struggling with giving unqualified support.

Winesalot · 24/06/2020 17:34

@purpleanorak

While completely agreeing with the views on this thread, I am slightly disquieted by some of the recent remarks that Baroness Nicholson has made on gay marriage.

Can anyone debunk the Pink News article which quotes her tweets apparently linking gay marriage to “degrading the status of women and girls”?

I would still defend her right to hold anti-gay marriage views in the past (many people I respect did, even though I strongly disagreed with them!), but I struggle to see how she can legitimately link it to trans activism. It seems to be muddying the waters somewhat - it’s not clear whether various authors are condemning this or the points being picked up by MB (which I think are completely unjustified).

Genuine question - I am just trying to work out whether I can properly write to support the Baroness or not.

I think that there are plenty of reasons to reject a new bill without it being about your personal views including sometimes being told what to vote by the party. However, her explanation here is:

'my worry at the time was lest SSM would diminish the core position of mothers,already an endangered species;and open up more problems for children.'

Considering her track record for protection of women and children, it could be that she saw some potentional conflicts in the way the bill was worded. She seems to be supportive of LGB rights in her recent activities. I think this is one of those issues I would ask her about directly rather than relying on tweets where nuance is completely lost.

Lamahaha · 24/06/2020 17:34

Most probably her objection to gay marriage is rooted in her Christianity; her faith in marriage as a sacrament between man and woman?

Winesalot · 24/06/2020 17:34

Sorry, link to her recent tweet here explaining.

twitter.com/Baroness_Nichol/status/1275738250829860867?s=20

ThinEndoftheWedge · 24/06/2020 17:41

Interesting -on long term public record - but they only use it now to discredit her because of her support for women and children.

Perhaps they realise that her support for women and children is less of an outrage than they pretend.

purpleanorak · 24/06/2020 17:42

And, as the Baroness herself acknowledges, Twitter is not the platform for nuanced debate!

It may be that her tweets have been taken deliberately out of context by the TRA lobby and, as I said above, I would never condemn someone for their differing views on something like gay marriage.

Perhaps I’m just trying to see the best in some authors whose writing I greatly admire (Marlon James and Sarah Perry in particular). But, hey ho, I’m used to being disappointed in people on this particular issue and am just having to learn to separate the personal views from the art as much as possible.

FantaOra · 24/06/2020 17:45

Note they aren't canceling Booker over the homophobic sexist adulterer Ian Fleming.

His money is just fine.

Divoc2020 · 24/06/2020 20:26

Grrrr.... apparently they have caved in: thebookerprizes.com/booker-prize/news/statement-behalf-booker-prize-foundation-0

Removed all the 'honorary' roles and titles.

BaronessWrongCrowd · 24/06/2020 20:29

Craven, spineless cowards.

contactusdeletus · 24/06/2020 20:37

I'm also confused by Nicholson's comments on gay marriage. Is she making a distinction between legal marriage and the religious ceremony? Because as a woman and a feminist she must realize that marriage is a legal contract. It was framed in the media as a very "we just want to celebrate our love in front of the world, love is love" debate, but LGB people have been fighting for marriage for years, specifically for the legal protections it offers - which civil partnerships often fell short of.

And that gay marriage is a women's issue. There are gay and bisexual women, there are gay and bisexual mothers. We deserve the same rights as heterosexual companies. We deserve to have legal rights over our children, to be able to make medical decisions for our sick partners, to inherit from them, and to benefit from the same tax breaks as heterosexual couples. There is no good reason to deny this, nor, in my opinion, any good reason to say that the words "husband" and "wife" can't be used to describe a same sex couple who have legally committed to each other. The words don't belong exclusively to the Christian faith.

For the life of me I can't find a clarification of Nicholson's stance that actually clarifies this.

contactusdeletus · 24/06/2020 20:39

"heterosexual couples", even Grin

FantaOra · 24/06/2020 20:41

I don't think it's craven, they wanted a public humiliation of one person when in fact what they've got is a neutralisation. I expect that they asked their honararies if they cared one way or the other and the answer was it was not really that important.

BaronessWrongCrowd · 24/06/2020 20:45

Well I do think it's craven. They could have kept at their original neutral statement instead they caved into the Twitter mob.

FantaOra · 24/06/2020 20:48

This is on Twitter

Very happy that you have finally taken a stand. However, your statement that “Too many believe that these [honorary] titles in some way symbolise the prizes. That is not the case” is incorrrect. Who you choose to represent you REPRESENTS YOU. End of.

They can't help themselves can they, everyone has to be corrected.

Every year there's a shit storm over the Booker, they must be used to all this by now.

Kit19 · 24/06/2020 20:51

Oh dear Booker Prize - you’ll soon learn, the moment you show weakness you’re dead. This won’t be enough, they’ll demand more - a trans booker Prize, a trans judge for inclusivity, no authors ever to be included unless they agree TWAW

ThinEndoftheWedge · 24/06/2020 20:51

They don’t deplore sexism I note.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is closed and is no longer accepting replies. Click here to start a new thread.