Baroness Nicholson 'cancelled' by Booker board

[BaronessSnippyPantsofCroneArmy]

They will not rest until every disobedient woman is purged from society.

www.thebookseller.com/news/booker-prize-nicholson-barr-1207926

Mark Damazar has form:

www.theguardian.com/media/2008/dec/13/bbc-radio

After nearly a decade on the programme, the 51-year-old journalist only discovered he was to be fired when he received a phone call from a newspaper journalist. Last night, Stourton said: "It was a complete surprise to me. I found out via a phone call from a journalist, yesterday while I was doing a literary lunch at Haringey. I rang up my boss and said, 'Is this true?' and he said, 'Yes it is'." Asked of his reaction to the news, he said: "I'm very sad ... well, more than that really."

The BBC, released a statement saying Stourton was leaving to concentrate "on other BBC projects". The broadcaster said last night he had no knowledge of these projects. Asked why he believed he was "sacked", Stourton replied: "Because the controller of Radio 4 Mark Damazer wants Justin Webb."

There is absolutely a type.

Never admit they are wrong, not deep thinkers, full of their own self importance, thinks their farts don’t smell, misogynist. Usually men.

I haven’t been keeping up with what’s going on but the baroness has just apologised to MB in Twitter

Politically I am probably of a very different stripe than the Baroness, but reading her life achievements it's quite clear she's an extraordinarily principled and brave woman. At 79, still has the energy, insight and courage to ask questions, take action and stick to her principles.

The idea of these cowardly no marks cancelling her and smearing her because of a shitty and easy to manipulate social media channel is just beyond belief.

As said above, what were these mythical racist homophobic transphobic comments? Where are they?

According to Mark Damazar, the key tweet called MB 'a weird creature'.

I don't know the context because it has since been deleted.

This tweet was not mentioned in their statement which talks about "the views expressed by Baroness Nicholson on transgender people".

I don't know if Baroness Nicholson has expressed any views on transgender people. As far as I know she has expressed views on child protection and women's rights.

This is the new sponsor of the Booker (Original FT article behind a pay wall, but link in article).

www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/01/how-a-billionaire-investors-unhinged-china-freakout-explains-donald-trump

“If a Chinese company schedules tasks for the weekend, nobody complains about missing a Little League game or skipping a basketball outing with friends,” he writes. “Little wonder it is a common sight at a Chinese company to see many people with their heads resting on their desks taking a nap in the early afternoon.”

This follows his 2015 remarks about not 'lowering standards by hiring women'

www.vox.com/2015/12/3/11621140/venerated-vc-michael-moritz-opens-mouth-inserts-foot-on-question

You can see why Mark Damazar wouldn't want to focus too much on 'women's issues'.

@merrymouse

According to Mark Damazar, the key tweet called MB 'a weird creature'.

I don't know the context because it has since been deleted.

This tweet was not mentioned in their statement which talks about "the views expressed by Baroness Nicholson on transgender people".

I don't know if Baroness Nicholson has expressed any views on transgender people. As far as I know she has expressed views on child protection and women's rights.

Has been not seen what MB has said on twitter?

Has been not seen what MB has said on twitter?

I doubt it, but he would probably argue that MB doesn't have an honorary title either.

However, I think the Booker will have real problems now that they have set this standard that they cant associate themselves with anyone who has ever said something insulting on twitter, even if they delete the tweet and apologise.

I'm arriving late on lots of threads today to give my weighty views. Sorry.

Emma Nicholson was attacked because she was effective. She was listening and taking action and getting public results. Easy to see why she gets a lot done. But she is easy to paint as verboten. A religious woman in her 70s who's been conservative or Conservative all her life and now has a life peerage, and the bizarre contradictions of British public life which are opaque to most mean that many on twitter probably think she lives in Downton Abbey. A lot of prominent radfem/GC voices viscerally dislike working with right-wingers because of exactly this. Personally I found her brick by brick practical approach exciting. But I see why those who contribute on the theory side find it difficult. Theyve been able to say clearly that sacking her in obvious vengeance is wrong though.

However, I think Mermaids weighing in on this is just possibly a tactical mistake. They've made a few of those. One that nobody seemed to notice was a report where they named a particular clinician at GIDS as being insufficiently affirming for their liking. I thought that was truly shocking. In the end I think Mermaids is quite hollow as an organisation and eventually they will fall over their feet once too often.

In the meantime - I thought Marlon James' statement was completely vile. And I also absolutely love his writing,the female characters I've read I thought were amazing and I'm going to go on buying his books.

TRAs always add "racist" in there when they're annoyed with something someone has said about gender. Presumably we're not meant to notice that it's not true because questioning it could lead to you being targeted next and everyone knows that.

A genuinely lovely woman who's helped so many people over the years thrown out on the say so of a couple of blokes who'll never do even 1% of the good she has. Envy is an ugly emotion, and it's hard to miss in the way TRAs talk about women.

I see the offer on twitter. No one has pointed out the organised complaint (I think MB set it up) against the baroness.

Why is the booker involving itself in twitter spats about bergdorf.?
Has bergdorf taken up writing literary works or is it the bergdorf-booker prize now?

Maybe you can just identify as the author of prize winning literary novels without having to go to the trouble of actually writing one.

Plenty of model types ‘write’ books don’t they?

There was once a very pretty girl who grew up to be a model. She wore lots of nice dresses and everyone thought she was great. The end. (Where’s my advance?)

Someone asked who funded Booker Prize. It is funded by Sir Michael Moritz and his wife Harriet Hayman. I believe it is through Crankstart. I have e-mailed them already. Asked if they knew the difference between free speech and hate speech. I don't expect a reply but I hope lots of people will complain. They say they agree the Baroness is free to speak but that people were thinking this was the view of Booker. I guess a mass of trans activists e-mailed as they do!

@ScrimpshawTheSecond

Politically I am probably of a very different stripe than the Baroness, but reading her life achievements it's quite clear she's an extraordinarily principled and brave woman. At 79, still has the energy, insight and courage to ask questions, take action and stick to her principles.

The idea of these cowardly no marks cancelling her and smearing her because of a shitty and easy to manipulate social media channel is just beyond belief.

As said above, what were these mythical racist homophobic transphobic comments? Where are they?

Agreed. Her actions and achievements speak for themselves. ‘No marks‘ is spot on.

@TheProdigalKittensReturn

TRAs always add "racist" in there when they're annoyed with something someone has said about gender. Presumably we're not meant to notice that it's not true because questioning it could lead to you being targeted next and everyone knows that.

A genuinely lovely woman who's helped so many people over the years thrown out on the say so of a couple of blokes who'll never do even 1% of the good she has. Envy is an ugly emotion, and it's hard to miss in the way TRAs talk about women.

'I hear you're a racist now, Baroness'

Just here to let off steam. The company I work for happily joined in the cancelling of the Baroness. I really need my job and don't feel able to speak out publicly. It is like a game of equality top trumps... gay/ male/ trans beats female/ disabled/ religous.

The lack of critical thinking astounds me. Will JK Rowling be seen one day as this generation's Orwell? Animal Farm was initially rejected by several publishers for being too controversial...

hemulens, that's awful. I feel for you. But it's possible to still do a lot of useful work without speaking out publically. Take heart.

@SerenityNowwwww

Plenty of model types ‘write’ books don’t they?

There was once a very pretty girl who grew up to be a model. She wore lots of nice dresses and everyone thought she was great. The end. (Where’s my advance?)

Wow, so insightful. I'll buy it.

Anyone got a email address for any big wigs at Booker?

I want to send off a belting email.

This whole furore has really crystallised something for me that goes back to the vote on legalising gay marriage. At the time I had a conversation with my mother who is a similar age to the Baroness and like her a lifelong member of the Church of England. She said that she was absolutely fine with civil partnerships for gay couples, but she didn't agree with the redefinition of the word marriage - as far as she was concerned it was defined in the Book of Common Prayer as a union between a man and a woman, and it couldn't and shouldn't be changed. At the time I couldn't understand why it was such a big deal for her, but it clearly was. For the record I have never heard her say anything negative about homosexuality in general or about any gay person individually.

Fast forward to right now, with the word 'woman' apparently up for wholesale redefinition, and I can completely see where she was coming from.

As far as I can tell the Baroness's opposition to the change of the definition of marriage to include same sex couples most likely stems from the same background as my mother's. When she voted against the bill, she had to balance two protected characteristics from the Equality Act - the right to freedom of belief (including religious belief), and the rights of gay people to have equal treatment in law with straight people. I daresay that since civil partnerships gave gay people equal rights and legal protections, she decided that she was able in all good conscience to vote in line with her (legally protected) beliefs.

Now I don't have any religious faith, and (to coin a phrase) some of my best friends are gay, but you know what? I now think 'good for her' for standing up for what she believes in, and voting for what she thought was right. It's a relief to see a politician with convictions in this era of vacuous political nonetities with no record of achievement, no moral compass and no ambition other than to get into power and then say whatever they have to just to stay there.

she didn't agree with the redefinition of the word marriage - as far as she was concerned it was defined in the Book of Common Prayer as a union between a man and a woman, and it couldn't and shouldn't be changed.

Fast forward to right now, with the word 'woman' apparently up for wholesale redefinition, and I can completely see where she was coming from.

There's a crucial difference. Marriage is a social and cultural construct, but some form of it seems to exist in most societies (largely because it's tied up with concepts like property rights, inheritance, which children are legitimate, and also it's a handy way of controlling women's reproductive capacity). The C of E and the Book of Common Prayer don't have a monopoly on what it means.

"Woman", on the other hand, is a word that has an external referent (unless you're a hard-line philosophical anti-realist): it refers to the people like us, with uteruses (for the most part, whether working or not), vaginas, ovaries, etc.

It also has social and political implications of course: we are people with a shared biological reality which has (due largely to the actions of men collectively) political consequences for us, many of them adverse. And a huge history of sexism and oppression on the basis of our biological sex behind us.

You can't change the meaning of the word without (a) denying biological reality; (b) removing a voice to a politically oppressed group and (c) engaging in massive historical revisionism (again with bad political consequences for women).

Cara Dune you're right marriage is a social construct and biology is not. But some people have deeply held beliefs which are protected in law, and they are entitled to vote in line with them.

I totally agree with you about the importance of not changing the definition of the word woman!

Emma Nicholson impressive on Today. She apologised for the unkind and deeply offensive (yes it was) thing she said on Twitter about Bergdorf and has asked if they can talk and said that now she knows of Bergdorf's activism she believes they would have a lot of common ground. She is remorseful and I think understands how wrong her comment was.
Of course she will never be forgiven by TRAophiles or have a dialogue because this isn't the game. She's become major grist to their mill. Her gender critical views will be forever tainted by this transphobic comment.
Yes she will be 'cancelled' which does not, as someone ridiculously suggested above, mean literally killed, but like all women and people who stand up to the current trans ideology she will be belittled, ridiculed, sidelined, humiliated, deplatformed in as public a way as possible. This is what public debate has been reduced to.

@JiggeryWokery

Cara Dune you're right marriage is a social construct and biology is not. But some people have deeply held beliefs which are protected in law, and they are entitled to vote in line with them.

I totally agree with you about the importance of not changing the definition of the word woman!

Oh yes, I totally agree with you on that. Baroness Nicholson is entirely entitled to her religious beliefs and entitled to vote in line with them. (I have spent many hours discussing this issue with a long-standing friend, as in multiple decades of friendship, who is an Anglican vicar from the Evangelical wing of the church and as such disagrees with gay marriage - we don't agree, we argue for hours, it can get quite tearful because it matters deeply to both of us, but we stay friends).

I think ultimately for me it's about the old fashioned liberal (in the sense of Mill, Bentham, Rawls etc.) distinction between the public and private realm. I see religion as like a private club - if they want to set their rules such that they don't offer religious marriage ceremonies to gay couples, they should be within their rights to do so (and any other sects which decide differently should equally be allowed to offer gay religious marriages.)

But legal marriage is out there in the public realm to be decided by social consensus. Baroness Nicholson got to add her voice to the attempt to form that consensus, as was right and proper. The vote went the opposite way - that certainly doesn't mean she should be villified or marginalised for being on the minority side.