Woman's Hour 20 October: Has Mumnset become too politicised?

[nauticant]

I assume this is about the the audacity to criticise the gender identity ideology. I wonder if they'll have a proper discussion. Remember that Jenni Murray only felt free to talk only as she was walking out of the door.

Fuck the fuck off W(M)H. Too craven to have the conversation but want to host the meta-conversation? Just FFOTTOSOFATFOSM. Arseholes.

@nauticant

Where did you copy that question in the thread title from? I can't find it on the Radio 4 schedule. As it is annoying people up I would be curious to know who wrote the question.

Yes, I would throw the question back at Woman's Hour who seem to struggle with the idea of letting women discuss women's issues without input from a certain group of men, to the point that they gagged one of their own presenters.

We are thinking about this the wrong way round.

It's not "Is Mumsnet too politicised?" It's "How can a site that captures the reality thousands of women's lives through their own voices NOT become politicised?"

Yep I’d rather

‘Has Women’s Hour become divorced from the reality of what women want?

It was trailed at the end of today's programme Escapeplanning. However, thinking back now, I can't be sure that I haven't paraphrased and can't be sure that the "too" was part of the trail.

But anyway, tomorrow WH is going to be discussing Mumsnet being politicised.

I hope their next episode asks 'has Twitter become a hotbed of incels and misogynists?' Closely followed by 'has Etsy become too politicised now its banning products with dictionary definitions?'

MN has always been political. Unless they think politicians really came here to discuss biscuits

I heard it trailed at the end of today's programme, so it may not be in print anywhere yet.

How politicised is TOO politicised (for women) I wonder, and who gets to decide? Why isn't Mumsnet discussing whether Woman's Hour is too politicised, or not politicised enough, more likely? Oh wait, we did.

Well, I guess it's their turn now! Buckle up.

Yes, the framing of the question is exactly why WH is a pointless, toothless, pandering load of old shite now.

Next week; Has Feminism gone too far?

Women had a point about being fairly treated, but the strident campaigning by some women has led to questions being asked about how much 'equality' is a reasonable aim. We examine, with the help of guests Jordan Peterson and India Willoughby, whether Feminism is really a relic of a bygone age and it's time to move on and give men their due.

@MarshaBradyo

Who will argue the yes side to this?

Advertisers that want compliant consumers

Stonewall

Someone speaking as a man speaking as a woman, interviewed in a darkened room.

Do you reckon Julie Bindel is on mumsnet? shes a bit of a hero to me, even if I only agree with her about 75% of the time

I think MN is far less political than when I join Ned.

There are no threads on international relations these days, nor indeed on anything other than a very narrow selection of domestic/first world issues. Its lost both variety and depth.

MN does not attract heavyweight speakers any more, and won't be courted in any future electoral campaigns. A large site, it might get looked over by campaign planners, but it is not one which is not remotely worth putting significant effort in to, because the side which gets the most coverage here has been the losing side in RL votes.

meditrina what you dismiss as 'domestic/first world issues' ARE political. They directly and massively impact the lives, status and actual definition of half the world's population.

I was listening to Jane Garvey on WH today and she was talking to Victoria Wood's biographer. She was saying something about one of VW's jokes about periods - she said something to him like, "That's what ladies have" and shut up really quickly about it. I couldn't help but think that was because of the TW debate, or lack of it.

Just had a read of the free chapter of the book they're referring to:

mobile.twitter.com/EmeraldSoc/status/1317469172608237572

Looks like an interesting read. I'm intrigued about how much the author will be allowed to say on WH (assuming, of course, that she'll be appearing on the segment).

WTA sexist F?
What online forum, discussing peaceful political views and actions, with a predominantly male user base would ever be described as being ‘too political’?

Whats wrong with mothers talking about politics? Being a mother is inherently political, much like most human activity..

This is more positive from that Twitter link

@RobertGordonUni
about how #mumsnet has become a central part of a resurgent women's rights movement in the UK

Maybe there’s no ‘too’ and more about power of collective voice

Yes, I know they are political. I never said otherwise.

I was lamenting the narrowing of discussion, not saying that what remains isn't political.

MN is definitely not what is was in terms of amount or breadth, and the depth is variable.

Is this perhaps because Woman’s Hour or BBC hierarchy didn’t like us discussing their coverage (Including beyond WH) or the recent changes of presenters of WH?

Women? Politics? God forbid! Next they'll be asking for the right to vote...

I don't think it's 'too politicised' but it isn't always very representative of all opinions on certain hot topics. I agree with the Mumsnet majority on some of these and not others, and it's certainly much harder to be the outlier arguing your case.

A lot of fury on the thread about a paraphrasing of a trailer!

What century did I get up in today?