Suzanne Moore article in Daily Mail

[Awning10]

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8984313/Columnist-Suzanne-Moore-reveals-left-Guardian-betrayed-bullied.html

Excellent piece. Brava, Suzanne Moore.

And also - how horrifying that not just she but also her (presumably adult) DC were subjected to death and rape threats.

Ŵhere is the condemnation for this behaviour, which we have seen too much of to believe it’s ever an isolated incident, from those who support the TRA agenda?

I am glad that the Daily Mail has covered this, but suspect, that many readers will just brush it off, as feminists made their own bed and should lie in it (in their minds the trans agenda is one made by feminists). This is fact was one of the responses to Selina Todd's article in the Times. No matter what happens to women their are too many people, both men and women, who will see it as women having bought it on themselves.

And of course now it is in the Mail it will be used against her.

Just to add the Katherine Viner has said, and is presumably why she got the job, queer politics influences every decision I make. And it was the backlash against 70s feminism, particularly in Universities that opened the door to trans activism.

Some like KV is a product of that early indoctrination, now bearing fruit not just in the media, but politics and schools.

Thanks for the unherd link have bookmarkded for later.

I think the Mail has a massive readership, not online. Guess what, those who buy, do read.

It really isn't my paper but I know that an awful lot of people out there who read it, do vote and they don't vote in line with liberal woke expectations. They are the ones who floor the Guardian readership. They are the people Labour was created for, but Labour can't stand them, it only likes it's mc supporters.

Thank you for those
I think her point about being able to argue & disagree with people about all sorts of things never produced the effect this debate has.
(& horrified to read that her children were threatened )

I noted the use of the phrase “trans extremists” which I thought was interesting.

I've been getting more and more irritated about being rebranded/labelled or however it's best described for being a regular woman.

I don't have any issue with anyone living their life how they want to so long as they aren't hurting anyone so let me live mine, don't put your labels on me and I won't put them on you.

I agree with Suzanne 100%

“Ms Moore said: 'I know within the paper many, many women are unhappy because when something like the JK Rowling incident happens there are some people at The Guardian who feel they cannot defend her. I don't know what the logic is any more, yet we have to have articles about some bloke who's taken HRT and learnt to cry, and an obituary for Peter Sutcliffe”

This paragraph particularly brought home to me the incoherence of the Grauniad in its current iteration. It really is the poster child for when liberal values take a turn from the enlightenment back to the dark ages of witch burning, blasphemy and reciting the creed to stay out of trouble.

Stumbled in,

Why would the fact that the largest circulation newspaper in the UK reports the resignation of a leading UK journalist, be used against that journalist? Newspapers report things. That is their job. They may put their slant on what they report, but it is not as if Moore gave her interview to the Mail.

Ditto I don't think Mail readers blame feminists for transgenderism. People who comment on Times articles might, but not people who go about their lives, running between work and school and elderly parents, and snatching 15 minutes to sit down read a newspaper and drink a cup of tea. They want to know why Masterchef only had three contestants last night, may relate, or not, to the news of Meghan's miscarriage, wonder about the MIC people who are now dating, consider whether Bournemouth will be able to hang on to David Brooks in the January window, try to figure out how Boris' bloody tiers will affect their Christmas, and empathise with Moore and the fact that colleagues were unable to support her. This latter will resonate. All sorts of people, whether they be M&S shop assistants, NHS staff, teachers, or work in the financial, public, charity or arts will know to watch their language. Most will strongly disagree with giving drugs to gender confused children or locking up people with intact male bodies with female prisoners, and think that female sport involving people who have gone through male puberty is bonkers. But they will know not to say so.

Many people in the country are socially conservative, but also kind and empathetic. They expect to work but want to be paid fairly for the work they do. They support family and rely on family support. They do not get people like Owen Jones or Jolyon Maugham. Many thought they were Labour, but increasingly feel that Labour abandoned them. I've noticed that the Mail often publishes, what might be controversial stories, without an obvious slant. Their large readership might have a mix of views. Let them make up their own minds. A lead the Guardian might follow.

@SophocIestheFox

“Ms Moore said: 'I know within the paper many, many women are unhappy because when something like the JK Rowling incident happens there are some people at The Guardian who feel they cannot defend her. I don't know what the logic is any more, yet we have to have articles about some bloke who's taken HRT and learnt to cry, and an obituary for Peter Sutcliffe”

This paragraph particularly brought home to me the incoherence of the Grauniad in its current iteration. It really is the poster child for when liberal values take a turn from the enlightenment back to the dark ages of witch burning, blasphemy and reciting the creed to stay out of trouble.

There seems to be no internal consistency to the positions they take. Their overall stance, particularly as pertains to issues affecting women, is wholly contradictory. Readers notice that kind of thing.

I bought The Guardian for years but I have zero time for it now.

Needmoresleep - somehow you seem to have got the opposite idea of what I was (trying to say). Those who attack Moore, eg groiniads, will use it against her. They are the ones who feel so saintly and pure that to even be written up by the Mail if just another crime to add to their list.

And unfortunately although I would like to think sensible people outside the bubble of twitter would see the sense in what Suzanne Moore has written, there is a large part of the population, who through mainstream media reporting think feminists are the problem. They genuinely believe because of how MSM that feminists have created a hostile environment and are now paying the price. And not just unreconstructed male reactionaries. The hatred of women is very deep. And it doesn't take much for this to bubble to the surface.

AS we all know, its always women's fault.

I notice john Boyne is back on Twitter.

He’s tweeted support for Moore and promoted Rowling since his return, so I presume he has ‘educated himself’ and gone through the radicalisation portal proper now:

twitter.com/john_boyne

I don't think there was any misunderstanding. Just disagreement.

Yes there may be silly tribal lefties who thing even being appreciated in the Mail is traitorous.

Where we disagree is: there is a large part of the population, who through mainstream media reporting think feminists are the problem

I don't doubt there is a lot of casual day to day sexism of the sort demonstrated by Peris Morgan and Susanna Reid. The boys talk and don't listen. However the idea that there is some deliberate MSM campaign against feminists which people have swallowed wholesale does not seem credible.

The Mail, and many of its readers, support the monarchy, and The Queen. The Mail was, at least initially, far more supportive of Theresa May than it ever has been of Boris. There are plenty of women, now including Suzanne Moore, who have been the subject of supportive articles. Its the Guardian which seems to have become the preserve of the misogynist boys supported by the cool girls.

I think most people are busy. They draw their own conclusions based on what they experience in their own lives. They want a newspaper that will broadly reflect their views, though are happy to be served up things they disagree with as well.

And on that note, I see that staff at Penguin Random House Canada have done a Guardian. (Or a Hachette UK, the publisher of JKR)
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8985983/Random-House-Canada-try-ban-Jordan-Petersons-new-book.html

Freedom of speech is important, except if the person speaking is someone you disagree with. Discuss.

I just read the Unherd piece and came on here to see comments. Great piece and really held my attention which is hard these days. I hope this gets more coverage and not just the twitterati.

Great piece in theunherd..

Now that I have personally transitioned — my uterus no longer works, my estrogen has dropped — I have even less fucks to give than I did before. You can denounce me as much as you like but you cannot deny my life’s work of living somehow inside this female body. You cannot tell me it’s not real. It’s as real as it gets.

This woman is bloody amazing.

@Needmoresleep

I don't think there was any misunderstanding. Just disagreement.

Yes there may be silly tribal lefties who thing even being appreciated in the Mail is traitorous.

Where we disagree is: there is a large part of the population, who through mainstream media reporting think feminists are the problem

I don't doubt there is a lot of casual day to day sexism of the sort demonstrated by Peris Morgan and Susanna Reid. The boys talk and don't listen. However the idea that there is some deliberate MSM campaign against feminists which people have swallowed wholesale does not seem credible.

The Mail, and many of its readers, support the monarchy, and The Queen. The Mail was, at least initially, far more supportive of Theresa May than it ever has been of Boris. There are plenty of women, now including Suzanne Moore, who have been the subject of supportive articles. Its the Guardian which seems to have become the preserve of the misogynist boys supported by the cool girls.

I think most people are busy. They draw their own conclusions based on what they experience in their own lives. They want a newspaper that will broadly reflect their views, though are happy to be served up things they disagree with as well.

And on that note, I see that staff at Penguin Random House Canada have done a Guardian. (Or a Hachette UK, the publisher of JKR)
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8985983/Random-House-Canada-try-ban-Jordan-Petersons-new-book.html

Freedom of speech is important, except if the person speaking is someone you disagree with. Discuss.

That's a brilliant marketing move !

The Mail had a marked editorial shift to gentler ground after Dacre left. The Times is thr more obvious beneficiary of the Guardian's problems, but requires a subscription.

The Mail has now published Suzanne Moore's full Unherd article, apparently in the interest of free speech.

@Needmoresleep

The Mail had a marked editorial shift to gentler ground after Dacre left. The Times is thr more obvious beneficiary of the Guardian's problems, but requires a subscription.

The Mail has now published Suzanne Moore's full Unherd article, apparently in the interest of free speech.

Yes, that was the version I read before the Unherd one. Link here: www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-8987293/SUZANNE-MOORE-writes-riposte-bullied-job-unwoke-views-trans-rights.html

But it seems to me that it's not quite the same; the Unherd one has been very slightly edited.

You are right. They say a "version of".

I wonder what they changed, other than to make it shorted and easier for skim readers like me.

To their credit there is also an article by Jenni Murray today about being the main earner whilst her husband stayed at home. Guardian....where are you?

That article on Penguin Random House:

"Some were 'crying', they said, and one blamed Peterson for 'radicalizing' their father."

Presumably they could have done with reading Peterson's first book to man up.

There really is a place for the word 'snowflake'

Worse still if their mother has been radicalised by Mumsnet.

That would define a modern orphan.

Oh my daddy's a cryin' in Nashville
My momma she bought a new phone
She's now reading crap on that darn Mumsnet app
And I have to dye my hair alone
(In a beautiful greeny-blue tone)

A very interesting bit of the Unherd article was about a fellow Guardian columnist sending Suzanne an abusive email, but the editor failing to take action as columnists are not proper employees.

OJ? Any guesses?