Woman's Hour: What happened this morning?

[NonCisWoman]

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9117995/Actress-refuses-appear-Womans-Hour-accusing-host-Emma-Barnett-degrading-comments.html

An actress refused to appear on Woman's Hour this morning after accusing host Emma Barnett of making 'degrading and vile' comments about her.

Kelechi Okafor was set to talk on the BBC Radio 4 show to discuss the #MeToo movement with new presenter Emma Barnett.

But as the programme was live on air, the Nigerian-British actress revealed she had come off the show, writing: 'Because what I've just had to witness is absolutely degrading and vile.'

Posting a video to Instagram, she said: 'I won't be going on Woman's Hour now. The host didn't realise her mic was on as she was talking s* about me to the producers.'

What I really dislike about this whole thing though is how KO was treated compared to Lionel. Lionel wasn't challenged on her thoughts on BLM, whereas KO was immediately challenged about comments she made years ago. Why was KO treated differently? That's what I want to know.

Surely you can see that there's a difference between questioning the aims and effectiveness of the BLM movement (no matter how sloppily or unhelpfully) and using extremely racist slurs? I'm not trying to defend what WH did here (both women should have been challenged) but these are quite different things.

@JeepGreen

Two Labour MPs have publicly expressed support for KO on social media now ( Florence Eshalomi and Chi Onwurah). They've been directed to KO's anti-Semitism but seemingly have no comment to make on that. Appalling.

Why am I not surprised.

Today's Woman's Hour includes discussion of the juidicial review by For Women Scotland into the Gender Representation on Public Boards Act 2018.

What I really dislike about this whole thing though is how KO was treated compared to Lionel. Lionel wasn't challenged on her thoughts on BLM, whereas KO was immediately challenged about comments she made years ago. Why was KO treated differently? That's what I want to know.

But this didn't actually happen. Or not how you're painting it. We don't know how EB would have challenged KO on air about her antisemitic views - the discussion never came about because KO flounced before the programme started. The confrontation was forced because KO (unfortunately) overheard a private discussion about her views.

EB didn't challenge LS about her BLM comments because, with only 5 minutes left to round up the discussion on MeToo there simply wasn't time to go down such a different and important path in any meaningful way. Saying they were treated differently and reading sinister motives into it is constructing a false framework for offence.

They're discussing the events in Washington yesterday and have on someone from the University of Sussex, Melissa Milewski (Lecturer in American History), whose line is: "We have to look at the responsibility white women have for this."

I started reading this thread assuming that KO had made a slightly insensitive comment about Jewish people years ago that she'd later apologised for and it was now being dredged up to attack her. This kind of stuff happens all the time and I think it's pointless and tiring. But the reality couldn't be further from the truth. Not only has she referred to "fat Jewish managers" as Shylocks, she's actually doubled down on it...and people are still trying to defend her!

If KO were to reveal exactly what was said it would presumably highlight her anti-Semitism? Less appealing and less useful than creating a storm around a BBC presenter?

@AbsintheFriends

What I really dislike about this whole thing though is how KO was treated compared to Lionel. Lionel wasn't challenged on her thoughts on BLM, whereas KO was immediately challenged about comments she made years ago. Why was KO treated differently? That's what I want to know.

But this didn't actually happen. Or not how you're painting it. We don't know how EB would have challenged KO on air about her antisemitic views - the discussion never came about because KO flounced before the programme started. The confrontation was forced because KO (unfortunately) overheard a private discussion about her views.

EB didn't challenge LS about her BLM comments because, with only 5 minutes left to round up the discussion on MeToo there simply wasn't time to go down such a different and important path in any meaningful way. Saying they were treated differently and reading sinister motives into it is constructing a false framework for offence.

This. Lionel Shriver threw in a brief side-comment in what seems to have been a live interview. EB couldn't drop everything to follow it through.

The human trafficking thing is from one perspective irrelevant because EB was very young when it happened and she wasn’t involved, but from another perspective it should colour her view on BLM. In the West we’re struggling to come to terms with the extent to which our wealth is built on the enslavement of others in previous centuries, and what the consequences of that are for their descendants and should be for us. But EB’s school fees and university living allowance were presumably paid for by the literal enslavement of women.

On the open mike issue I suspect that magazine producers develop a somewhat commoditised approach to their guests and talk about them in production meetings in a way that they wouldn’t to their face - that’s not necessarily offensive or unprofessional. But we don’t know what they said - it’s also possible that they may have crossed a line.

nauticant - Mridul Wadhwa, the trans rape crisis centre manager, has blamed unchallenged transphobia and racism.

Like Sophocles and Clymene, I'm wondering who these people are who are so anxious to diss EB. EB is pretty outspoken and isn't supportive of transgender ideology or wokeness, from all I've seen. Could that possibly be one of the reasons she's being piled on?

Very good point

The gender segment is on now Clymene.

@LearnedResponse

The human trafficking thing is from one perspective irrelevant because EB was very young when it happened and she wasn’t involved, but from another perspective it should colour her view on BLM. In the West we’re struggling to come to terms with the extent to which our wealth is built on the enslavement of others in previous centuries, and what the consequences of that are for their descendants and should be for us. But EB’s school fees and university living allowance were presumably paid for by the literal enslavement of women.

On the open mike issue I suspect that magazine producers develop a somewhat commoditised approach to their guests and talk about them in production meetings in a way that they wouldn’t to their face - that’s not necessarily offensive or unprofessional. But we don’t know what they said - it’s also possible that they may have crossed a line.

And what's your opinion of what KO said about Jewish people?

Anyone heard todays episode? Its so one sided. Yet more 'technical difficulties' with the for women scotlands phone line...EM is doing so well isnt she? Its not clear at all what the issue actually is

However, the WH's producers booked KO to talk about "Me Too". They didn't book her to talk about her thoughts on Jewish people. Therefore, for KO to turn up and be confronted with those comments/ questions was unprofessional of WH.

The suggested Weinstein angle would have been laughably awful but other than that, why would it be unprofessional?
I think it absolutely would have been fair to bring up KO's openly antisemitic comments during the programme when she was there to defend an anti-discrimination movement, ffs. The cock-up was booking her in the first place.

@Shedbuilder oh KO’s comments were obviously indefensible, I didn’t feel I’d be adding to the discussion by saying that because it’s so obvious - I tend not to post unless I think I’ve got something different to add.

“Two Labour MPs have publicly expressed support for KO on social media now ( Florence Eshalomi and Chi Onwurah).”

Will they never bloody learn?

Yes unprofessional on the part of EB but those comments were horrible.

@nauticant

Today's Woman's Hour includes discussion of the juidicial review by For Women Scotland into the Gender Representation on Public Boards Act 2018.

Thank you! I just boinged back into the kitchen and heard it.

WTF with that phone line!

[quote LearnedResponse]@Shedbuilder oh KO’s comments were obviously indefensible, I didn’t feel I’d be adding to the discussion by saying that because it’s so obvious - I tend not to post unless I think I’ve got something different to add.[/quote]
Okay. I wouldn't have assumed that you found KO's comments offensive from the rest of your post. Quite a few people seem to have an awful lot to say about EB and WH and Lionel Shriver and nothing to say about KO's statements.

In the West we’re struggling to come to terms with the extent to which our wealth is built on the enslavement of others in previous centuries, and what the consequences of that are for their descendants and should be for us

All great wealth tends to have come from the exploitation of those less powerful, or vulnerable, in all aeons, ages and societies.
And women and girls have been "given" to men in marriage, which in many societies continues to be a form of enslavement.

Well, since the Pharaohs enslaved the Jews, how will the reparations be handled in payments being made from Egypt to Israel? That should kick things off nicely and we can take it from there.

If nauticant and justhadathought have sat through the events and discussions of the last year and that’s still their approach then nothing I can say is going to make any difference.

@LearnedResponse

If nauticant and justhadathought have sat through the events and discussions of the last year and that’s still their approach then nothing I can say is going to make any difference.

I don't understand that comment. Would you be kind enough to flesh it out a bit?

What @LearnedResponse? All you've done is imply that Barnett should somehow atone for her dad being a pimp.

What would you have her do?

@Chicchicchicchiclana

I love EVAW but they weren't on the zoom call. They did not hear anything.

Yes, she was. She was one of the guests invited to speak.

Intersectionality is a total headfuck and none of the answers are easy, are they? I keep thinking I'll hit on the perfect balance but it's impossible.

Having someone who has demonstrated such prejudice against any group speaking about prejudice towards another, when so many people exist who have NOT done so who would be very happy to speak about the issues - I've seen lots of people talking about the origins of #metoo who would not come with this baggage, seems like a bad idea. I think that's where the researchers have fallen down. KO has a big social media presence so is a quick and easy one to find, but that doesn't make her the right person to invite.