Joan Smith on Woman's Hour today (Tuesday 12/10)

[WinterTrees]

Interesting discussion about misogyny as a hate crime, but especially notable that afterwards, Emma Barnett asks Joan Smith directly about her removal from Sadiq Khan's office.

JS a little vague at first, but EB really encourages her to drill down into whether she thinks her views were the reason behind her removal. She (EB) has also just said that she's going to try to get Sadiq Khan on the programme to discuss it.

Having been really disappointed in Woman's Hour since the new format and presenters, I am getting more and more encouraged that they are finally fulfilling their remit to represent women. About time (and possibly a too late to be really useful) but welcome nonetheless.

The message in the second response from the BBC, you can go higher but it's now done and you'll be wasting your time, stopped me in my tracks and I gave up. It was a year or two back.

In a way they won. But what they achieved was turning me from a supporter into an opponent of the BBC, in its incarnation of being an self-serving organisation, that I view with a degree of contempt.

@nauticant It saddens me too, editorially they've lost the plot in so many ways.

I do think Davie is making a badly-needed difference though.

This thread is a little bit of hope in a shocking week. Your comments are really interesting Littlesilverwatch. Like so many I've complained - I recall complaining about the repeated misuse of the Equality Act protected characteristics by journalists and receiving a patronising response completely ignoring that the problem of BBC journalists effectively telling lies about the law.

Imagine where we might be if the BBC and the rest of the media had not been captured by all the trans lobby groups.....

I watched the documentary about Jimmy Savile and was struck by the similarity of the BBC's actions. They recruited him because they needed to find a way to appeal to younger viewers and, because he was so valuable to them, turned a blind eye to his behaviour. It seems that the BBC are again seeking a younger audience and have decided that pushing gender identity ideology is a way to do it. Once again, women and children are the casualties.

To be fair to JG, they did host a few weeks of nervous debates and did also have a transwidow on and a piece about that. There were women talking about their children from both sides - the woman who described rodg and the way it developed was far more convincing imo.

In retrospect it was all v nervous and I expect for good reason. All the pay stuff was going on around the same time. I believe her daughter completely disagrees with her on trans stuff.

However it was a drop in the ocean compared to how EB is tackling the "in the news" stuff, in the moment. It's relevant and as a pp said, more important as an ongoing current thread constantly tracking what's going on rather than stand alone niche topics that are easily missed or misunderstood by the vast majority of listeners who haven't a clue about any of this.

For the phrase "only women have cervixes" to be an issue, discussed on wh, where they've repeatedly talked about cervical cancer would have made a lot of women take note. And think wtf.

WH transwidow clip

www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p06xvbsc

I totally understand why JG was nervous (I'm still not able to talk openly about this in my hyper-woke industry) but I'm beginning to see how that nervousness played its own part in the conversation, and actively harmed the cause of women.

Listeners like my mum, for example, who likes to think of herself as being very up to date and conspicuously embracing of the same-sex partners of her 3 gay grandchildren, would have instantly picked up on that nervousness; all those disclaimers (sorry Warrior - haven't listened to the clip but I remember JG doing a lot of 'some people might say' and 'we need to be careful here' and even introducing FPFW by saying that many people consider them a transphobic hate-group or some probably libellous bollocks) would have raised red flags everywhere. Jane Garvey was a voice they trusted, and if lovely, good-humoured Jane was uncomfortable with the views of GC women, they must be extreme. Unpleasant, even. Poor Jane, so good of WH to give them a hearing, but you could tell how difficult she found it, not to mention the poor, vulnerable transpeople who only want to live their lives in peace. Why can't we just be kind?

Obviously we don't know what's going on behind the scenes to change the landscape (Tim Davie sounds like a force for positive change) but Emma Barnett is not nervous, and she isn't shying away from setting out the facts clearly and challenging people on them. As you say Warrior - doing it as these things arise in the media is absolutely crucial because the approach they used to have of gingerly picking up something that had already played out and giving it 5 butt-clenched minutes of 'both sides' before dropping it with undisguised relief only added to the confusion and gaslighting.

They really have been deplorable on this, but I'm glad they are changing tack and making up ground now. I've been critical of Emma Barnett in the past as she didn't seem very at home in WH's magazine format, but really feel she's doing excellent work with this and has found her feet as a proper champion of women's voices. It seems now that WH actually has a chance of becoming relevant again.

Very good points winter.

I'm similarly nervous in my own profession; though some of my social media silence is more about the fact that I can learn more from acquaintances in the field as mole 🐁 🕵️‍♀️ I'm v interested to watch attitudes among aquaintances.

Tim Davie speaks on this trailer. Well worth a listen - it’s the Nolan investigates stonewall thing, discussed on a separate thread

www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p09yjp0d

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4373828-14th-October-Nolan-Investigates-podcast-Stonewall

Bloody hell that cuts to the jugular.

Especially the comment about cbbc.