Kathleen Stock on BBC Woman's Hour today

[Justme56]

Just seen this on twitter.

I've genuinely looked to see if he has achieved a doctorate in anything.

I see he attended Sussex University, but all his Wiki says is After college Hackett moved to Brighton to study business and management at the University of Sussex.

Obviously absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence; but I'm intrigued.

I don't use my honorary title because I'd feel (and look) like an absolute knob. I do use Dr (my PhD) in work settings, where relevant - and if I'm being patronised with the miss-or-mrs-head-tilt. You know the drill

Has there been any explanation by the bullies about what she has said/done that is so bad?

They just spoke about this on R4 news at 6. It was quite a lengthy piece referencing the WH interview, also mentioning a law which is going throgh at the moment which will allow people to sue a place of education if they do not allow freedom of speech.

Over the past few weeks the BBC seems to have done a complete reverse ferry with regards to their reporting on these issues. Oh to be a fly on the wall when the adults in the room at the Beeb, finally realised what was actually happening with Stonewall/ child medicalisation/ Mermaids/ women’s rights/ bulling and silencing of women etc etc.

[quote 3timeslucky]@Aber77 Did it feel ok to you or your daughter that they would call for a lecturer to be fired because they didn't agree with her views? Setting the bar at agitating for violence seems to allow for an awful lot of unacceptable behaviour.

I wasn't there but it smacks of mob-rule. And the mob has ruled.

I support freedom of speech, but in the same way as we legislate to prevent protestors surrounding abortion clinics for example, I think it is reasonable that there are some limits places on where and how you can protest and maybe that includes at someone's place of work.[/quote]
It's tricky really and I know what you mean, but on the students we saw demonstrating weren't advocating violence. Admittedly we only spoke to one, but (much to my DD's mortification!) I asked why they felt harassing an academic was acceptable. They were insistent that they weren't advocating violence or hassling her. I pointed out that they were yelling 'Stock Out' - they agreed that yes, they were pushing for her to be fired, but the rationale was that she'd stated views that they believed were in clear violation of University policy (ie discriminating against them) and that as the University wasn't listening, they had to protest. I pointed out that wearing masks was pretty intimidating. They said they were scared of being singled out by the University. They were highly articulate and sincere and though I don't agree with them and feel really sorry for Kathleen Stock, I still think my DD's right - intimidation and threats off violence have clearly been a thing, but what we saw at that moment in time, wasn't that.

Finally!

So you think it's okay for students to try and get a professor fired because they don't like her views?

Wow, that's quite the admission.

the rationale was that she'd stated views that they believed were in clear violation of University policy

And this was the excuse for contravening the university harassment and bullying policy?

No wonder they were masked.

The WH interview is currently front page on the BBC website.

I cant help but feel its just a bit too little too late from the BBC / Woman's Hour. Whilst I am glad they are now taking part in the debate , and allowing our voices - we should not be here in the first place.

They finally seem to have learned from Savile/the Pollard report that they cannot hide away from politically difficult subjects. They have a duty to report what’s actually happening, not what is palatable. That said, they absolutely haven’t been at the forefront of this, they’ve hung onto others’ coattails in a cowardly fashion, waiting for the tide to turn before putting their brave pants on. Still, at least they’re going the right way now.

And your messages to Kathleen Stock are the fragrant hiccups of peace and tolerance, are they?

Love that comment, genius!

@Aber77 But the students weren’t being discriminated against by Prof Stock as far as I’ve ever seen, except in their own minds because they feel that even having to hear an opinion they don’t like, never mind engaging with it or respecting it, makes them “feel unsafe”. Which is a deeply childish and fragile mindset that doesn’t bode well for their futures. If they genuinely feel like that then maybe therapy rather than protesting should be their focus, and certainly not hounding an academic from behind the cloak of anonymity. That’s what bullies and cowards do.

@Clymene

God all these jumped up men with egos the size of planets. I followed all those links from Hackett's wiki page saying that he advises the UN - the first one (ironically) goes to Commission on the Status of Women: Raising Our Voices, the 2nd one is a 404 error, 3rd, the server can't be found and 4th a dupe of the 2nd 404 error.

Liam is a man whose realised that charity can be an excellent vehicle for self promotion. His charity had an income of £550k last year and staff costs were £350k. There are 6 members of staff, only one of whom receives remuneration of over £60k according to the Charities Commission.

Quite the gravy train

So hang on, if five of the staff are on, let be generous and say 50k, that means he is still paying himself 100k a year?! our of charity donations. What a grifter.

but the rationale was that she'd stated views that they believed were in clear violation of University policy (ie discriminating against them)

That means "She said transwomen are men" or "Women and girls deserve single sex spaces for safeguarding reasons - just as they always have" or "This should be discussed, we cannot ignore the clash of rights being asked for" All of which she did say, are in print in her book. And, if you could ever get any of the 'protestors' to tell you why they are protesting, would be the basis of their claims.

Do you disagree with any of that @Aber77?

They said they were scared of being singled out by the University.

So they masked up, lit flares, dangled an effigy and plastered campus with "Sack Stock" messages.

Do you think that is how adults deal with conflict @Aber77?

I still think my DD's right - intimidation and threats off violence have clearly been a thing, but what we saw at that moment in time, wasn't that.

So pissing up her office door, the notices, flares, direct threats, doxxing, police advice regarding her needing security at home and work? All of that disappears because you only saw some lacklustre standing around? What do you think you just taught your daughter @Aber77?

Mask up, don't get caught?

That "Stock Out" and "Oh we aren't harrassing her, we're just shouting so she gets sacked and goes away" is a reasonable assertion?

Hurt my feelings and I'll ruin your life? That's OK too, is it?

Totally and utterly unbelievable that any one, any woman, could look her daughter in the eye and say that what happened at Sussex was in anyway right, fair, adult or anything less than bullying harrassment, tantamount, at times, to terrorism.

You may fel sorry for Prof Stock. But you should also feel mortified that you and your daughter seem to think that the students who have been doing this for 3+years have any of the right of the matter.

Think it through... step by step. Act by act. Do you really think that one woman deserves any of that for simply asking that logic and the law are discussed without violence?

but the rationale was that she'd stated views that they believed were in clear violation of University policy (ie discriminating against them)

I think there is a massive, massive difference between demonstrating for or against a cause and ‘demonstrating’ against an individual.

Of course the university didn’t sack Stock on demand - they couldn’t because she had done nothing wrong.

The students weren’t so much exercising a right to free speech as taking control of the university’s HR policy by force.

That BBCWomensHour Twitter thread - same one previously linked - is an education in the tactics and arguments typically used by Anti-Woman Activists (AWAs)

My "Top Ten" (OK, actually just the first ten, reading from top down with the thread expanded):

(1) It's transphobic because I say so. No, I can't define "transphobia" and I'm too stupid/deceitful to see/admit that the term has been widely appropriated and misused. Which, by the way, is actually transphobic.

(2) She was asking for it. Someone points out that making credible death threats isn't peaceful protest, to which the misogynist replies that this doesn't excuse what Stock said, and adds that there would have been no need to punish her if she'd stayed in line.

(3) Pretending women are human is SO BORING! Plus repeat lies from 1 & 2, same misogynist as before.

(4) nAzIs !!!!! (Of course, if you point out the fascism of this bigot's own stance, it'll be all "bUt GoDwIn'$ lAw!!!!") In the same tweet: wE aLrEaDy vOt3d!!!!!"

(5) When will you let the Sussex student protestors speak? This is a really popular one but no one can name anyone for WH to interview because they are all scared of being disciplined and/or of public scrutiny. Yet, the same question gets posted over and over in attempt to imply that the programme is biased.

(6) Repeat made up nonsense originally leveraged against a different woman writer (Helen Joyce) who is also targeted by AWA bullies... which is OK because women are all alike??

(7) Disagreeing with me is hate speech. And if you call me on my nonsense, I can't talk to you because hate.

(8) When flailing, roll out trans people as cannon fodder and completely infantilise them - it's OK, this is a men's movement, they've only ever been collateral damage. They're not real, resiliant individuals just as capable of living life and speaking up as anyone else, and can handle having a reasonable discussion.

(9) Always a classic: they're denying my existence! (I don't know how). They want to take away my rights! (I don't know which rights). This one isn't necessarily a misogynist (it may be someone who just believes whatever gets tweeted by children in Ohio) but is often weaponised by misogynists and AWAs.

(10) Accuse someone of transphobia, and in response to requests for examples, evidence, proof: I didn't/couldn't read it, but it could be transphobic and I don't know it's not, so there's your proof of transphobia!!. Again, not exclusive to AWAs (could just be idiots/small children), but a big favourite of theirs.

There's some serious overlap in 9 and 10 to just general lack of critical thinking and basic research and debate skills but hard to tell if these AWAs really lack those skills, or just believe others do and want to take advantage of that for their own gain. (Or they've studied with their High Priest of Male Privilege, Steve Bannon, and are following his advice to just sling really random shit(e) in the hope of distracting people.)

Chillingly, it’s clear from Twitter that the message received by the students was that their actions were effective.

I would be quite worried about what that means for university regulations and procedures going forward.

I asked why they felt harassing an academic was acceptable. They were insistent that they weren't advocating violence or hassling her. I pointed out that they were yelling 'Stock Out' - they agreed that yes, they were pushing for her to be fired, but the rationale was that she'd stated views that they believed were in clear violation of University policy (ie discriminating against them) and that as the University wasn't listening, they had to protest. I pointed out that wearing masks was pretty intimidating. They said they were scared of being singled out by the University.
This is interesting. Was this a young woman you spoke to?

Article on BBC news:

BBC News - Free speech row prof Kathleen Stock: Protests like anxiety dream
www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-59148324

'@Whatstheweatherlike Not sure what others think but that article is very biased and lacking substance - repeating slurs with no reference to sources. Piss poor journalism

[quote Shirazboobaloo]'@Whatstheweatherlike Not sure what others think but that article is very biased and lacking substance - repeating slurs with no reference to sources. Piss poor journalism[/quote]
Which slurs?

The ones she was suposed to have used, that were published in her book, in other articles today, upthread?

Or the ones that are description sof what happened to her? The ones that there are picture sof film of, Tweets by those involved in postering, flare lighting, shouting etc?

Or the factual statement of teh 'support' she recieved form her union?

Or the named people who supported her, as opposed to the masked peole who didn't?

Or her expression of her feelings during the last 3 years?

Which unreferenced slurs, specifically?

[quote Shirazboobaloo]'@Whatstheweatherlike Not sure what others think but that article is very biased and lacking substance - repeating slurs with no reference to sources. Piss poor journalism[/quote]
Have you listened to the Woman’s Hour interview from this morning?

Most enlightening.

I've been watching the bbc news channel this evening, and it doesn't seem to have been mentioned, despite the prominence on the bbc website.

That's the same as when Raquel Rosario Sánchez was on WH.

The radio info didn't mention her name. BBC website covered it on the front page for a while. News, not a sausage!

Especially odd, as they made sure there was some video.

@Ekofisk @HoardingFloralBuntingInACervix

Wow back off will you!

I was referring to the BBC news article as written by Eleanor Lawrie with unsubstantiated claims and quoting unreferenced sources saying Prof Stock is a "transphobe"

Hence my linking to @Whatstheweatherlike as she mentioned the article being posted

Maybe go read that before slagging me off

Maybe go read that before slagging me off

I did.

Hence me referring you to the WH interview that it is describing.

Maybe you need to rethink your “puss poor journalism” comment.

*piss poor.

My auto correct hates cats.