Hadley Freeman's going to the Sunday Times

[RoyalCorgi]

Can't say I blame her!

And good news for former loyal Guardian readers who now subscribe to the Times and Sunday Times.

twitter.com/pressgazette/status/1580532975397408768

Michel Rosen is thoroughly TWAW.

Michael Rosen of 'queering children's literature'?

www.gold.ac.uk/calendar/?id=13077

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/3795910-Michael-Rosen-queering-children-s-literature

The Guardian is a pale shadow of what it used to be but having subscribed to the Times for a free month I thought it was awful, and very hard to unsubscribe.

The fact is that newspapers/legacy media/whatever are slowly dying and if course they look more like clickbait sites chasing superficial controversy rather than serious reporting sites because not enough people will pay for serious reporting. The Family section went because it was too expensive. The Grauniad is chasing an American liberal market because it's a big market with money. I do completely agree that if you know much about the subject, there aren't many articles worth reading.

The British media is a tightly knit bunch of individuals who know each other far too well moving from one media outlet to another. The Times just stinks to me, I don't want to pay Murdoch anything but he is one of the few people keeping some sort of national mainstream media alive.

God so many right wingers on here, I'm surprised. A left-ish paper has you howling with rage. I think people who use woke as a term of abuse are proclaiming themselves as bigots.

He's also very pro-Corbyn, so apparently completely incapable of thinking critically about problematic aspects of the Left more generally (and I say that as an early Corbyn supporter myself before the scales fell from my eyes).

And occasionally a user's name tells us everything we need to know.

God so many right wingers on here, I'm surprised. A left-ish paper has you howling with rage. I think people who use woke as a term of abuse are proclaiming themselves as bigots.

No. A lot of women from the left are disappointed that the main left wing broadsheet in the country completely ignores threats to the rights and safety of women and girls and has done for years- see comments re Cologne coverage, and instead champions misogynists like Owen Jones.

Once a couple of males have written on a subject, the woman doesn’t have to bother her pretty little head about it.

After all, she can’t possibly have any kind of different perspective.

I think Michael Rosen fails to understand how newspapers work. Jonathan Freedland is a political columnist, so of course he was allowed to write about Jeremy Corbyn from a Jewish perspective. Hadley Freeman had a largely light-hearted column in the Weekend section that occasionally touched on serious issues. The Guardian didn't want her being overtly political on two contentious subjects - the trans issue and Corbynism.

I'm not saying I agree with the Guardian, just saying what I think the Guardian's reasoning was.

So much right wing vitriol, perhaps I'm naive but can't you tolerate ONE left-ish media outlet?

Isn't the Daily Fail enough for you? Along with almost all other sources of news?

Naïve in that you don't realise you a large % of the women you are addressing are left wing, long-term Guardian readers?

Where is our one feminist-ish media outlet?

Thankfully the Morning Star is actually managing to do both left wing and feminist - haven't read that since I was a teenager but might be time I revisit it!

You're either naive, or hopelessly stuck in the Goodies Vs Baddies narrative.

Stick around for a bit and keep reading. Lots of us started out that way.

Ooh, is there vitriol? It's not even lunchtime! Put me down for one with an umbrella and a sparkler, please.

To be fair, I've a feeling that part of Hadley's issue with the Guardian was that she started off on the fashion desk - where she was brilliant - and then found herself pigeon holed as a light hearted 'Weekend' writer. I would say her key strength is her quite extraordinary range but you only saw it occasionally e.g. when she was allowed to do a more heavyweight interview, such as Salman Rushdie or Michael and Robert Rosenberg.

Even without the gender identity debate, I think she'd have got frustrated with them, and I hope the Sunday Times will make better use of the full extent of her talents.

I didn't give up on the Guardian because it was Left-wing. I gave up on it after the victim-blaming after Cologne NYE.
And the fact that it's rubbish.
Apart from the recipes.

What is left wing? People who seek social change, often by the state, to improve equality and address inequity and structural oppression?

Is sex one of the things about a person that affects their lives and access to fulfilment? I'd say yes. Is it someone's intrinsic sex that affects that, or the perception of their sex by others? I'd say most of the time their intrinsic sex. Eg violent attacks on transwomen are quite often homophobic - ie on men perceived as not doing masculinity right, rather than on perceived women.

How is the left wing helped by removing discussion of intrinsic sex? It isn't. And some of the consequences of trying to remove the vocabulary of sex from discussion make the left wing yet again look like they are much more concerned with midddle class people saying the right words than actual liberation of women, whether those women have transitioned or not.

It seems to be a common tactic now to reframe support for women's rights as "right-wing". Anyone who wants to protect women's rights to single-sex spaces, or to defend women's right not to be told into sex slavery, or to stop them from having their bodies exploited for surrogacy is branded "right-wing". Men who claim to be left-wing are often profoundly reactionary in their desire to control women's bodies and to attack women's autonomy. Even Engels, back in the nineteenth century, understood that women were oppressed as a sex class, but modern left-wing men either don't, or can't, grasp that fundamental fact.

Worth noting that the Sunday Times ' salaries are orders of magnitude more than the Guardian could ever offer. Could that have been a factor, possibly...? 🤔

"Orders of magnitude" is probably overstating it, but I imagine that yes, the Sunday Times would have offered Hadley more because they recognise a bloody good journalist when they see one.

Woman gets paid more

this is obviously a bad thing