Women's rights general conversations - Thread 3

[Kucinghitam]

Continuation of Thread 2.

There is so much excellent information and so many active discussions on FWR that I wondered if it would be useful to have a thread to sort of "cross-fertilise" between them - airing little thoughts or vignettes that wouldn't themselves merit their own thread, to highlight other posts/threads of particular interest or to point to notable developments on fast-moving threads so that casual observers know where to look.

(For example, "the X thread has meandered onto a fascinating discussion of Y" or "Poster P's amazing analysis on thread Z might have relevance to the scenario in thread W" or "Has anybody noticed this recurring theme that keeps coming up??" or even "Random bloke asked me to smile while I was choosing onions, grr"- that sort of thing).

I’m rather enjoying Blaire White’s take on these people, although wish she wasn’t such a right-winger. I always said about Leave voters that they should have a long hard look at the people advocating for Brexit, how surely seeing the dodgy ideological company they kept would give them pause, and now I’m looking at the company I’m keeping and it’s all a bit concerning.

Hitler was a vegetarian.

I don't think it's concerning. I said the same about Brexit, and I very much stand by that view. Farage, Johnson, Trump, Putin, Le Pen, all backed Brexit. And none of them did it to benefit the UK and its citizens. I don't see why right-wing folk sharing my views one one topic renders those views somehow invalid or dodgy.

Solnit's views were disappointing to me, but would have been more disappointing had I not seen Atwood's views before that 2020 Guardian piece.

Solnit clearly had not done any deeper thinking on these issues (and neither had Atwood, or Joyce Carol Oates, it seems) before opining. This issue is one of those where you need to keep peeling the layers of the onion as the surface concerns are very different from the deeper ones:

Like why not agree to regard transwomen as women? It will make their lives easier and doesn't really hurt anyone else as they are such a tiny and marginalised population.

Then you learn that because now everyone agrees that transwomen are women, transmen are men etc., being a woman has nothing to do with being female, but is all about makeup, long hair, revealing clothing, submissiveness etc!

Then the NHS erases 'woman' as a biological category. Then transwomen start winning in women's elite sports and get to run lots of women's organisations. Then you find your old embodied identity can now be openly ridiculed; you are parts of your body (vulva-owner) or one single function (gestator, menstruator).

I find it amusing that we are told that women are more than just persons with vaginas/vulvas than people who menstruate/get pregnant/chest feed, etc and then when it comes down to it, that's how they describe us.

I say I find it amusing, obviously I don't find it even a little bit amusing.

Of course it's not, Crows, it's despicable, as is the sheer mealy-mouthed dishonesty by so many of the people who are supposed to be the 'good guys'.

It looks like the Rev Randall has lost his case for unfair dismissal. He says he is going to appeal. It's a Daily Mail link, sorry. I found it on twitter, I don't know if it's been reported elsewhere.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11793657/School-chaplain-sacked-defending-right-question-LGBT-policies-loses-unfair-dismissal-case.html

During staff training, Ms Barnes had encouraged staff to chant 'smash heteronormativity',

Mao's Red Guards stuff.

But following a hearing at East Midlands Employment Tribunal, Judge Victoria Butler said this was 'simply an enthusiastic attempt by Ms Barnes to warm up the teachers at the outset of the day'.

Riiiiiggghht...

She said: 'We saw and heard no evidence that came anywhere close to supporting the claimant's view that E&C would indoctrinate pupils in such a way.'

No, mass chanting is never used as an indoctrination technique, it it?

She added the decision to refer Dr Randall to the terror watchdog was justified 'from a safeguarding perspective'.

This is an incredible statement, not to mention sinister. What a bloody country we have become.

I would hope it will be overturned on appeal but the fact that he was referred to the terror watchdog is unbelievable. Good grief, he is not a terrorist and the referral is utter madness.

And nothing says "cult" or "totalitarianism" like getting a roomful of people into a scapegoaty chanting session.

I've had to stop caring about right wing nut jobs being on the right side regarding transwomen etc. Or what @duc748 said.

On the bright side, 'heteronormativity' has too many syllables to really be chantable - which might limit the brainwashing potential.

I think if I had a work training course that made me chant anything, regardless of whether I agreed with it, I would cringe myself in to next week.

My understanding (late night, early morning, so likely to be poor) is the judge seems to be saying it's not okay to disgree. It seems to be Forstater all over again. You must comply, and if you don't, well, you might be a terrorist and can be sent for re-education.

I was teaching a course at a UK uni about 10 years ago, and in the next room there was a course in Lean, for consultant doctors. Pretty senior people, with years of medical training and practice behind them. Their course leader, who I knew quite well, was leading them all in a group song about the benefits of Lean.

That was cringe, alright. The trainer just couldn't see it. It was quite a common thing, though, at the time.

(For those who don't know, "Lean" was/is a manufacturing approach largely pinched from Toyota Manufacturing Systems, rebranded by some management consultants and applied to many sectors, which came to include retai and logistics, and had a brief popularity in clinical systems.)

OMG! I work in policy and we are naturally cynical, so I think any attempt at that would end up like the "Yes And" game in the Thick of It.

I've started a thread, but wanted to say that there's a good review of Victoria Smith's 'Hags' in the Guardian.

I wonder what's going on, could there be a slight change in mood amongst the editorial team?

It's Rachel Cooke so the Observer. Big difference in the editorial stances of the sister papers on this issue. The author is firmly on the WSOH.

I've just read it, it's good but sad

www.theguardian.com/books/2023/feb/27/hags-by-victoria-smith-review-welcome-to-the-age-of-rage

Having experienced the TRSOHers back in the old place, I can totally see how the Righteous could convince themselves (with much faux-sorrowful back-patting) that it was the safest course of action.

It's a great review though. Really heartfelt and describes the point where I imagine a lot of us find ourselves:

middle-aged women Will Not Be Ignored. And part of not being ignored involves doggedly reminding people that ageism is the dumbest bigotry of all, as well as the most widespread – for you, too, dear reader, will be 40 one day (and then 50, and 60, and on and on, if you’re lucky).
To discount older women is, if you’re female, to write off your future self.

Oh FFS. Questionnaire at work on matters LGBTQIA+

Gah 1 - the I.

Gah 2 - the A, which they are defining as 'aromantic'. Not a sexuality; not a gender identity - a 'romantic orientation'. WTF does that have to do with anything work related? It doesn't need accommodation, it's not something that's discriminated against, I don't see how anybody would even know.

Gah 3 - the first question: 'Are you (a) a member of the LGBTQ+ [I and A have now vanished] community; or (b) an ally?' What if someone is only an ally to some parts of the alphabet, or under some circumstances, or even not at all (perhaps for religious reasons), or is dubious about the concept of 'allyship'?

Gah 4 - rank various things in order of importance. You can only tick or not tick - this is not a ranking (and you can't move on until you tick all of them).

Gah 2 - the A, which they are defining as 'aromantic'. Not a sexuality; not a gender identity - a 'romantic orientation'.

Wouldn't it more usually be "Asexual", which at least is an actual sexual orientation (a lack of any).

I believe that's usual, yes. The definitions in this didn't mention asexual at all, only aromantic.

It doesn't need accommodation, it's not something that's discriminated against, I don't see how anybody would even know.

And illustrates that this is about proselytisation rather than problem solving.