‘JK Rowling wants me fired. I just want to help rape survivors’

[GranolaGal]

Sandy Brindley, chief executive of Rape Crisis Scotland, says the online vitriol and public attacks she has faced mean she’s likely to stand down within a year. She spoke to The Times on Sunday

"Last Friday, Sandy Brindley, the chief executive of Rape Crisis Scotland, was collecting her daughter from primary school when a journalist rang to ask if she would comment on JK Rowling’s demand for her resignation. By the time the reporter hung up, Brindley was in tears.
“I’m never upset in front of my daughter. She said, ‘What’s wrong?’” Brindley recalls. “I said, ‘Someone’s calling for my resignation’. She asked: ‘Who?’ I told her: ‘JK Rowling.’”
Brindley’s little girl looked up at her and said: “That’s one of my favourite authors, Mummy.”
By now Brindley’s eyes are twinkling as she recounts the incident. “What I didn’t then say was: ‘Well, it’s me or her!” she says, dissolving into laughter.
It’s a moment of levity at a serious, defining moment in her life. After years on the wrong end of online campaigns hashtagged #BrindleyMustGo and as the subject of criticism from very prominent online warriors, Brindley, 50, has had enough. She says that she does not expect to be in her post by this time next
year."

Full story is here: ‘JK Rowling wants me fired. I just want to help rape survivors’‘

I can’t believe she’s still in post. It’s grotesque

They identify as this not having happened.

This whole farce has become about who has the power to define reality in the way that best suits them, and to enforce it on others.

Are they subject to an FOI?

I'd say their shredder is belching smoke at this point 🤔

😆

😂😂

I don't know about JK Rowling but I do not want Sandy Brindley to be fired. I do want Sandy Brindley to resign, with handsome public apologies to all the women she has let down and allowed Rape Crisis Scotland and ERCC to let down.

JK Rowling peaked me, it was because of her tweet about “people who menstruate” that roused by curiosity, then I discovered Mumsnet feminist boards and the rest is history.

Anti women’s rights activists hate her because she cannot be cancelled, she is too rich and has too big a platform. I love her.

As for Brindley she won’t resign, even though she knows her days are numbered. She’s simply waiting for a big enough compromise agreement and some other wokey job in the wings like Mr Wadhwa did.

Who is Brindley's boss? Why can't they sack her?

Yes who is Brindley's boss?

Not sure why you're asking me that 😁

Brindley's boss will be the trustees and NED's, I think.

The SNPs position is that TWAW. That being the political climate in Scotland, it is probably difficult to fire SB for claiming to interpret “women only” spaces as including TW. So she stays on and the cognitive dissonance continues…

If she resigned, I doubt it would be with apologies. It would be to take on new challenges and spend more time with her family/on her PhD.

I doubt that anyone in rape crisis agrees with us. The board will be zealots. They are backed up by funding from the government who are gender evangelicals.

Holyrood has failed - it shows how bad ideas can take root and do societal harm. as usual, it is vulberable women who are the casualties.

Surely she could be fired for giving rape survivors' phone numbers to journalists though? And for inviting her partner to a confidential meeting with rape survivors.

Yes in most organisations that would constitute gross misconduct.

I imagine she got the survivors’ agreement (not that this makes it appropriate!) and that the partner would be explained as being present to give legal advice (also inappropriate, she may be part of Edinburgh University’s law school, but is not a lawyer and does not seem impartial on this issue, to put it mildly, also should have been introduced and explained). I assume the trustees are probably also TWAW, they won’t want to give their enemies a scalp which might suggest the TWAW fortress in Scotland is crumbling.

As I understand it, Sandy had their agreement for her partner to attend the meeting (don't know how coerced it was though given the power differential) but it wasn't informed consent.

The women presumably didn't know they were going to be told of for wanting women only services.

I'm trying to imagine how she'd get informed consent. "My partner is going to lecture you on how important men's needs are, is that all right? C'mon ladies, she's a professor and a fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, you should be honoured."

(D'you know, I'm still a bit cross about all this.)

To pick up on what Amaryllis and Aston say. I can see a variation of that conversation occuring.

Very often, when women are in a vulnerable position, and need dedicated support, they'll agree to most suggestions from " the professional".

There is that expectation that the person is acting in your best interest, so you trust her/him. Also, sometimes a worry that: if you don't agree, you won't get the support you so desperately need.

This ^^

This is why it was all so inappropriate.

You would probably assume that the people who are supposed to be helping you would be acting in your best interests.

Exactly! You’d like to think they are interested in actually helping you rather than seeing you as a way to promote their pet ideology.

That's not what I've read. I've read that they didn't know who she was and thought she was another survivor until she opened her mouth and started to lecture them all about inclusiveness.

Blimey. My heart breaks for them. Fucking disgusting shameful behaviour.