National Library of Scotland censors The Women Who Wouldn't Wheesht

[OhBuggerandArse]

Took it out of their centenary exhibition because the staff LGBT+ network kicked up a fuss. Craven. This really needs massive public challenge and push back - if the National Library isn't able to fend off the censors we are utterly lost. https://x.com/EthelWrites/status/1955390550494023958

FFS, the Lighthouse bookshop. Infamous for hosting trans activist Katy Montgomerie, and the event where Mridul Wadhwa said that you should fire terfs.

Time to set up a GC bookshop!

@VoleForceOne its practically a transferable skill?

In an effort to be fair, when this first blew up, and before posting to support Shah, McMenemy posted this on Twitter on 13th August:

"If you want to join a profession, find out what its fundamental principles are and decide if you can practice them. Don't pretend you can make them up to suit you. It seems such an obvious statement to make, but for the modern world, maybe not."

So I don't think he's impressed by the activities of the alphabet soup gang, but presumably not in a position to force anyone to attend a workshop. I'm also guessing that any sanctions for them can't be publicised, though Vole would know if they'd happened. (Sending fortifying Tunnocks to Vole!)

Sorry - I wasn't disagreeing with you there about who should be making staff do training. I think Shah has been worse than useless in this whole situation (does 'duplicitous jellyfish' cover it?) and I'm not even directly impacted, so it must be pure hellish for you.

If it's the one opposite the Pear Tree, it used to be the Word Power Bookshop when I frequented it years ago and was an actual activist bookshop, with an interesting range of challenging and unusual books about a wide range of social action issues. In this incarnation, it seems to have one, very single focus frankly.

A shame. It was a great bookshop.

Done a bit of digging, and it seems it was 2017 when it changed hands. And started being run by a collective of they/thems.

https://www.thenational.scot/news/15200814.end-of-an-era-as-radical-bookshop-word-power-changes-hands/

As I said, it was great.

Is Jenny Colgan terfy? Will
she combust if she goes into they bookshop?

What is the collective noun for theythems?

A delulu?

She's no JK Rowling. She lives in a castle on the East Coast, but I think that is where the similarities end.

A shrug?

A tiresomeness of they/thems

An ego of they/thems

A narcissism of they/thems

An eyeroll of they/thems

New article on the report by Susan Dalgety

https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/opinion/columnists/this-is-our-story-and-scotlands-too-and-it-deserves-to-be-heard-5364177

'Ms Shah went on the BBC’s prestigious arts programme Front Row the day the report was published, where she said that she had banished the book in part because it contained scenes of “violence, aggression, anger that had either happened online or in real life”.
Really Ms Shah? Women telling their stories of surviving rape, of their fears for their daughters’ future happiness, of losing their livelihoods because they told the truth – that human beings cannot change their sex. These stories – which millions of women can identify with – were too violent, aggressive and angry to be displayed in public?'

Actually. I think this is often the problem with what people call radfem/'gc'/'terf' arguments.

We talk about violence against women and girls, and use statistics and data to do so.

It's grim. It's upsetting. It's unpleasant and disturbing to think that all the fucking work and effort of the past has so far made little difference to the numbers of women and girls who are subject to abuse, rape, violence, and murder, at the hands of men.

It's not the pom-pom waving empowerment message anyone wants to hear, is it? Two women a week killed by men in the UK.

I'd say that behind that if one can sit with the stark and heartbreaking reality of the problem, there are also stories of immense and genuine bravery, solidarity, tenaciousness and patience. But it's maybe not as easy and shiny as 'you go, girl!' Instafeminism.

And while women of all stripes are at risk of male violence and abuse, it's also perhaps worth noting that very privileged women generally have fewer vulnerabilities around precarity, housing, safety nets, etc, may be less aware of or exposed to the problems, and frankly have more to lose in terms of social capital if they deviate from the accepted orthodoxy.

Violence is a feature of so many books. I wonder, were Val McDermid’s books banned, I started one and gave it up, it was pretty gory. Or books like A Thousand Splendid Suns. Is it only one sort of violence which cannot be discussed by right thinking liberals?

Resurrecting this, briefly. I've only just seen the following study is happening:

“More than one way to burn a book?”: culture wars, censorship, and neutrality in Scottish public libraries.
This research aims to advance our understanding of the censorship challenges faced by libraries and the impact this has on their everyday roles as public gateways to open knowledge, learning, and in supporting societal well-being and enrichment. The first stage of the project sought data from public libraries on challenges to books, materials, and events received. This second phase is now surveying library staff across all sectors in Scotland to explore your experiences and perspectives concerning book, materials, and events challenges, and censorship in libraries.
The research will be published as a public report and in one or more academic journals.

If there are any Scottish librarians on the thread who haven't seen it, the link is at https://uofg.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_6hdlJPFJzo9kvZA - the survey is closing in mid-March.

It will be an interesting read anyway.

Thanks for the resurrection.

looking forwards to reading the results of the study :)

Does anyone know where David McMenemy the project lead stands on any of this stuff? He is current Chair of CILIP's Intellectual Freedom committee; CILIP has been a very captured institution in the past, but you might think if they are bothering to have a committee about intellectual freedom there might be reason to be hopeful. But maybe I am being naïve.