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

Very entertaining!

Somewhat OT, but I laughed out load about ‘vengeful Boudiccas’, but on reflection am rather taken with this moniker.

Exactly. I would bet good money that none of these staff objectors have actually read the book.

Amina Shah stop being a coward (and a pronoun prawn) and tell them they are wrong about it being hate speech. Let them try and prove her wrong.

I think it's a great one to add to the list of names we've been called. "Rights-hoarding dinosaurs" is one of my favourites but there was a brilliant one the other day - can anyone remember it? My memory is going.

Really hoping we'll see some inventive Mumsnetters dressed up as Boudicca at the next protest.

Edited to say: I've just realised that the vengeful Boudiccas was in reference to trans activists, not Terfs - ignore!

I enjoyed reading those reviews. Amazing what a picture we can build based on a person's review history.

I'm sure one of those is a plopper that posts here as the writing style is quite unique.

Oh, look, the NLS is looking for a new head of HR, 'fostering a culture of inclusion and excellence at Scotland’s national library' (the irony! the dreadful timing!) https://www.facebook.com/NationalLibraryOfScotland/posts/pfbid0bvv2UzRbFMKZCc2BBCrjsh5HzuaU3EbVXSSzNoV7JKa6FRVkDWjiDBdZrLAiY2Eml?rdid=bdIciDPX2DFbNBk8

It certainly is.

It wouldn't surprise me if there are complaints that I've looked at that, but its literally what you are supposed to do to see if reviewers like similar things to you.

It would not surprise me. I have heard of so many through my DC who went to uni from 2010 onwards. They are all in their late 20s/early 30s now. We also have a wider family member now. It is also the 'queer' identity, being assexual, being accepted for being yourself introspective mindset.

There has been a lot of struggle to get on a career ladder and housing ladder. The ones I know who have had a more clear career path have bypassed all of it.

Shona Robison getting questioned on this by Gina Davidson: https://x.com/ginadavidsonlbc/status/1955607801231036536

International coverage (what price the EQIA now?!) https://x.com/brusselssignal/status/1955600236656607501

Ha. Dear “FamiliaH “ - no one is mistaking you for Boudicca, vengeful or otherwise.

Wow. Here is the NLS correspondence that was revealed through FOIs. https://ethelwrites.com/censorship-the-women-who-wouldnt-wheesht-and-the-national-library-of-scotland/

It would suit us a lot more than these men who want to identify as Boudicca.

In your dreams, pal.

Russell Findlay making hay, as you would expect https://x.com/RussellFindlay1/status/1955612130402611632

So they decided it would be better for the reputation of the NLS to exclude the book.

To paraphrase Ben Cooper, it would be unkind to ask how that's working out for them.

Thank you, this is very valuable.

They have gone to such lengths to justify excluding WWWW just because their LGBTQ++ employees said jump, and their only question was 'how high?'.

Their concern about the potential reputational damage to NLS if they include the book was misplaced - their reputation is now well and truly under the microscope because of its exclusion.

How poor does someone’s reading comprehension skill have to be to think that censoring the book ‘The Women who wouldn’t Wheesht’ would result in those women wheeshting? If they were worried about ‘reputational damage’ surely they could have predicted this would be a massive own goal?

I mean, talk about picking a battle with exactly the wrong group of people.

If anything tells you they haven't read the book, it's that!

You'd think. But then again, it didn't cross their minds not to piss off a Scotsman columnist by excluding the book that she was responsible for editing, on the grounds that the content promoted "hate speech".

For the activists it's all grist to the mill. But for the CEO and the board, if I wanted to avoid public controversy that's not how I'd go about it.

They thought the sponsor of the event would withdraw is such a fucking lame excuse.

Why have such an exhibition if they can't handle it. Now it lots bad for that sponsor anyway!

Who is the sponsor? Is it just the government or did they secure additional funding?

Well, quite. The clue, as they say, is in the name.

I'm getting the sense that these people aren't blessed with an overabundance of thinking skills.

The NLS correspondence (with commentary) is an entertaining read.

I'm amused by the dangers of consulting the public. The NLS are right, it's risky to canvas our view on anything, after all we voted to call a research ship Boaty McBoatface. I'm not so convinced that the public need to be told what's best for us by an LGBTQ+ staff network.

Well that is a big question that should be found out.

Whoever it was the staff network threatened to stir up shit with them. Maybe someone needs to think about the remit of these staff networks.

https://forms.office.com/Pages/ResponsePage.aspx?id=5JIYigDriUaMuKTmIJ0yoD9hj87ye-JMu68v1_W2I0dUQkI4NDZOSENEUkdUT1o5OFFRQ0g1TEVMRCQlQCN0PWcu&origin=QRCode

This link should take anyone who wants to offer their thoughts to the exhibition feedback form