Just two minutes!
I’m now 14 minutes into the video.
The two women doing the explaining are getting increasingly frustrated that the audience won’t just say ok and settle down and keep their issues about Selina Todd’s exclusion for lunch and breaks, so that the event can proceed.
But the audience in turn is frustrated that the two women doing the explaining don’t seem to grasp the outrageousness of the last minute disinvitation of Selina Todd.
The “explanation” in part is that Todd wasn’t on a panel or giving a talk, she was simply doing a two-minute thank you for the history department. That’s all! Two minutes! A thank you! It doesn’t count! One of them actually says it’s not a no-platforming if it’s only two minutes. I think that schedule with the conspicuous whiteouts tells a different story.
The main part of the “explanation” is that “people were pulling out” – and they had to decide, on very short notice, which would be the least disruptive thing to do. It’s not always possible to make out exactly what members of the audience are shouting back, but I think the gist of it is that they made the wrong choice. You can make out the word “bullying” quite often.
One of the women – the one who isn’t Tracy – explains that Selina and her history department colleague John were both going to say a thank you from the history department so the people in charge decided instead of both let’s just have John do it. At that point some shouts from the audience remind them that it’s a women’s conference.
It’s just a mess. These two women who are among those putting on this women’s liberation event and they appear to have no clue that it’s not ok to let men bully them into disinviting a woman from a women’s liberation event. “We told her she’s welcome to attend,” they keep insisting.
Very nice. Sixteen minutes of “You women need to sit down and shut up,” in front of a remarkable group of women who refuse to do either if it doesn’t suit them.
What a shameful display of cowardice. Their decision was wrong. They caved in to bullies who, having succeded in their aims to silence an ideological opponent, will now be emboldened to do the same thing again. Those speakers threatening to pull out do not deserve the protection of anonymity. Their vilification of Dr. Todd, the defamation of WPUK, and the blackmailing of the conference organizers does not merit the courtesy of their names being shielded from public knowledge, given the very public nature of the results of their behaviour. The organizers have now made each of the remaining presenters an accomplice by association to this act, as they seem to be unwilling to reveal the identities of those who threatened to boycott the conference. All are now under suspicion. If I were a speaker at this event, I would sure as hell want everyone to know that I was not a party to this outrage. As an attendee, I would ask each presenter if they had objected to Dr. Todds’s participation in the programme, and if so, on what grounds.
If the organizers had called their bluff, everyone would have known who had pulled out of the conference; by giving in to their extortionate demands, they spread the taint of complicity to all who speak at this event.
The history of the women’s movement can be looked at as a litany of efforts to overcome corrosive male points of view. For centuries, it would seem that men have felt free to define what women are as a means of control. They’ve also stacked the deck by established cultural precedents for how women get to act in their own defense or when seeking recognition. First of these is that women don’t get to act like men lest they be labeled in unflattering ways. Simply expressing the right to basic levels of equality is viewed as being shrill or worse.
If you combine this history with our current ‘assert and smear’ methodology for exacting social change in as fact free of an environment as possible, you get something that looks a bit like our current transgender rights movement. Suppression has always been about controlling the narrative about what women are with an eye roll anytime some uppity feminist begs to differ. The only difference is that it used to be ‘you women differ in this way from men so shut the fuck up. ‘ Replaced now with ‘women don’t really exist so shut the fuck up.’ You’re not unique so why on earth would you need special attention?
@Your Name’s not Bruce? – Yes, if you are going to be a shit, at least have the courage to be an open shit.
I don’t know, going around being uppity while not existing seems sort of unique to me.
“I don’t know, going around being uppity while not existing seems sort of unique to me.”
LOL
People were pulling out because someone they didn’t like was giving a two-minute thank-you message. Absolutely mind boggling. Go get a drink of water or use a conveniently gender neutral restroom if you don’t want to listen.
Transcript here:
https://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3835875-For-posterity-start-of-Womens-Liberation-50th-anniversary-conference-transcript
The room was not at capacity, yet every woman present spoke (if we including the vote of hands) to the effect that they preferred Selina’s inclusion rather than exclusion. Which means that the calculation made by the organisers came to the wrong conclusion. This much is plainly visible – all of the women* who attended wanted Selina’s inclusion, meaning if she had been included, attendance would not have fallen.
As usual, the influx of written complaints to the organisers turns out to be the screeching of the twitter crowd that was not going to attend anyway. They consider remote bullying their form of activism, and they are increasingly revealing themselves to be a paper tiger.
*If there were any attendees not raising their hands during the vote, I could not see them for the forest of raised hands