Who knows what a woman thinks about as she stitches? She may be lost in thought as she makes something beautiful. She may make hand sewn portraits using vibrant flowers. She may make art that shows vaginas with delicate beauty and colours of fire.
Her work is desirable and sold in the shop of a prestigious museum. Yet her thoughts which she sometimes blogs about, these terrible thoughts mean that now this work must be banned from the museum’s gift shop because it “conflicts” with the values of “Equality, Diversity and Inclusion” that the institution stands for.
I am , of course talking about the completely ludicrous decision by the shop of the Royal Academy to no longer stock the work of Jess De Wahls because she “cannot accept people’s unsubstantiated assertions that they are in fact the opposite sex to when they were born.” She thinks that being female is not simply a feeling.
Burn the witch!
Having grown up in East Germany, she knows something about censorship. Like many feminists she has no problem with gender non-conforming people. Indeed her father is such a person. Still ,the McCarthyite atmosphere continues and as her blog, not her actual work is deemed “transphobic” she must be punished. Again ,I say to those who argue that cancel culture does not exist, we continue to see women losing livelihoods over their perfectly valid views.
Maya Forstater won her case last week but clearly the Royal Academy does not understand the Equality Act. Nor do they mind hanging paintings on the wall by a man who bought girls from their mothers and gave them syphilis - Paul Gauguin – or selling his prints in their gift shop. Diverse? Inclusive? Equal? Eric Gill who sexually abused his daughters was an associate of the Royal Academy. Indeed the place is full of art made by those with views that certainly do not embody the mantra of values that every institution now intones .
Apparently only a handful of complaints were made about De Wahls work. I tried finding out more by getting in touch with the Royal Academy but nada…. One supposes they are just terrified of the gender inquisition.
As Chimamanda Ngozi Adchie wrote in her exquisite essay this week https://www.chimamanda.com “The assumption of good faith is dead. What matters is not goodness but the appearance of goodness”.
The sanctimonious hectoring of the twitter mob rallied by misogynists in nonsensical “columns” in my former paper, The Guardian by the useful idiots of patriarchy is starting to backfire. What the Royal Academy has achieved here is not even the appearance of goodness but the appearance of stupidity. Does any of this – the banning of textiles – help a single trans person?
I ordered a couple of De Wahls Heretic patches immediately and she may now sell even more than normal as she been bombarded with orders and messages of support. You can order from her or read about what she actually thinks here https://www.jessdewahls.com
The current insanity will only get worse before it gets better but the more it is exposed the more nutzoid it gets. This is not a re-run of the struggle for gay rights in the 80s at all , though that is the propaganda. Many women who have empathy with the marginalised still do not want to give up our spaces, our legal protections or how we define ourselves. What other civil rights movement has ever demanded this?
Far be it for me to contradict the thoughts of Mao Zedong but why the hell not? He said “A revolution is not a dinner party, or writing an essay ,or painting a picture, or doing embroidery”.
OK Chairman . These days an embroiderer is considered dangerous so I reckon something is up. Women who stitch ideas together are never to be underestimated.
Suzanne, please delete this if you want, I’m not sure about posting it here on your space.
My e-mail sent yesterday to two RA addresses, the education dept and the Press. Only the education dept have replied to acknowledge receipt. Am not expecting anything else!
Rebecca Salter, President, RA
Axel Rüger, Secretary & Chief Executive, RA
Dear Ms Salter and Mr Rüger,
I am writing to express my deep shock at the removal of the work of Jess De Wahls.
I am a retired art teacher. I have brought schoolchildren to the RA and visited many times over the years. I have so many cherished memories. So many great exhibitions. So much joy.
What message of archaic prohibition and silencing of women do you think this sends out to schools and to schoolchildren?
Any and all GCSE and A level students will, through their social media activity, have access to your action against Jess De Wahls. Ditto with degree students. You must be aware of the Reindorf Review a few weeks ago that set out the illegality of Stonewall’s advice as followed by its ‘Diversity Champions’ including Essex University who commissioned the independent review because of two women professors who were no-platformed following similar objections to those that led you to get rid of the work of a female artist in the RA shops.
I will not be renewing my membership on 30 November this year.
Your decision and the RA’s grovelling apology on social media is sickening.
I am so deeply upset by a decision that attacks feminism and a female artist’s work, some of which is focussed on celebrating the female body.
I wonder what Georgia O’Keefe would have made of your actions? Some of her work also celebrates a woman’s body. A radical woman who would probably today be labelled a feminist. She has been recognised as the ‘Mother of American modernism’. As you know.
O’Keefe is just one female artist that might have incurred the opprobrium of the people who demanded the removal of Jess De Wahls’ work.
You will know of more female, feminist artists. If they could all gather in one room and give their responses to your action against Jess De Wahls, I wonder what they would say?
You must be aware that this assault on a gender critical woman and on feminism is not progressive? It is not enlightened. It is the exact opposite. It is REgressive. It silences women. How could you do this? How could an art institution such as the RA, venerated and steeped in history, promoting art and its values, central to which is truth, commit such an act of despicable foolishness?
Under last week’s Forstater ruling, gender critical beliefs are protected in law. Are you aware of this?
I know that you have been sent a letter by the organisation Sex Matters; co-founded by Maya Forstater, who won the case to which I refer above.
This letter sets out the ruling. Perhaps it might help you to understand why your capitulation to the harassment you received resulting in your shameful action against Jess De Wahls is possibly illegal as it contravenes the protection set out in the Forstater ruling.
Here is a link to that letter in case whoever is reading my e-mail missed that useful information:
https://sex-matters.org/posts/the-workplace/the-royal-academy-and-belief-discrimination/
I hope that if the Royal Academy continues to stand by their regressive action of rank misogyny against a female, feminist artist, that you will immediately initiate an audit of all the artists whose work is shown in the galleries and represented in the gallery shops.
This audit should be to identify and remove any and all work by artists known to have been or who are misogynists and homophobes.
Based on your action against Jess De Wahls, that audit would at least show that you don’t discriminate against feminists alone.
I imagine that if you do not rescind your action of silencing Jess De Wahls, you will lose much respect if not membership and visitors by your shameful action against Jess. You have lost mine. My respect and my membership. And I am truly sad about that.
I hope that you will reconsider, rescind your action and recover your good name.
Regards,
Julia Van Coevorden
We seem to be living in the modern version of the Salem Witch Trials