11

It used to be corporations. Now it’s “a family of sponsors” (according to Wikipedia), which sounds like deliberate obfuscation.

I wonder if their championing of fetishist novelist Peters has something to do with where the money comes from.

It used to be corporations. Now it’s “a family of sponsors” (according to Wikipedia), which sounds like deliberate obfuscation. I wonder if their championing of fetishist novelist Peters has something to do with where the money comes from.

7 comments

[–] BluecatSarah 4 points (+4|-0)

On their website there are two sponsors named, and a lot of former winners & judges. You can also find the longlist, which must include the woman who got replaced by a fetishistic TIM.

I think there's a good case to a) write to all the sponsors, winners & judges b) write to the agents of the women who were longlisted (check none are TIMs). Because any one of them could have had a shortlisted woman writer, and doesn't.

It will take a bit of research to find out who is who. If nobody minds I'll have a go at it, but probably not before the weekend.

[–] Diavola 4 points (+4|-0)

It's still corporations - they're just using "family" instead of "group". It looks like it's just Bailey's and NatWest at the moment. They also have partners, who provide support like venues, etc.

[–] madderthanhell 5 points (+5|-0)

It looks like it's just Bailey's and NatWest at the moment.

Not so sure about that. Note the phrasing: "Our current family of sponsors includes" Bailey's and NatWest

[–] LadyGlum 3 points (+3|-0)

Are we writing to these sponsors to show how offensive this is? It'd be great if we could compile a full list and let them know how harmful this is to women.

[–] LepistaNuda 0 points (+0|-0)

If we could just figure out who they are. Funny some don't seem to be proud of their participation.