Why do you allow blatant sexism to go unchecked?

[MissingHaversham]

I've read the explanation in the dv thread, but don't really understand the reasoning. Racism is not a personal attack either, but is deleted anyway.

This is the best place I know online, but this policy of allowing hateful posts about women and not tackling the obvious MRA trolls is starting to leave a bad taste. I know you don't comment, SS and all that, but whatever you are doing doesn't seem to be working. The MRA trolls don't even try to pretend they're not anymore because they've realised there are no sanctions.

The feminism board was absolutely battered by this, and individual posters were driven away, but nothing was done. Now it's the relationships board that's in the firing line and, again, it seems nothing will be done.

It seems really inconsistent to run campaigns like the don't sexualise our girls one, and yet allow blatant and aggressive sexism to flourish unchecked on your boards.

Perhaps if you would explain this beyond the personal attack/offence dichotomy, which doesn't stand up anyway, it might help. As it stands, it does feel as though you've rather moved on from behaving as though your community matters to you.

Hello.

Gosh, we're sorry you feel this way.

And nothing could be further from the truth: our community is central to all that matters to us.

OK, first off, we're assuming you did report these hateful posts to us?

We haven't had any reports from that DV thread since yesterday morning, I believe, but we'll go and take another look now.

Secondly, please don't think that we take thread derailing/trolling any less seriously than personal attacks. We don't.

It's just that personal attacks are (relatively) simply to deal with, once they're reported.

Reports of suspected trollery/derailment take longer to deal with, as we have to investigate and build up a picture of posting history.

As you know, and as we say in our Talk Guidelines, we tend to err on the side of caution and prefer to give everyone the benefit of the doubt until we're pretty sure we can prove otherwise. We acknowledge that this can be pretty frustrating/uncomfortable at times but, the more you report to us, the more quickly, generally speaking, we can get ourselves in the picture.

Which posts on the DV thread (this one?) do you think are sexist?

The one that seems to have caused the biggest reaction is this one:

'Not to sound like an MRA but if you asked all this men why they killed their partner/ex-partner, you could bet many reasons would involve false dv allegations, unfair divorce asset splits and child custody disputes'

Which is wanky, but it's not saying that women 'deserve' DV or other kinds of brutality. It's saying, incorrectly IMO, that a certain dynamic in the access/separation system feeds into brutality.

It's not the same as saying 'black people deserve racist violence' (which would obviously be deleted); it's the same as saying 'if you asked white racists why they carry out violent attacks, you could bet many of the reasons would involve positive discrimination, minority families getting privileged access to state housing etc' - which would be similarly incorrect, but also not deletable.

Bean, that posters first post was "I knew the madradfems would show up with their 2 women a week number. The irony is that fems have the power to stop this.... yet they won't. like they want women to take one for the team" I think that's both an attack and sexist.

Helen, thanks for your response. One thing I don't understand though is that even when the MRA trolls have announced their plans on their own site/s, i.e. closing down the feminism board, driving named posters away, they were able to go about it anyway. Links were provided, it was pretty obvious stuff.

I do get that this is trickier than personal attacks, but believe that it's just as important, if not more so. MN might be famously sharp edged, but this stuff engenders a hostile atmosphere, which is something entirely different.

@MissingHaversham

Helen, thanks for your response. One thing I don't understand though is that even when the MRA trolls have announced their plans on their own site/s, i.e. closing down the feminism board, driving named posters away, they were able to go about it anyway. Links were provided, it was pretty obvious stuff.

Yes, that's true. And, trust us, many of those who joined a while back with that purpose clearly in mind or whom we could link clearly back to those published plans were banned. Lots of them. And rebanned when they came back.

It's certainly possible that they may have come back again. Or that there may be new ones of their ilk who have joined. Please don't think we're not looking, checking and acting, where appropriate, when you flag up possible 'contenders'.

That said, just because there may be people joining MN deliberately to inflame/troll, it doesn't mean we're going to waive our other rules about not making personal attacks/not trollhunting etc etc.

Reports of suspected trollery/derailment take longer to deal with, as we have to investigate and build up a picture of posting history.

I don't understand this.
Why do you need to know that they are here specifically to cause trouble before deleting the posts that are offensive? If a post is offensive it is offensive? Irrespective of that posters intentions or whether they are acting as a troll or not?

Some of the posts on that DV thread were dangerously inaccurate. To allow them to stand is absurd. As the victim of DV and as a woman i take them personally and feel attacked. Why do you fail to act?

@ValarMorghulis

Reports of suspected trollery/derailment take longer to deal with, as we have to investigate and build up a picture of posting history.

I don't understand this.
Why do you need to know that they are here specifically to cause trouble before deleting the posts that are offensive? If a post is offensive it is offensive? Irrespective of that posters intentions or whether they are acting as a troll or not?

Some of the posts on that DV thread were dangerously inaccurate. To allow them to stand is absurd. As the victim of DV and as a woman i take them personally and feel attacked. Why do you fail to act?

We tend not to delete posts just because they're offensive (however much we, individually, may want to) - unless they break our Talk Guidelines. That's been our stance since Mumsnet began.

Neither do we tend to delete inaccurate posts - partly because (say on a medical thread) we wouldn't presume to be able to rule on all matters of accuracy, and partly because we've found that it's better to let other posters correct inaccuracies. That way, the ignorant few who may be following the thread, not posting but nodding in agreement with the inaccuracies, can be corrected, too.

Is there a particular post still standing on that DV thread that you think should be deleted, ValarMorghulis? If so, please do report it and we'll take a look.

It's been reported this week that an increase in negative rhetoric about people with disabilities has led to an increase in verbal attacks and threats on the streets. There's a piece in the guardian today about flaming of feminists online escalating to threats of violence and the circulation of personal details Sian Norris

If there is, as it appears, a link between the tolerance of offensive comments online and real life harm, would you reconsider your stance? Is there any reason why you can't decide what will and won't be tolerated on Mumsnet? While you don't use moderators, the fact that you do delete means its not a free for all as it stands now.

It is the entire tone of posts by both the OP and ken.

As i said on that thread, there are women out there who are desperate for someone to tell them that it is their fault they are hit. That if they just learn t behave better the their beloved husband will stop being a bastard.

they wont be "educated" by the masses. They will only see the posts that tell them what they want to hear.

I do believe that allowing that thread to stand is dangerous

Missing Haverhsam that is a very good point.
There was a thread recently where a poster used outdated and offensive (albeit i think mistakenly and without malice) terminology to describe an adult with Learning delay.

MNHQ dd eventually step in and alter the thread title. But what was most upsetting for me was that there were so many Mners posting to say that her use of those words was fine. That it didn't matter. That those who were upset by the initial post were over reacting and "professionally offended"

By having a very strong stance on the sort of language and behaviours that are acceptable on YOUR forum sends a very clear message about how people use the site.
Whilst people are free to hold any opinion they wish, it is not their right to spout it on YOUR site. I really do feel that your loyalty should be to the comfort of the majority rather than the freedom to offend held by a few.

I read the OP on the DV thread and couldn't see anything wrong with it - and then I read the rest of the thread, and now I understand a bit better what was wrong with the OP.

If the OP or the thread had simply been deleted, I and probably lots of other people would have been absolutely none the wiser.

The problem with deleting 'offensive' material willy-nilly is that there won't be much left. What about 'whining lefties' or 'fucking tories' or 'self-righteous MRA mansplainers' or 'disablist bigots' or 'breastapo' - all of these terms will be offensive to someone. I don't much like the argument that terms or views that some feminists find particularly offensive need to be treated in an entirely different way. And I reckon the great majority of posters on MN would agree with me on that one.

MN is one of the very few places on in the internet that manages to combine MOSTLY civilised debate with MOSTLY unmoderated threads. If the mods here start deleting things that self-appointed monitors find 'offensive' then lots of people like me will be off, I reckon. (I'm a feminist, and I'm not remotely offended by anything on that DV thread. I think some of it is utter crap, but I'm not offended and I don't see anything that incites hatred or violence, though I accept that that's a matter of perspective.)

Beanabouttown - I think that you are lucky enough to have excaped the utter tragedy of listening to a woman talk to you through a wired jaw and painkillers telling you that it is her own fault. That he only does this to her because she makes him angry. That she believes that her husband will change.

The posts by the OP and ken on that thread will shout out to women like that and they are the only ones they will see.
They will take that as an independent verification that they are right to stay with the man who has just hospitalised them.

escaped

no idea how you excape anything.

There are no mods here, Bean. However, admin do delete posts and threads based on reportlegend guidelines and their own judgement. I don't think that ensuring that the guidelines are followed in the case of sexism would lead to your scenario. There's a lot of room between anything goes and 'deleting stuff willy nilly'. I think MNHQ generally get it right, I just think they're dropping the ball on sexism and disablism.

Thank you Misshaversham for posting this.

MNHQ I would urge you to reread the offensive posts by ken on the thread in question, and please say how they can NOT contravene your talk guidelines. I quoted those oft quoted guidelines on the other thread.

MNHQ have deleted idiotic threads (like where everyone was saying 'mitmoo') as it contravened the general rule of 'to make parents lives easier'. Why can you not delete offensive people who are DELIBERATLEY here to wind people up.

it is a thread encouraging victims of violence to stay with their abusers. how do you not find that offensive? it's not a matter of personal tastes or anything like the analogies given. it's dangerous advice given women could die if they followed it

then there is the poster who thinks the way to prevent women being murdered is for them to give a violent and abusive unfettered access to their children. re: do as you're told and don't try to protect your children from abuse and you'll be allowed to live.

i'm surprised anyone could think that's not offensive or beyond the pale (to coin a phrase).

@GetOrfMoiiLand

Thank you Misshaversham for posting this.

MNHQ I would urge you to reread the offensive posts by ken on the thread in question, and please say how they can NOT contravene your talk guidelines. I quoted those oft quoted guidelines on the other thread.

MNHQ have deleted idiotic threads (like where everyone was saying 'mitmoo') as it contravened the general rule of 'to make parents lives easier'. Why can you not delete offensive people who are DELIBERATLEY here to wind people up.

We have read them, GetOrf. And we think you'll find a fair few of them are not there any more. Because they broke our guidelines.

Re offensive people who are deliberately here to wind people up: you can be 100% sure that, if we though that was the case, those people will have had, at the very least, a very stern email from us asking them to change the way they are posting. If they didn't reply or didn't change the way they are posting, they would be banned.

'how do you not find that offensive? it's not a matter of personal tastes' - this is quite revealing, i think. It is absolutely a matter of personal taste whether you think something like that is sufficiently dangerous to warrant immediate censorship (as opposed to believing that allowing the issue to be explored will result in greater enlightenment all round).

There are plenty of people on MN who, just as you do, have very dearly-held personal belief systems. Most of us would love it if MN deleted posts that attacked these belief systems. Most of us could construct elaborate arguments to justify censorship on the grounds that certain beliefs present real physical danger to [insert group of choice here].

For instance, those who are passionate about breastfeeding could construct a very good argument that any post in favour of formula feeding should be deleted; there is, after all, incontrovertible evidence that ff results in worse outcomes for babies, and is therefore de facto dangerous for them. Do you think all posts that aren't condemnatory about ff should be deleted? My guess is that you don't.

The point is, none of this is a science. It's belief. It's politics. You may believe what you believe with all your heart and soul, but you don't have a right to impose your beliefs on everyone else.

Glad those posts have gone now.

Bean, I don't think it's quite as simple as that. The law is quite clear that 'free speech' does not mean you are free to say whatever the hell you like. It's why we have laws to do with inciting hatred, etc.

In terms of persecution of vulnerable groups, there is a well-documented scale of prejudice: ranging from bad-mouthing, through avoidance, discrimination, physical attack and finally extermination (e.g. concentration camps of WWII). See wiki link for more explanation.

Consider women's status through history, the discrimination they have faced and continue to receive, the fact that honour killings still take place worldwide and that here in the UK 1 in 9 women will be raped and 1 in 4 will be assaulted by a partner/ex-partner. Where on the scale do you think women fit? Despite equal rights legislation, women remain a vulnerable group. Yet threats to women are not taken as seriously as threats to other vulnerable groups.

Hate speech needs to be taken much more seriously when it applies to women. I always think a good rule of thumb is to replace the sexes with racial colour and see what reaction it provokes in you then. If a comment warrants removal when talking about race, the same should apply for sexism.

A post asserting that if women give men what they ask for then the murder rate will go down is not akin to ff v bf, Bean. You say you're a feminist, yet you're minimising kens posts as fast as you can. I don't get it, could you try and explain?

bean to state the obvious formula feeding and dv are very different things. domestic violence can result in death, it can result in having your children taken into care and causes real damage. you are trivialising something very serious with analogies that do not stand.

it is very much science not belief that domestic violence is dangerous and damaging.

seriously how can it be asserted that advising women to stay and keep their children with a violent abuser is not dangerous? let alone how it can be compared to preferences on feeding your baby. the only analogy with feeding would be if it was someone arguing that it's ok to give a newborn baby a packet of salt and vinegar crisps.