So now Mumsnet deletes posts on the grounds that they're offensive to people with religious beliefs and MRA's(189 Posts)
On the circumcision thread a post of mine was deleted and when I asked mumsnet why, this was the response:
"While it is true that posts we don't tend to delete posts on the grounds of being in poor taste because it would be really hard to draw the line; we do as in this case remove posts that, in our judgement, are simply beyond the pale.
Your post was reported to us and tbh we felt that * (an offensive acronym for MRA's) was beyond the pale tbh, especially when added to the rest of your post which was also incredibly offensive to anyone with religious beliefs."
So basically, we are not allowed to post things which offend people's religious beliefs in conjunction with offending MRA's.
Just thought I'd let you all know. I'm not even annoyed about this, after last week's targeting I think it's obvious that MN really don't want radical feminism represented here.
"I reported a post on a thread recently when a very obvious 'MRA type' said about women 'crying rape' - for contravening the I Believe You Campaign. They did remove the post - which I was pleased about. "
Glad to hear that - I was beginning to lose faith.
So how about other extremist groups like the EDL? Would a post get deleted for naming them as the violent thugs they are. As a test here - The EDL are violent, racist thugs. Is this going to be deleted...
Or perhaps it is the changing of 'rape-culture-reinforcement-suggesting-a-vested-interest-that-looks-personal-and-a-bit-frightening' to 'rapey' that is the problem.
So perhaps if I say the EDL are 'violentish' that will be the real step too far..
I am unable to get where MNs line is here. MRAs are an extremist group FFS and their members troll around on MN all the time. Doesn't that concern HQ a bit?
Evening. And yes, of course, anyone trolling on MN concerns us - more than a bit.
But we think we're getting slightly off the point here.
We have no problem with robust criticism of MRAs but Fastidia's post actually read:
"An MRA is a Men's Rights Activist for those who asked. Although I prefer to think of them as Misogynist Rapey Arseholes."
We thought the use of "rapey" is this context was beyond the pale. Quite apart from the inference that they are all rapists (which, whatever we may think of them, is unlikely to be true), we read it as a phrase that trivialises rape.
We appreciate that some may disagree. But we made the decision in good faith and are happy to be transparent about our reasons.
Well, it's semantics really isn't it. But I'm sure you can see why some people might find it a bit offensive.
The distinction you make between MRAs and MREs is interesting, (And I think useful)
I am sure it is entirely possible to support mens rights and to feel men are discriminated against in some circumstances without actually hating or attacking women, being anti-feminist, trivialising rape etc
Much like being an animal rights supported wouldn't mean you wished to derail or trivialise human rights (the two not being mutually exclusive) whereas an extremist who fire bombed the home of a vivisectionist would be a bit different.
Although I can see, if you were having a discussion about human rights and an animal rights supporter kept popping up and saying "what about the cowz" it would be rather annoying.
I still wouldn't call them rapey though. For some reason it reminds me of children shouting "paedo" at odd, old men in the street. Immature, distasteful and trivalising something serious.
Anyway. Just my view.
Bubblesofbliss - I do agree with your summary of the word rapey - I personally have always seen it as an abbreviation of 'rape culture'. I've seen it used on many a feminist forum and never interpreted it as belittling or trivialising of actual rape - presumably because feminists do not trivialise actual rape.
But in the context used by the OP, was it not more suggesting that a group of men were likely to be rapists rather than just promoting rape culture?
Especially by going on to suggest such men had a "vested interest" in promoting rape culture (essentially saying they would wish to commit rape?)
Like saying a song is "rapey" is one thing as a song cannot actually commit rape but could promote rape culture, but saying a man is "rapey" suggest he is or would like to be a rapist?
I'm not defending the men in question, and didn't even see the original thread, I just find the word, in the context, used a bit much tbh.
I go on feminist forums all the time and today is literally the first time I've come across the idea that the word rapey trivialises rape, I've seen it used loads on feminist forums outside of Mumsnet.
But actually runningforthebus, I think you have a point - of course it's not seen as trivialising rape on feminist forums because everyone knows feminists don't trivialise rape (except Naomi Wolf ), whereas here on MN it's not a feminist space so I guess we can't take for granted that it's a space where rape isn't trivialised, so therefore it's reasonable for MN to believe that I was trivialising it, and if anyone else thought I was and was hurt by that, then I apologise.
Thanks for this Babyheave: "Based on the posting history of the OP, I'd be astounded if it was meant to dismiss women's experiences." I'd be pretty astounded myself!
catgirl1976 "I am sure it is entirely possible to support mens rights and to feel men are discriminated against in some circumstances without actually hating or attacking women, being anti-feminist, trivialising rape etc"
I strongly disagree with you here. The analogy is to say that it is entirely possible to support 'white' rights and to feel 'white people' are discriminated against in some circumstances without actually hating or attacking people of colour, being racist, trivialising hate-crime etc.
I do not believe it is possible to exclusively support the 'rights' of those who benefit as a group from the oppression of the other group, without also supporting the mechanisms of oppression.
It is possible to believe in furthering 'human rights' including all humans - both woman and men, but to separate out those who are already advantaged, then borrow the rhetoric of oppression is actually the behaviour of misogynists/racists/etc.
Men are not oppressed or denied rights by women, therefore they do not need to fight for their 'rights' as a group in relation to women.
MNHQ "We appreciate that some may disagree. But we made the decision in good faith and are happy to be transparent about our reasons."
I certainly don't want to trivialise rape - and it seems the term 'rapey' is not one MNers tend to seem familiar with and so is unlikely to catch on judging by the way it is taken very literally here.
But you get to judge HQ- your rules. I would like to know though what word we are allowed to use to describe actions and behaviour that promote rape culture/silences victims, aggressively violates, promotes male-entitled access to women's bodies etc. Because 'rape-apologist' has also been deleted in another thread.
Had I said "exclusively support", I would agree with you entirely
Fastidia - I would know instantly from your posting history, that you are a feminist, and absolutely would not trivialise rape. I'm actually surprised by MN's stance on this.
"Had I said "exclusively support", I would agree with you entirely"
Well with MENS Right Activists - the clue is in the name. Otherwise they would be 'Human Rights Activists HRA wouldn't they?
Catgirl, MRA's do exclusively support men's rights.
They don't support women's rights.
Not at all.
As I said on the other thread, Men's Rights Activism, like Whites Rights activism, came out of a group losing some of their privilege and feeling attacked by that, because automatic privilege was what they were used to. MRA's feel strongly, that women's rights are an attack on men.
It's worth bearing in mind that the Southern Poverty Law Centre has designated MRA groups as hate groups. There's a reason for that.
But I'm not sure people would always self-identify as such. You might get someone who just feels strongly about one view posting and getting called a "MRA" and then having that extended out to mean they are rapey.
Anyway. I'm not really interested in ending up defending MRAs, I have no desire or motivation to do so
I just don't like the term rapey in the context used. Nothing more.
er... isn;t it Mumsnet's site and therefore its up to them?
Perhaps you could sound off on another board if the rules here don;t agree with yours?
I had this conversation, regarding society deeming some words inappropriate for use 'in society' however individuals think about them with a year 9 boy whose family are from Pakistan when he came in shouting [can;t even type this] P@ki p@ki I am a raving p@ki.... The rules are there so that all feel as comfotable as possible.
You can say or think what you liek elsewhere surely.
Well yes, of course Mumblecrumble.
But i can sound off here too.
My gripe with the rules was my suspicion that they're not being consistently applied.
But hey, I accept that it's mumsnet's site and if they want to delete every single post I ever make, they can do that.
er... isn't it Mumsnet's site and therefore its up to them?
Of course whoever is set up with the power to delete posts gets to decide what they delete- but if they delete because they have got the wrong end of the stick, especially when it supports the agenda of an extremist group who regularly trolls the forums then I think its fair enough to say so.
'Well with MENS Right Activists - the clue is in the name. Otherwise they would be 'Human Rights Activists HRA wouldn't they'.
Well actually, they prefer to be known as MHRA's (Men's Human Rights Activists). But then you'd know that, as you seem to know them all so well .
What does the word "Human" add to the meaning of the name?
SigmundFraude "Well actually, they prefer to be known as MHRA's (Men's Human Rights Activists). But then you'd know that, as you seem to know them all so well ."
I am happy to report a level of distance which means I do not know what they individually or as a group 'prefer' these days.
But that does make me laugh 'Men's Human Rights'...ha ha
So what are men's 'non-human rights' that justify their need to make that distinction between those and their human ones?
Yeah...........either drop "mens" or drop "human"
Using both is just bonkers
Rubbish. I have never heard of 'men's human rights activists' but I'm not quite sure why calling it that makes it less, rather than more, misogynistically wankerish.
He he - its a bit like schoolchild like saying: 'Men's Truly Honestly Cross-My-Heart-And-Hope-To-Die Promise We Need Them Rights'.....
Men's Human People Rights....
Men's Human People Citizen Rights...
... ha ha ha ..
Sounds to me like they think Men are Human and the rest of us, well maybe aren't fully.
Join the discussion
Please login first.