Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Site stuff

Join our Innovation Panel to try new features early and help make Mumsnet better.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

Deleted for calling someone out on gender stereotyping

137 replies

Feenie · 06/04/2018 11:16

Absolutely appalled. I called a poster out for posting the worst kind of gender stereotyping bollocks (possibly exact words) and was deleted.

Wtaf?

I didn't contravene any guidelines, unless we 're adding swearing now. I merely said that the post was 'a load of gender stereotyping bollocks'. Which it was. That was it. Which guidelines does that contravene? I'm very happy to be deleted if required, but come on!

OP posts:
picklemepopcorn · 13/04/2018 07:54

I wonder whether the heating up of the trans debate has meant that there is less time to consider each individual decision? More decisions being made on the fly, without going back to get the context.

The number of decisions made on an hourly basis at MNHQ, there are bound to be some borderline or disagreeable ones.

shakeyourcaboose · 13/04/2018 07:48

Oh lols @Lweji totes agree hunni....xoxox

Am l getting new lingo right? Cannot bring self to use hun as has total different connotations here in Scotland!

user789653241 · 13/04/2018 07:43

@Feenie, I reported and expressed my thought to MNHQ. They have responded to me while ago. It was actually very sincere, and they said they are discussing about the matter.
Sadly they came to the conclusion that non of us expected, but at least it took days to come to the decision, which seems like decision wasn't made easily.

CoteDAzur · 13/04/2018 07:29

"while it's not ok to call someone an arse, its fine to say 'Your post makes you sound like an arse because...'"

You see, in my mind there is absolutely no difference between You are an arse because you just said that and Your post makes you sound like an arse. She is called an arse either way.

MrPan · 13/04/2018 07:28

Exchanging emails with the aggrieved party is often a good practice. Often an explanation without a hoo-har on the boards is the best way to manage stuff without further drama.

AndhowcouldIeverrefuse · 13/04/2018 07:20

I was thinking that Lweji. There were so many truly vile posts on the latest royal wedding thread yesterday - report report report = thread zapped, move on to the next one.

Lweji · 13/04/2018 07:17

It looks like I'll start reporting right and left because I don't like the tone of the post.

It will all be x and o here
Xoxoxoxox

EmpressOfJurisfiction · 13/04/2018 05:13

Back in the day, JustineMumsnet said that while it's not ok to call someone an arse, its fine to say "Your post makes you sound like an arse because..." and then use robust debate.

Does that still stand? Attacking the post, not the poster?

PalePinkSwan · 13/04/2018 03:31

Nope, no response at all to that report. I have two boys and agree that saying “Sadly, you have a boy” is really rude.

Original poster
Feenie · 12/04/2018 23:21

Thanks for posting the link. I’ve just reported the “sadly you have a boy” post on the grounds that it is gender stereotyping bollocks and shouldn’t be allowed on mumsnet. Will see if I get a response.

Palepinkswan, did MN get back to you on that?

OP posts:
Original poster
Feenie · 12/04/2018 23:18

The crux of MNHQ's argument seems to be that, as the poster was being helpful, the stereotyping was fine and so being rude about the sentiment was 'a bit much'. Still struggling with that - particularly the opening phrase of 'He's a boy and sadly for you....', which was (as FlyingBird pointed out) just staggeringly rude and just fucking wrong. Makes me cross all over again.

OP posts:
paxillin · 12/04/2018 21:41

I doubt such a clarification would protect you from deletion or ban, @CoteDAzur. The talk guidelines need an update. They are so hazy that everything can be shown to break them or comply.

CrochetBelle · 12/04/2018 18:36

@YetAnotherBeckyMumsnet

Is the reporter of Feenie's comment an employee/advertiser/friend of MNHQ by any chance?

Otherwise, I really cannot understand the completely bollocks decision.

yawning801 · 12/04/2018 18:01

MNHQ, how do you decide when someone's being inappropriate or when the reporter is being a snowflake? Is it report = zap or report = check out = possible zap?

CoteDAzur · 12/04/2018 17:15

I find MNHQ's deletions of the past couple of years very puzzling and don't post much these days except on books& music threads for this reason. It feels like I am one controversial thread from a ban, and could easily get there if several people report my posts. It doesn't seem to matter whether those posts are really against Talk Guidelines or not.

I'm waiting for a clarification of the new rules on a thread such as this one, to go back to posting las before.

PalePinkSwan · 12/04/2018 16:57

So what we’ve learned from this debacle is...

  • reporting is anonymous, unless MNHQ decide to tell everybody who reported, in which case it’s not anonymous at all
  • posting gender stereotyping bollocks is ok, pointing out gender stereotyping bollocks is not ok
  • MNHQ unanimously totally disagree with all the users who’ve bothered to express an opinion on this.

Been a regular for years and years, really unimpressed with recent decisions.

AndhowcouldIeverrefuse · 12/04/2018 16:57

OK. Right Hmm

NotAgainYoda · 12/04/2018 16:54

Feenie - i'm with you. It was heavy-handed deletion. It was bollocks stereotyping.

I think MNHQ recently wants to legislate against strong emotions. I find this a bit strange, since AIBU is full of outright rudeness about subjects which aren't important or emotionally engaging in any way.

I think that if MNHQ is serious in addressing ill-humour, it should start there

Coconutspongexo · 11/04/2018 21:05

Basically stereotyping is fine on MN calling stereotyping bollocks is NOT fine.. ok good to know

Lweji · 11/04/2018 18:07

we still read the post (we can still see it on our system) as being unnecessarily aggressive given that the thread was asking for support for a child who was struggling to learn.

But the post wasn't directed at the OP on that thread. It was a strong reaction to a post that is clearly gender stereotyping boys.
Even if boys in general behave as the pp described, the pp couldn't possibly say if that generic observation applied to a specific boy.
So, yes, it was bollocks for two reasons.

WorraLiberty · 11/04/2018 16:54

Ahh ok. Thanks for the clarification Helen

Original poster
Feenie · 10/04/2018 19:22

Thanks for explaining again, Helen, although I remain amazed by the decision.

It's very telling, though, that such an unanimous decision at MNHQ's end has not one single solitary post in support of it on either this or on the original thread.

Not one.

OP posts:
TheOnlyLivingBoyInNewCross · 10/04/2018 18:35

Well, that’s you told, isn’t it, Feenie hun?

Now off you go and sort out some pink fairy unicorns for your lil girl, and some nice blue trucks for your lil man.

💙💙 #boys willbeboys 💙💙

Lol

MNHQ
YetAnotherHelenMumsnet · 10/04/2018 12:46

Hi everyone,

Reporting is anonymous, as anyone who has reported to us over the years knows. We made an error in making it less so there as we thought it would be helpful in explanation. Our mistake, for which we sincerely apologise. (Nor are any of us interns, fwiw, but even oldies make mistakes.)

As to the fact of the deletion, we do stand by it, sorry. We have always taken context into account when deleting and having canvassed the team we still read the post (we can still see it on our system) as being unnecessarily aggressive given that the thread was asking for support for a child who was struggling to learn.

WorraLiberty · 07/04/2018 19:01

Hi Becky

Could you answer a question for me please?

The OP's email says... We had been asked to take a look at your post by the person who had written their advice on educating boys, and when we read it we did agree with them that your post was a bit much.

So does that mean that reporting is not anonymous after all?