'Liberal Feminism' subtopic

What makes you think liberal feminists all think TWAW? It really is a tiny minority view feminist or not.

I'm a bit hmmmm about a "liberal feminism " titled subsection if you are already deciding in advance what people should think and say there. Not sure how that works.

But maybe worth a try though if it stops people moaning.

If we have two separate feminist chat sections into let’s call them GC FWR and non GC FWR, then the TRAs will go after the GC section with bells on and it will be isolated and a lot easier to get rid of. It will be gone. And that will be one more place we can’t discuss women’s rights.

I don’t see why people can’t hide the threads, topics they don’t want to see and lurk on, post on, start topics on stuff they are interested in. It is good to see the full range of topics in feminism and I wouldn’t want to the threads to end up as arguments about whether this or that should be posted in the other section...

I don’t like AIBU so I hide it. I don’t ask MNHQ to make it friendlier... although I wish I could take it off bloody trending as as I get drawn in occasionally.

What I meant to add was, I do agree about the siege mentality and that can definitely seem off-putting to new posters. But if you understand how the board is genuinely under attack (and for all I grumble about the Special Rules, I am grateful to MN that we have this space) and how individual posters standing up for women’s rights and safeguarding are being picked off one by one by “gaming” of the reporting system by TRAs, and then also how many faux-disingenuous people join or start threads along the lines of “I’m so dumb about all this, please educate me” and then not very far in, reveal that they are not posting in good faith, you’d understand why we’re sometimes a bit suspicious or not welcoming with open arms. I can think of three particular posters who literally only ever turn up on FWR threads to posit a male-centric, why-can’t-you-women-be-nicer-or-quieter position with ever more reaching straw men arguments or false analogies. Engaging with them quickly demonstrates they are not coming at any debate from a different feminist position from GC; they simply don’t have a feminist position at all, because they think women should shut up.

So that’s what we’re up against in FWR, but that shouldn’t stop anyone from starting a thread on a topic important to them, GC or not.

I used to be put off by how academic the FWR board was. I didn’t go to university and I’m not particularly articulate. Then, as I got older and uglier and wiser, I thought “fuck it” and started a (very few, because someone has usually beaten me to whatever I want to discuss) threads and lo and behold! Other people posted on them. Some disagreed, some agreed. Just like a message board.

Of course threads about TRA activism and threats to safeguarding are front and centre at the moment, because it’s a huge threat to women and children’s rights, safety, health etc and how/if we can even define what a woman is. But there are also interesting discussions on other topics - the “modest fashion” thread ran for pages and pages, for instance.

So my opinion, FWIW, is that if you don’t like the tone of FemChat, post some threads you are interested in and see if they fly. If they don’t, a sub-section is unlikely to gain traction. If they do, problem solved

You get a few posters saying that they used to be gender critical/feminist/whatever, but having seen the shrieking, vitriol, pearl clutching on FWR, they've gone completely the other way.

I remember a long thread that was basically filled with 2 members doing this, on about how they were totally GC but FWR posters made them basically..TRAs instead. It was rather unbelievable but..each to their own.

They did not have one even slightly GC view between them, and I highly doubt that a few posters on a forum being 'nasty' would make your view on such an important topic totally 180, to the stage where you are sounding exactly like activists for the other view. I could understand maybe not wanting to post if it seems militant, but not at all the total change of views.

Mind, those posters did only 'come out' as people who 'used to be GC until feminists said something I didn't like' when it was pointed out that 'peak trans' only ever goes one way. All of a sudden, those people simply had to point out that it absolutely does go the other way, they were living proof, whilst spouting endless TRA tropes and showing not even one single GC viewpoint Spent hundreds of pages high fiveing each other, and coming out with endless MRA type views, obviously in an attempt to prove how they really did used to be feminists!

As for the topic, I wouldn't be opposed to a libfem section tbh. Though how would this 'no trans' thing be policed? Anything that veers into trans discussions moved to the main feminism part or something?

I would have thought, that in order to be any kind of feminist, you must be GC though. I cannot imagine anyone feminist who places any worth in regressive sex stereotypes and thinks that sex is totally irrelevant and instead being a woman depends on you being feminine, but maybe those do exist I guess.

When asked, there is no explanation of any 'disagreement', just complaints about tone, ad hominems, etc.

That's my experience of FWR too Datun.

"I never saw a Purple Cow,
I never hope to see one;
But I can tell you, anyhow,
I'd rather see than be one."

No. I've never seen it, because it doesn't tend to happen on FWR.

You get a few posters saying that they used to be gender critical/feminist/whatever, but having seen the shrieking, vitriol, pearl clutching on FWR, they've gone completely the other way. And are now far more likely to support the transgender ideology.

When asked, there is no explanation of any 'disagreement', just complaints about tone, ad hominems, etc.

FWR has always attracted people who want to goad. Its very existence annoys some people.

Really? I don't think we can have read the same thread

Yes, it was the same thread Cohle

I'm sure you find that distinction meaningful. To me it looks like splitting hairs.

Given that no- one, apart from you can have any notion of what you have seen or not seen, your comment is, to be blunt, of no use to anyone apart from you.

My comment?

It's the difference between 'I've never seen', and 'it never happens'.

One is my argument. The other is a strawman.

How else is your comment meant to be taken then?

This is what I said Dione

I've never seen people say it the other way round, unless goading.

This is how you appear to be interpreting it

So everyone who says it the other way round is goading?hmm

"goad
provoke or annoy (someone) so as to stimulate some action or reaction."

So everyone who says it the other way round is goading?

Dissagreement is not goading

Is it your assertion that the women on FWR are either too stupid or too dishonest to apprehend the difference between goading and disagreeing?

I've never seen people say it the other way round, unless goading.

Dissagreement is not goading.

it has come from lurkers - whose wish is to read material of interest to them and not to post at all.

Exactly. And it was those very same magazine article seekers who led to the loss of Dittany. Any of you reading this who participated in that hounding and then didn't contribute once your block was gone should be massively ashamed of yourselves. That there is still a call for another board is a reflection on you, not any "rad fems".

One of the useful things about the AIBU thread was that several people, who had never visited FWR because they been led to believe that bullying ran rife, were pleasantly surprised by the tenor of the discussion

Really? I don't think we can have read the same thread.

One of the useful things about the AIBU thread was that several people, who had never visited FWR because they been led to believe that bullying ran rife, were pleasantly surprised by the tenor of the discussion and had decided to visit and see for themselves smile

Indeed. And it happens a lot. When this issue comes up, you will get many posters on FWR saying I never used to bother, but then I looked and now I can't keep away.

I've never seen people say it the other way round, unless goading. I also don't understand why people get so annoyed about the board. It's an active annoyance, not indifference.

Thank you for your thoughtful post lottiegarbanzo yesterday - it rings a lot of bells with me.

Your suggestion that most of the complaints are coming from "lurkers" chimes with the fact that many people on the AIBU thread were saying things like, "I never post there - but I want it to change", "I hide the whole Board - but I want it to change", etc.

I have only been around on Mumsnet for about a year. Someone had recommended that I looked at "Feminism Women's Rights" on Mumsnet. There isn't anything officially called "FWR" or "Feminism Women's Rights" but there were several "Feminism" Boards so I had a look at them. Most of them were very quiet but "Feminist Chat" seemed busier.

"Feminist Chat" was the very last one that I expected to be about Feminism and Women's Rights - the "Chat" bit made me think it was going to be full of memes. Thank goodness it is not. There is more than enough of that elsewhere on the internet. Later I noticed that the URL is "Talk/womens_rights/" so I knew that I had found the Board that had been recommended to me - even if the name seemed odd.

I lurked for a few months before I bothered to join and I learned a lot.

One thing I learned was that a bizarre phenomenon that I had assumed (honestly!) had been dreamed up by the Tabloid Press and Lads Mags was actually a "thing", was seriously considered to be a form of Feminism: "Third Wave Feminism". It was only then that I understood why some women on Social Media had in their bio "Feminist. Not the fun kind".

"Feminist Chat" is still functioning as a "Feminism Women's Rights" Board. I would be all for restoring the name except that it would probably now invite interminable "TWAW" disruptions.

I do not think it makes sense to create yet another Feminism Board, for the reasons detailed by lottiegarbanzo yesterday and the concerns mentioned by TheBewildernessisWeetabix above.

However, if that happened then, as "`Feminism Women's Rights" has been trivialised by renaming it "Feminist Chat", the new Board should not be dignified by calling it "Liberal Feminism", but should be equally trivialised by calling it "Fun Feminism".

The problem is that, whatever a proposed new board was called, Mumsnet (a Parenting Forum) would be hosting a board that explicitly welcomes those who advocate that "Sex Work is Work". Promoting porn on a Parenting Forum is surely going to alienate Advertisers rather more than the occasional unsubstantiated allegation of "transphobia"?

One of the useful things about the AIBU thread was that several people, who had never visited FWR because they been led to believe that bullying ran rife, were pleasantly surprised by the tenor of the discussion and had decided to visit and see for themselves

Ha ha. Maybe people who want 'general / other / let's not get hung up on other people's identity politics - feminst chat' should just get on with chatting, in Feminist Chat... and see what happens.

I know there have been some examples of threads not going the way posters wanted but my overwhelming impression of this whole discussion is that it has come from lurkers - whose wish is to read material of interest to them and not to post at all.

Does anyone fall into exactly 1 camp

I wouldn’t have thought many people do

The problem with designating a section of the forum Liberal Feminism is, I think, that it would invite advocates of porn and prostitution under the guise of being choose your choice commercially branded feminism.

I think it's a pretty awful idea. There is already Feminist Support, Feminist Theory, Feminist Book Club, and Feminist Activism which almost no- one posts on.

Feminist chat was not designed to be solely for radical feminists. If liberal feminists want to post there they have every right to do so and should do so.

Does anyone fall into exactly 1 camp? I'm not on board with most of the "gender critical" stuff but on "sex work is work" stuff I agree with radical feminists.