Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Civility, reasonableness, and those rules

260 replies

TheProdigalKittensReturn · 23/09/2019 20:35

So, since I'm most likely on my way out anyway, why not start a conversation about this? I just received a warning/threat for posting a Widow Twanky joke (not directed at any specific person) in a thread. Not sure which one, because the very keen to enforce deference upon women person who sent it forgot to include a link to the thread they were complaining about, maybe Munroe Bergdorf and the silly FB ad? Anyway, apparently this breaks the guidelines, which does rather raise the point of whether those guidelines are in any way fit for purpose. You're trying to ban jokes? On this site? On any British site? You are aware that our pointed humor is somewhat of a national trait and something we're often admired for in other parts of the world?

I think that this is neither reasonable nor constructive, and I do not agree that it in any way helps to facilitate debate. I also do not think it's reasonable or constructive to have moderation that enables the targeting and therefore harassment of specific users with the aim of preventing them from participating in the debate. Numerous longtime commenters have been picked off this way, the most recent one being Lass (a person who I often disagreed with but respected, and who deserved the right to speak). This space is less interesting and less useful as a result of their being removed at the behest of angry TRAs and/or regular old blokes who don't like women critiquing the sex industry (which I assume is what happened to Lass).

Apparently MNHQ recently had a big internal conversation about this (or at least they said they were going to), and what has emerged is a continuance of the special rules that only apply to feminists being applied in a way that censors women's opinions and stifles debate in order to avoid upsetting male people with delicate egos. Do we think this is reasonable?

(If I vanish you know why - suspended for insubordination. If I can peak a few more people on the way out then I'm absolutely fine with that. I am still Spartacus.)

OP posts:
CharlieParley · 23/09/2019 22:36

Why do we have to be mindful of the hurt feelings of men claiming womanhood but our hurt feelings at men having the audacity to claim womanhood are not to be considered at all?

Especially given that their claim is to a womanhood which most of us have long since rejected and many have fought against - one that is based entirely on superficial, outdated sex stereotypes.

This is a double insult to women:

  • men claiming womanhood
and
  • men claiming womanhood by embracing the very same sex stereotypes that the male sex class has used to oppress the female sex class for centuries

And yet we are expected to acquiesce to these insults and to meekly turn the other cheek for even more insults arising from this in the name of "constructive discussion", "civility" and "reasonableness". Or leave. Or be banned if we stay and do not comply.

In my view, it's unreasonable, incivil and not the least bit constructive to force us to accept this.

I am sticking to the rules, because it's MN's space and like all members on membership sites under someone else's control, I am here only on condition of following the rules. Just wanted to say though that my compliance doesn't mean I think these rules are fair, civil or reasonable for women.

littlbrowndog · 23/09/2019 22:36

Special rules for special men 🤷‍♀️🤷‍♀️🤷‍♀️

Original poster
TheProdigalKittensReturn · 23/09/2019 22:35

I see all sort of dreadful stuff on AIBU. Slagging of singers , soap stars etc

I've seen all sorts of nasty stuff about Megan Markle and she's royalty, technically. So apparently in the current British heirarchy of who you really don't dare offend trans people outrank the royals. And isn't that interesting?

OP posts:
Original poster
TheProdigalKittensReturn · 23/09/2019 22:34

It's kind of ironic that it's a Widow Twanky joke that's prompted me to go "nope, fuck that, not having this, ban me if you like" but really, it's just so stupid and petty and illustrates the absurdity of the special rules so well.

OP posts:
RufusthebewiIderedreindeer · 23/09/2019 22:33

It's obvious the more articulate posters are being picked off and targeted. It's bullying

Yep

Forgot that one

littlbrowndog · 23/09/2019 22:33

The truth is not a hate crime

LangCleg · 23/09/2019 22:32

Datun - I'll bet a pound to a penny that, as usual, (straight) answer came there none. Because everyone already knows it's not fair.

littlbrowndog · 23/09/2019 22:32

And protected from what. The truth. ?

littlbrowndog · 23/09/2019 22:32

I see all sort of dreadful stuff on AIBU. Slagging of singers , soap stars etc

Yet how do the special men get protected on here.

Why do they get protected.?

Ineedacupofteadesperately · 23/09/2019 22:31

I agree with everything everyone has said on this thread. I can't be more articulate because am feeling too tired after dealing with a lot of stuff in real life today to walk on eggshells and what I want to say will be deleted so I'll keep it brief.....

The mods should do the freedom programme.

It's obvious the more articulate posters are being picked off and targeted. It's bullying.

The modding on FWR is clearly different to the rest of the site

NotBadConsidering · 23/09/2019 22:29

It’s been said and suggested time and again, but lurking TRAs should not be able to report. It’s control over us posters here that exists nowhere else.

Original poster
TheProdigalKittensReturn · 23/09/2019 22:24

From MNHQ. Unsigned and with the template they used not properly filled in (they forgot to link the thread they were complaining about), which is interesting. Perhaps if you're going to be unreasonable it feels better not to sign your name to it.

OP posts:
hooowl · 23/09/2019 22:22

OP sorry if I'm being dense but you said you'd received a warning/threat - from a random person or from MNHQ with the threat presumably being to ban your good self?

Datun · 23/09/2019 22:16

I would like to ask HQ something on the back of this:

Can you explain what it is you are worried about happening?

Or if you genuinely think this is fair?

Justine Roberts is on record saying she supports free speech. Can you explain why this appears to apply to everyone, generally, apart from people talking about trans issues?

Is it the concern over litigation? And if so, can you clarify what legislation you think you might be in danger of violating?

I'm struggling to come up with a reason why you can't say, publicly, what is happening behind-the-scenes. If you are being targeted, surely acknowledging that, can't possibly count against you?

I know this is an ongoing issue. As if you can't explain, is it possible to explain why you can't explain?

If you genuinely think you're being fair, can you clarify why, in reality, the women here get sanctions for things they don't get elsewhere on the site.

Original poster
TheProdigalKittensReturn · 23/09/2019 22:11

PS Jack of beanstalk fame is a girl, at least in panto, even if he's strapped his breasts down.

(We're usually allowed to say that, though, because who cares if girls complain? Certainly not the people in charge of writing and enforcing the special rules.)

OP posts:
BernardBlacksWineIceLolly · 23/09/2019 22:08

i'll be slapping my thigh soon......

and yes Rufus, if the rules aren't clear and seem to change from day to day......well how can posters know what's going on?

if people make themselves look ridiculous, they will attract ridicule. while it may not be kind, it's human nature

and taking the piss out of people who've made themselves look like twerps is a MN tradition. except under certain circumstances it seems

LangCleg · 23/09/2019 22:07

I'm fucking fed up with being told I'm one of the Ugly Sisters by.... [self censor].

There. Another fucking panto joke.

(I'm too fed up with making sensible posts about this only for them to go unacknowledged. So panto jokes it is. It's either that or plain speaking about material reality. Pick one, mods, pick one.)

Original poster
TheProdigalKittensReturn · 23/09/2019 22:04

Topics to discuss include...

Why do we need a different set of rules for talking about trans stuff?

Why are trans people entitled to an extra level of deference that no other group receives?

Why is even the mildest suggestion that a particular trans person isn't the Stunning part of Stunning and Brave unacceptable, when female celebrities are ripped to shreds all over Mumsnet over their looks?

Why is "misgendering" against the rules? Does Mumsnet consider it reasonable and constructive to force its users to lie? (If this was a court we'd call that perjury.)

Why are non users allowed to report comments? Is that reasonable? How do we think that might contribute to a constructive atmosphere, given that we already know that this board is obsessively monitored by individuals such as Hayden, Prior, etc?

Why are the people who comment here (ie. the actual content providers, the reason why MN makes money from advertisers) expected to adhere to a strict and often contradictory house style in terms of how they're expected to say things? Those people do not work for MN - if they're to be expected to follow a MN style guide perhaps MN should pay them to do so, as that's an expectation normally reserved for employees?

Has anyone on the mod team every done the Freedom Program that MN constantly promotes? If not, why not?

There are more, please feel free to add. On another thread if necessary, since I'm sure both the thread and I will be vanished as soon as the main mod team comes online in the morning?

(Still Spartacus, but also Magdalen, since apparently we can identify as anything we want and as Pip Bunce has informed us, it can change from one day to the next.)

OP posts:
littlbrowndog · 23/09/2019 22:04

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

RufusthebewiIderedreindeer · 23/09/2019 21:59

I bet we could fill a thread with panto references

Even just the ‘oh no it isn’t’ bit

RufusthebewiIderedreindeer · 23/09/2019 21:56

And i do get that the mods are between a rock and a hard place

Virtually all my interactions with them have been lovely

Its just that this, this isn’t fair

Ooh look an apostrophe!

TinselAngel · 23/09/2019 21:55

They're behind you!

Etc

RufusthebewiIderedreindeer · 23/09/2019 21:54

panto references are out now?

Oh no they aren't

Oh yes they are

StroppyWoman · 23/09/2019 21:54

All power to you, Prod

RufusthebewiIderedreindeer · 23/09/2019 21:53

Hey kittens

I’ll reiterate for the cheap seats

The rules are not fair

The rules are not transparent

If the rules aren’t transparent then you are setting people up to fail

Be nice isnt a rule...it isnt even good English (and yeah i note the irony of me not using punctuation)

FWR is held to a much higher standard...bless, yawn, pantomime references

The ‘not following guidelines’ bit is really really unhelpful...not quite as unhelpful as having top secret ruled, but bloody close

And you keep saying you’ll look at the rules but its taking ages...its not really fair to delete people when you are reviewing the secret rules

(It’s possible that someone wrote the secret rules in invisible ink...in which case the delay is probably down to not being able to find the rules)

And if im honest on just about every other board i find the moderation very, erm moderate.

Ps...is reporting still open to randoms on the internet?

Swipe left for the next trending thread