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:
Original poster
TheProdigalKittensReturn · 25/09/2019 23:52

I'd think a lot of people on a parenting board would use "they" for their children out of a desire to protect the identity of their children from potential predators as much as possible. Which is something that you'd expect everyone to understand on a parenting board. Which does rather raise the question of what reasons some of those monitoring us may have for being here and why they're so unfamiliar with the norms of groups in which parents may want to discuss their children online without putting those children at risk.

(And no, stalking monitors with your fingers on the report button, I don't mean that you're pedophiles. I mean that the reason you're here is to try to prevent women from discussing feminist issues like same sex spaces, the sex industry, etc).

OP posts:
RufusthebewiIderedreindeer · 25/09/2019 23:47

There is no compromise

I have used ‘they’ many times on mumsnet

Sometimes its to hide the ‘identity’ if the person im speaking about, sometimes its habit, sometimes its because i dont know the sex of the poster, sometimes it’s because i dont know how someone identifies

But that doesn’t stop some random on the internet taking offense and insinuating some utter bollocks

And is it making me think about what i type and trying to be careful?

Does it fuck..I’m the person you want on your side...middle of the road, not wanting to upset anybody...but telling me i now can’t use ‘they’???

Do one

Original poster
TheProdigalKittensReturn · 25/09/2019 23:42

Which just proves that the people MNHQ was attempting to compromise with by imposing those rules don't do compromise, so all of this monitoring and censoring and pissing off their loyal userbase was a complete waste of time. Unless pissing us off enough that we just leave was the goal.

OP posts:
RufusthebewiIderedreindeer · 25/09/2019 23:33

Speaking of the special rules in FWR, on a thread in AIBU I saw a poster complaining about the use of 'they' in FWR, which the poster claimed was a way of dodging round the guidelines and misgendering

Yeah

And me using ‘they’ so I didn’t give away the sex of the the child i was referring to was an example apparently ..even though i have referred to my own children as ‘they’

That poster has form though

Waterandlemonjuice · 25/09/2019 21:09

Just wanted to say I agree with you lot and thanks for this thread and for challenging the double speak etc

Juells · 25/09/2019 20:18

Speaking of the special rules in FWR, on a thread in AIBU I saw a poster complaining about the use of 'they' in FWR, which the poster claimed was a way of dodging round the guidelines and misgendering. 🙄 Not good enough. 🙄

ErrolTheDragon · 25/09/2019 14:48

Perhaps they will allow us to talk about acquired gender

I'm pretty sure they always have. It's an accurate, nonjudgmental description.

Ali1cedowntherabbithole · 25/09/2019 14:29

Perhaps they will allow us to talk about acquired gender as per The Rt. Hon. Sir Andrew McFarlane?

Fallingirl · 25/09/2019 14:25

Ah, but will MNHQ special rules for FWR allow us to say TT is YY’s mother?

littlbrowndog · 25/09/2019 14:14

A woman is the only person who can be a mother

Ali1cedowntherabbithole · 25/09/2019 14:12

It seems our courts are doing a good job this week.

And know what a woman is.

www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/TT-and-YY-APPROVED-Substantive-Judgment-McF-23.9.19.pdf

OnlyTheTitOfTheIceberg · 25/09/2019 13:48

Shut up and be compliant, you rude bolshy upstart women. The modding rules are perfectly consistent:

We have always been at war with Eastasia.

We have always been at war with Eastasia.

We have always been at war with Eurasia.

Ali1cedowntherabbithole · 25/09/2019 12:39

Eavesdropping is an accurate description. It aligns in my mind with creepiness.

So much better to debate.

I can’t remember who suggested it, but referring to TW by their surnames gets around a lot of pronoun issues.

3mks · 25/09/2019 12:08

Thanks Errol that is an better explanation.

I wonder how many posts on other parts of the forum are reported and if there is a higher percentage on this. AIBU is very offensive sometimes, but if no one reports they won't be removed.

BernardBlacksWineIceLolly · 25/09/2019 12:03

Nowhere else on this forum are women treated by MNHQ in the aggressive and derogatory way they are treated on Feminism & Women's Rights

True and very telling

Society always dislikes feminists (a.k.a. Bloody difficult women), it’s sad to see a site run primarily by and for women falling into this groove

Sad
BigotedWoman · 25/09/2019 11:50

Bravo Errol Grin

LangCleg · 25/09/2019 11:44

Nowhere else on this forum are women treated by MNHQ in the aggressive and derogatory way they are treated on Feminism & Women's Rights.

This, in the end, is the crux of it.

MNHQ - I genuinely believe this to be true. I can't believe it isn't a matter of shame for you and I can't understand why you're always promising Special Office Discussions yet substantive responses to the posts made on threads like these, which are becoming more and more common, are never forthcoming. You know what that looks like, don't you? It looks like you know everything we say is true.

ErrolTheDragon · 25/09/2019 11:43

I think the AGP version of Mornington Crescent would always end at Cockfosters.

Whereas Trudeau has misstepped from Canada Watered down women's rights to Moorgate.

BigotedWoman · 25/09/2019 11:30

I think the AGP version of Mornington Crescent would always end at Cockfosters.

BarbaraStrozzi · 25/09/2019 11:22

There was a stage when our Twitter monitors started following us around the boards trying to find stuff to get us deleted for.

I got deleted for an allegedly racist post. I'd made a self-deprecating joke about the British being renowned for their bad cookery. I am British! It got reinstated when I queried it, with an apology.

But it shows the lengths these people will go to. It also means I now name change relatively frequently which is a bit of a bummer when you feel like you've "got to know" posters under one name then of course they don't recognize you under your new name.

Original poster
TheProdigalKittensReturn · 25/09/2019 11:16

I think you only get a message if the mod team is working their way up to suspending you. Which is lovely.

OP posts:
CharlieParley · 25/09/2019 11:13

I got deleted just once, AFAIK, which isn't that terrible if it hadn't been for something that broke no rules at all. I had merely confirmed another poster's story of issues arising in the women's sector (specifically services for survivors of male violence) by adding what a service local to me had told me (without giving away specific information that could have identified anyone). I still wasn't generalising or deragotory. No deletion message, nothing at all.

MsMcWibble · 25/09/2019 10:11

Just adding my voice to say that this is shit.
I rarely post because of the ever changing secret rules.
I won't be silenced though, so this just means that I have more time to be a nuisance elsewhere.
This thread has prompted me to write another letter to my MP re Brighton.
See, volunteer moderators - you crush us down, we just pop up again in a different place.
Mumsnet has a choice about how it is remembered when this all comes out in the wash.

ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 25/09/2019 10:10

But I never got a email of mumsnet to say why

That seems a common theme with FWR deletions, either you get no email, or you get an email with the mod name and reason missing.

ErrolTheDragon · 25/09/2019 10:04

I think the rules are to be to moderate your chat like you would if you were talking in real life to a group of people that includes a trans person. However that stifles debate as there are certain things that cannot be discussed without upsetting some people who are trans especially if it is at all controversial.

I remember there being something of that nature if there was a trans person actually participating on a thread, or ( eg Paris lees speaking at an MN event a couple of years ago) the person had some direct relationship with MN so should be treated as a guest.

What it seems more like now is moderating your talk as if there were eavesdroppers who'd report you to the authorities. Or newspapers being censored. Big Brother indeed.

Swipe left for the next trending thread