Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

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:
Juells · 25/09/2019 10:02

were clearly just very funny non-threatening men

While Paul O'Grady is a non-threatening man, I wouldn't like to meet Lily Savage in a dark alley 😂😂😂 I'm sad that he gave up doing the character, but I suspect he started to see it as being too much like drag - even though it isn't.

TimeLady · 25/09/2019 09:59

The Two Ronnies too. I wonder if it's because the non-cringeworthy ones were clearly just very funny non-threatening men, whereas some of the others perhaps took the dressing up to a different level. Knowing what I now know about AGP, I'm starting to look back with a whole new perspective.

Do you watch Upstart Crow? Thinking about it, the character who always insists on being the woman had my cringiness meter on full alert. Ben Elton being oh-so-subtly subversive Grin

DickKerrLadies · 25/09/2019 09:30

Yes, it can be quite difficult to articulate why some characters are enjoyable (like Cissie & Ada, or Lily Savage) while others are insulting, and just an opportunity to be nasty about women.

Comedy skills. That's my theory.

Juells · 25/09/2019 09:24

but laugh at Les Dawson & Roy Barraclough (Cissie & Ada), probably because the first was a lazy mocking visual stereotype, whereas the latter pair (& Dame Edna) were character driven with great acerbic scripts.

Yes, it can be quite difficult to articulate why some characters are enjoyable (like Cissie & Ada, or Lily Savage) while others are insulting, and just an opportunity to be nasty about women.

2BthatUnnoticed · 25/09/2019 09:20

Yes I agree, panto dames are specifically mocking women... and if Kitten had referenced women (not TW) in her now-deleted comment, then presumably it would have been okay?

But if twaw, as per moderation policy, then shouldn’t TW and women be treated the same? Seems all a bit transphobic to me. The deference shown to TW means they are not being treated like women as all.

TimeLady · 25/09/2019 08:32

Parodying women has been a staple of light entertainment for decades.

It's funny looking back: I used to cringe at Kenny Everett (Cupid Stunt) but laugh at Les Dawson & Roy Barraclough (Cissie & Ada), probably because the first was a lazy mocking visual stereotype, whereas the latter pair (& Dame Edna) were character driven with great acerbic scripts.

Has anyone watched the RuPaul drag race that's due over here soon? I can't help feeling that that's going to be more Kenny than Les.

3mks · 25/09/2019 08:00

It is a parody of natal women, but it's men dressing up as women so maybe it's a bit too close to home.

Ali1cedowntherabbithole · 25/09/2019 07:57

Surely, Pantomime Dames are a parody of women, not Transwomen?

TheAlternativeTentacle · 25/09/2019 07:04

MN allows posts that are derogatory or aggressive toward women and Feminists but not towards "trans people" either in general or specific.

Thereby creating special people that we cannot talk about.

DON'T MENTION THE SPECIAL PEOPLE, THE ONES WE ARE CENTERING IN FEMINISM BOARDS, THE ONES WITH THE PENISES...

TheAlternativeTentacle · 25/09/2019 07:02

Having not read the original post I can't get the full picture, but I can see how some would see comparisons of trans people to Widow Twanky almost being offensive in a gollywog type of way

OH MY DAYS.

Creepster · 25/09/2019 02:07

We don’t allow posts which are derogatory or aggressive towards trans people. We believe there are ways to express both opinion and facts without crossing this line.

This is a challenging issue to moderate, and in order to keep hosting it, we ask users to abide by basic principles of civil and constructive debate. Posts comparing trans people to pantomime dames don't help that cause, to be honest.

Mumsnet isn't hosting a debate. That is the problem. They are hosting a discussion board.
MN allows posts that are derogatory or aggressive toward women and Feminists but not towards "trans people" either in general or specific.
Nowhere else on this forum are women treated by MNHQ in the aggressive and derogatory way they are treated on Feminism & Women's Rights.

ermwhatda · 25/09/2019 01:25

I reckon the men's rights activists have infiltrated the mumsnet mods.

perhaps the woke folx want all those nasty terf types to run away to spinster, and then 'mumsnet' can be filled with all those lovely glittery brave broads we used to call 'drag queens'.

nah.

nobody banned me for referring to the royal family as 'parasites', and nobody banned me for suggesting we hang paedophiles. Interesting it is. very interesting.

down with big brother
down with big brother
down with big brother

GrinitchSpinach · 25/09/2019 00:08

On the topic of ‘splaining, I was looking for a Ricky Ricardo gif and this one seemed even more appropriate than the one I sought:

giphy.com/gifs/i-love-lucy-lucille-ball-desi-arnaz-ss99RjaP6lfH2

3mks · 25/09/2019 00:01

Also why does that rule not apply to the rest of Mumsnet unless it because most people are not insecure enough to have posts deleted they don't like/agree with.

3mks · 24/09/2019 23:56

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.

However it would be nice if they told us this.

LangCleg · 24/09/2019 23:37

You just have to state a destination (with the eventual end destination being Wokeington Crescent - then you win) and cite some non-existent obscure rules. It's just an excuse for puns and jokes. In the original it's tube stations. This one's woke-themed.

TheProdigalKittensReturn · 24/09/2019 23:30

At the moment the rules of Mornington Crescent are even more obscure to me than the rules being applied to these deleted comments. Someone want to splain? If we're playing Wokeington Crescent instead then presumably you get extra points for splaining.

OP posts:
littlbrowndog · 24/09/2019 23:27

But I never got a email of mumsnet to say why 🤦‍♀️🤷‍♀️👿👿👿👿

littlbrowndog · 24/09/2019 23:25

Deleted. Oh ffs

Truth is not wrong or hate. It’s truth

LangCleg · 24/09/2019 23:19

Seven Resisters

I'm stealing that! Bed but back with all rule books in the morning!

Ali1cedowntherabbithole · 24/09/2019 23:10

Invokes the Wilding Davison play to avoid Piccadilly Circus. Heads up to Seven Resisters instead.

LangCleg · 24/09/2019 22:52

Oxford Pride by way of the Layla Moran constituency exception.

OccasionalKite · 24/09/2019 22:39

Aha!
But we are reliably informed that you were not wearing a hat when you declared your move!

You are summarily disqualified.

Your move is removed.

LangCleg · 24/09/2019 22:31

We should probably rename it Wokeington Crescent?

LangCleg · 24/09/2019 22:30

I'm not familiar with exactly what is allowed under the posting rules- are they the same rules as Mornington Crescent?

Genius! We can play Mornington Crescent!

My first move is to Stonewall, and I'm invoking the Brian Paddick Clueless Ally reverse manoeuvre. I think you'll find that's acceptable if we're playing the FWR variation.

Swipe left for the next trending thread