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:
BernardBlacksWineIceLolly · 24/09/2019 13:33

I know I’m stating the bleeding obvious here, but one of the things feminists do is analyse the interactions between men and women

Therefore in cases where men are trying to annexe women’s spaces and services, their sex is very relevant

By making it difficult to talk about these men (will I get deleted if I say this? How about if I word it like this? Or temper my point like this?), feminist conversation, analysis, is stifled

The sex of the individuals involved is the main point really

exWifebeginsAgainat46 · 24/09/2019 13:31

why don’t you all just pack your views into little spotted hankies, tie them to a stick and set off to find a new home where you can exist in peace?

it’s win/win, really. you get a new place to live, and we get a forum without endless posts designed to spark outrage from people who spend their lives waiting to be outraged.

note that i’m not accusing anyone of transphobia, nor am i suggesting that feminism is bad. i’m just suggesting that if you all hate this place so much, go find somewhere else.

TheProdigalKittensReturn · 24/09/2019 13:29

That dynamic really is obvious, and unpleasant, when you've been gone for a while and come back.

OP posts:
GirlDownUnder · 24/09/2019 13:25

Juells blimey!

Our monitors are very sensitive and MN seem to promote non-members which is a strange chat board model.

GirlDownUnder · 24/09/2019 13:21

I have mentioned to MNHQ before that this board has felt user hostile for a while because of everything said on this thread.

But of course I tempered my ‘feedback’ with the usual knee bent in gratitude to be ‘allowed’ to post at all.

The relationship is now an ‘us’ and ‘them’ which feels awful on a FWR board, on a woman run site.

Juells · 24/09/2019 13:19

GirlDownUnder
So, banned terms now include

Yawn
Bless
Panto
Special men
Silly
?
_

I've had a post deleted for a 'yawn', and for saying 'bring on the violins'

CharityConundrum · 24/09/2019 13:10

I've just reported a post calling Samantha Markel a series of sweary names. It was depressingly easy to find a post which does make a deliberate, derogatory and aggressive attack on a named individual. I imagine it would be an interesting afternoon to skim the boards and do the same with any more I find...

TheProdigalKittensReturn · 24/09/2019 13:07

As in, to put it bluntly, you have actively alienated a significant percentage of your own users. Why? What are you gaining from this?

OP posts:
TheProdigalKittensReturn · 24/09/2019 13:04

Also I really don't think HQ get the social dynamic of this board. There's disagreement and arguing but any time there's an outside attack people will tend to drop that and have each others backs. What HQ have done with those rules and the arbitrary enforcement of them is set themselves up as the outside force that's attacking the regulars, which is just a horrible dynamic to have (and inevitably results in more Spartacus threads).

OP posts:
2BthatUnnoticed · 24/09/2019 13:01

*oops, extra “only” got in there somehow

It’s also harder for women to post here, who use other boards for support or advice. You don’t want to risk getting summarily banned, as this would also cut you off from that source of support.

LangCleg · 24/09/2019 12:58

As PPs are noting: riddle us this, MNHQ:

Why are leavers and remainers allowed to go at it no holds barred but feminists and transactivists are not?

2BthatUnnoticed · 24/09/2019 12:52

I agree BB, it does seem elitist. If English is not your first language, or you are from a WC background, or you have any type of cognitive difficulty, posting on this board can be very hard.

This board is often derided (unfairly, I think) as being only for “white middle class women” only - but anyone outside that group is more likely to get banned.

It’s like the Harvard entrance exam or something - not designed to exclude the disadvantaged, but it is an unfortunate double effect.

TheProdigalKittensReturn · 24/09/2019 12:48

Imagine if they tried to apply this kind of heavy handed moderation to the Brexit threads. There would be hardly anything left.

OP posts:
Patnotpending · 24/09/2019 12:40

I am relatively new to Mumsnet. I came here for this forum and I'm really disappointed at the way we are pressured to be nice in a way that MNetters on other parts of MN clearly aren't. The way we are being policed shocks me. I was at first relieved to find this forum but I'm increasingly dismayed by the way it's administered.

Mumsnet, you need another meeting and you need to loosen up, otherwise once the tide has turned you won't be the sheroes you damn well ought to be, you'll be the half-hearted upholders of feminism who banned an awful lot of feminists who dared to speak the truth.

MoltenLasagne · 24/09/2019 12:38

I'm not a regular poster, I tend to lurk but what I see is rules changing with no warnings as a form of entrapment. And so the forum loses the voices of women who are legally trained, or safeguarding experts, or who have lived through enough abuse to be able to warn us of techniques like gaslighting and pronouns being a word we're not allowed to say.

So the question is, who benefits when women aren't able to set boundaries and call out the damage caused by surrogacy, and sex work, and losing sex segregated rights? And why are MNHQ not concerned to be on their side, rather than the side of women?

TheProdigalKittensReturn · 24/09/2019 12:17

The "don't be rude to the mods" rule is sufficiently vague as to allow for deleting or banning pretty much anything/anyone.

OP posts:
GirlDownUnder · 24/09/2019 12:13

if you break the rules we may decide to summarily ban you
what are the rules?
wouldn't you like to know...

Very 1984

BernardBlacksWineIceLolly · 24/09/2019 12:13

I'm indebted to Offred (another sad loss to the board) who made me aware of the way that higher status women participate in the oppression of lower status women because it allows them to buy power and influence within the patriarchy

which is, I believe, part of MNHQs motivation for the (thoroughly mutable) 'rules'

GirlDownUnder · 24/09/2019 12:10

So, banned terms now include

Yawn
Bless
Panto
Special men
Silly
?

And yes Star to Lang for the wordiest explanation ever. But not deleted!

TheProdigalKittensReturn · 24/09/2019 12:09

Are the Christians sending the atheists rape and death threats, and gloating about their deaths? Banging on the windows of their meetings, perhaps?

In other words, are these particular Christians more like Westboro Baptist Church than they are like the church you baby cousin was christened in?

OP posts:
LangCleg · 24/09/2019 12:07

am I alone in thinking this looks like elitist policing of language?

No. Piss taking aside, I entirely agree.

LangCleg · 24/09/2019 12:07

Are analogies better than linguistic contortions?

It's like a thread with Christians and atheists arguing. The Christians are allowed to say Jesus is the son of God. The atheists are not allowed to say Jesus is not the son of God. They don't actually have to say that Jesus is the son of God but they're not allowed to say he isn't. And the powers that be keep insisting that this is the only way to keep debate "flowing".

TheProdigalKittensReturn · 24/09/2019 12:05

See, that's because you're less lazy than I am. I can't be arsed. Tried for a while, decided that I'm not doing that unless I'm getting paid for it.

The expectation that users do so is indeed deeply classist.

OP posts:
LangCleg · 24/09/2019 12:03

Is it bad to say that I fucking love posting piss-taking linguistic contortions?

Sorry MNHQ! But it's just utterly irresistible.

BernardBlacksWineIceLolly · 24/09/2019 12:03

Because the mods don't want users to know why comments are being deleted?

if you break the rules we may decide to summarily ban you

what are the rules?

wouldn't you like to know...

Swipe left for the next trending thread