Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Statement on safeguarding to be added to sticky ?

37 replies

janeskettle · 23/01/2020 22:25

In the most recent LangCleg thread, I asked if the idea of asking Mumsnet to add a statement of safeguarding support to the FWR sticky had any merit.

What do feminists on the FWR board think ?

I had in mind something like 'Mumsnet acknowledges that safeguarding of children and vulnerable persons is a valuable and acceptable topic of discussion on FWR'.

OP posts:
Original poster
janeskettle · 23/01/2020 22:54

I'm still reeling from Justine likening pro-safeguarding FWR to an aggressive orthodoxy...

Well, that's just so wrong it made no impact on me.

I know well where the orthodoxy lies, and it isn't here.

OP posts:
Original poster
janeskettle · 23/01/2020 22:53

I suppose that the person who appeared to state that 'people who oppose child safeguarding are welcome here' would deny that interpretation, and say that they were referring to allowing genderists to make their pro-gender arguments, and did not specifically refer to safeguarding.

OP posts:
ALittleBitofVitriol · 23/01/2020 22:52

I'm still reeling from Justine likening pro-safeguarding FWR to an aggressive orthodoxy...

TheBewildernessisWeetabix · 23/01/2020 22:50

I am still in shock over being required to respect the opinions of people who oppose safeguarding children.
I can't.

Original poster
janeskettle · 23/01/2020 22:46

Optimistically, I though having it explicitly stated in the 'rules' might enable some accountability when it's discussed here ?

OP posts:
Original poster
janeskettle · 23/01/2020 22:45

Yah, I guess there's no point to a statement that is just lip service.

OP posts:
ALittleBitofVitriol · 23/01/2020 22:41

See also: portraying discussion of safeguarding as oppressors/gatekeepers/meanies.

ALittleBitofVitriol · 23/01/2020 22:39

Recent decisions and posts make me seriously question if MN are interested in acknowledging anything of the sort.

How can we discuss safeguarding, if we cannot mention risk categories? How can such a discussion be acknowledged as valuable, if the rules deem obfuscation is more important?

theflushedzebra · 23/01/2020 22:36

"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread." Anatole France

I have learned so many great quotes from Mumsnet these past couple of days. This is one.

This is another: "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him." -- Cardinal Richelieu

And JanesKettle yes, I totally agree with you, that would be a valuable sticky to add to the board, and as Justine has previously said words to this effect in the media, I don't see why it should be a problem.

WrathofAsyouwereKIop · 23/01/2020 22:35

Safeguarding threads should have their own prominent section on the Mumsnet site.
A subject that is very current and necessary to parenting should be easier to locate.

TheBewildernessisWeetabix · 23/01/2020 22:29

Justine's statement made it clear they want to hear from people who oppose safeguarding as much as they want to hear from those in favor of it.
The statement clarified why they welcome anti Feminist opinion on their Feminist board.

"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread." Anatole France

traceyracer · 23/01/2020 22:27

But if you mention the fact that it's men whom children and vulnerable people need safeguarding from you get deleted.