Langcleg is vindicated

Let's be honest about this: the recipe threads came about in response to posters who were absolutely not interested in a discussion, were not willing to engage in one, and where it had become obvious that their main intent was to provoke, derail, dominate the thread and prevent discussion being able to happen. Reporting this gains no help.

Therefore other posters began to talk about something more interesting and to refuse to engage further, and it became a recognised signal. That the derailing posters found this annoying says rather a lot about their intent. However we're not supposed to mention that some posters come here intentionally to disrupt, derail, prevent discussion or just plain have fun provoking GC women - often posting bits of the thread on Twitter as they do. And we're supposed to regard open refusal to engage and provocation, filibustering and derailing as 'a robust different opinion' as if the two things are not distinguishable.

It makes one ever so slightly cheesed sometimes, because it's yet more of the unfair burden of female socialisation, further illustrated by a poster here announcing his sex - several times - whose personal response to a woman poster saying how fed up they are with males and how much they want one tiny bit of the internet where they do not have to deal with them is not to listen, or to reflect on what that woman has said, or to pick up on the frustration and tiredness in that, or how squashed out of everything by males that woman currently feels - but instead to paternally remind women of their primary duty, that they should be focusing not on themselves but upon serving and educating any men who happen to wish to be here to learn from them.

And I will stop there, as my inclination at this moment is to say something ever so slightly unladylike.

I do value Mumsnet as the fact it’s British and not run by American tech misogynists saved it from early capture.
I feel that the board has lost direction a little bit recently. There’s been a chilling effect as familiar names have disappeared and Lang Cleg’s exit seemed to be the start of it.

Sorry late to the party, LC once handed me my arse on a plate with garnish. It was fucking hard. I read the comments and got my head out of my own little bubble. The things that were happening in my life were just that. I wasn’t using any kind of critical thinking about other people with a completely different approach or life experience. I always try to think about the poster and what they are asking in a very a distanced way. I’ve been able to use that (head out of own arse) and try to help the poster in a more constructive way. For me this has landed in reality with a young family member that needed help. I think I understand people feeling shouted down but for me I feel able to come at a problem from a different angle and that’s really helped.

I personally like the cheese recipes best, I have had some great recommendations. We all think differently and being part of this community helps me look at things from different sides and makes me not jump to conclusions. So I’m glad you all post and when some of you get angry and frustrated I try to find the bit in the middle where we can meet.
Thanks ALL of you.

Yes well said Red. As an autistic poster I find it all especially stressful.

I also don't think the FWR boards exist to cater to men, however well meaning each one is.

I can imagine that smarts and I appreciate what that feels like - its not nice, but sadly, such is life. I'm done apologising for not always including or centering men in everything.

(I'm also sure some others here would disagree with me, and that's as it should be. It would be weird if we all agreed.)

When I get the inkling that someone are up to no good, I don't respond much any more. They are using up the thread and posts. Some threads are so interesting and they shouldn't get to clog it up. Call out the sh*te and then don't centre everything on posters who filibuster.

And there are some GC posters here who I find frustrating to deal with - and often avoid responding to - who doubtlessly agree with me on the overall larger points but I can't discuss with as they do some of the things I've outlined. It's not always a case of disagreeing with one's opinion but also the communication styles need to gel if you want to discuss with the aim of actually increasing your knowledge/finding solutions etc.

Look, if you're getting cake recipes in response to what you're posting, have a look at what you posted, the words you used.
Have a look at the posts that get genuine engagement even when they disagree.

Is there a difference? Do your posts, perhaps, just focus on what you think is wrong with FWR itself regardless of the thread topic rather than actually putting forward a well-reasoned and carefully articulated (as is necessary!) point of view about the actual subject at hand?
Do your posts, perhaps, mis-state or incorrectly generalise someone else's argument, or did you paste/quote the argument into your posts so people can see for themselves what the other poster said?
Do you post with baity, spoiling-for-a-tedious-argument wording such as 'the problem with feminists is...', or do you objectively highlight a specific issue, include evidence/data/quoted statements to back up your claims, and suggest the solution?
If asked a specific question about your views, such as whether same-sex attraction is a legitimate sexuality, do you repeatedly avoid answering? Would you be able to summarise the position you're arguing against in a way that everyone would agree is an accurate summary, or do you rely on straw man arguments?

If you post in good faith, and reply to questions trying to tease out what your position actually is, you should be fine. If not, well, you'll get some good recipes out of it and convince lurkers that there is no convincing counterargument, so win-win I guess?

Great post red

I don't disagree with any of that, Red.

Some people get frustrated if you don't respond I guess.

Time to let us all speak plainly again MNHQ. If even flipping Mermaids now state no-one is born in the wrong body then why are we all still here talking about "male women" and other such gibberish?!

The recipes thing started, iirc, on the Midnight Misogynist series - clearly an old-fashioned MRA troll/PBP. I can't see much harm in deploying cake or soup in that sort of context as an alternative to the Night Watch.
Extending that to derailers and 'sealions' etc ... dunno. Seems like the sort of thing that has always happened elsewhere on MN tbh.

Pretty much my approach, Datun. Respond to the stuff that interests me (whether "on my side" or "the opposing view point" - so long as it's worthy of attention).

Ignore the people whose content I don't find brings something useful to the table.

Personally, I have no intention of being here to educate men about feminism. But that's just me. Doing feminism.

Plus people with whom I disagree, airing their views, is frequently very effective. I wish it would go further - I and many women would absolutely love the strict moderation of these boards to be lifted.

And there are, of course, posters whose content I find irrelevant. I don't read it.

[quote YetAnotherBeckyMumsnet]@Whatisthisfuckery generally we ask that posters don't 'chase off' others with opposing views - we'd prefer it if there was a civilised discussion even if there'll never be an agreement. This is true across the site btw. We have deleted posts from threads that (on the polite end of the scale) have told users to 'pop off' or dismissed them as obvious trolls for having a different point of view. We're not and nor do we want to be an echo chamber. Of course, if you think someone is not a genuine poster, you can (as we always say) report them.[/quote]
You don't get to the point by just rolling over when someone spouts bollocks over and over and over again unfortunately. Ignoring it, only works to a point too. You can't just 'be nice' about it, if something is factually flawed either.

So I'm kind of at a loss at what we are supposed to do and what expectations from MN in terms of our behaviour actually is at this point.

Debate is centred on attacking the argument rather than the person. However as we've seen robustly doing this, seems to often be termed as 'bullying' or 'piling on' or in this case 'chasing someone off'? How does this work???

I try my best to be as respectful as possible even when I'm being accused of hate. This is exceptionally difficult at times, especially when you feel as we did before (or now know) you have some kind of internet bounty on you head to get banned.

We need to be able to point out the blindly obvious, and if someone is saying something which is contridictary, hypocritical and abject unscientific nonsense, then should we be able to put that bluntly??? Blunt = simple, to the point and cutting through the flowery irrelevant bits of a conversation. Cos I'm not entirely sure how you get to the heart of a debate it any other way. How do you 'pussyfoot' around your own reality and experience and the law if that alone offends others either? Safeguarding that is something crucial to our lived experience and we often talk of incidences of where it has failed or enforcement has failed on this board because of the nature of what its about - women's rights. How can you talk about our rights if you can't talk about safeguarding them? I mean the forum crawler was even set to pick up uses of the word.

Why is it up to us to pander to posters who can't form a coherent argument? The whole point of debate is to form rational joined up thinking and to encourage other to thinking about how their own argument fall apart if they are fundamentally flawed to persuade others to your case.

If someone says the sky is green with purple spots, we don't go "yes dear" we say look not its not, we can all see its not, this is how physics works. And we are unlikely to back down if someone keeps saying 'you are wrong, you are blind, you hate green'. I think thats pretty reasonable tbh and human.

Lang did the same but with safeguarding.

If understanding that is difficult and 'hard to deal with', it wasn't Lang's fault.

I certainly am not trying to single out any individuals or force them out. For me its always about the comment not the person.

What annoys me is we can be called all manner of names under the sun in this or accused of being 'hater' but keeping to the principles of medical ethics and safeguarding and constantly refering back to why they exist and what their purpose is, is now somehow apparently being percieved as potentially 'chasing off' people from this post by a member of MN staff.

It does smack of MN saying that safeguarding and ethic principles which are entrenched in law are up for debate themselves and that they don't value the protections we have. FWIW as a rule they should be - whether I like it or not as part of liberal thinking and principles which I think Justine believes in - but that MUST include the ability to defend them in the strongest terms too, because of what they represent and protect us from as women and parents because without that ability we risk the loss of women's rights.

I don't think that making a post that seems to insinuate that sticking religiously to principles over safeguarding could be seen as acting in a way to deliberate 'chase someone off' rather than robusting defending key principles which I thought were pretty universally understood to be essential to the well being of children and other vulnerable groups. It doesn't do a lot to change the minds of a lot of poster here who are openly saying that they fear MN doesn't value safeguarding and is actually part of the problem as much as we might also think its part of the solution.

I think Lang always tried to reflect the law and defend the law - against reform, misinterpretation and deliberate attempts to bypass it or undermine it and its practical application and enforcement. We SHOULD be robust in that.

I don't know what MNHQ ultimately think nor I'm not going to waste my time speculating, but I have to say comments like this don't help to defuse anger or fears and only reinforce that feeling in many.

I don't want a response to this comment. I ask only that MN reflect on my point and how this matters, and why the wording of this comment is particular careless and won't help to resolve issues or defuse the ongoing controvesy over LangCleg's ban. And to seriously think about how posters like me are supposed to navigate this and both stay within the rules and be able to defend things we regard as been the most basic essential tools to protect us as part of the society we live in.

Cos I am really struggling to work out how I can avoid going the same way as Lang at some point on the basis of whats said here and I'm sure others probably feel the same.

Oh please keep any items on cooking/food and gardening. Whether the post started off with them or not. Not being a natural epicure or green fingers, I find an unexpected wander very interesting and useful in my role as head chef, chief bottle washer with an interest in kitchen gardening. Useful life skills.

I would think that ganging up and posting cake recipes as soon as somebody 'robustly disagrees' would likely constitute this. I've seen a lot of posters shut down this way

Same

The reason I mention this (as a guy who usually lurks in silence) is because I've often been put off from posting on issues that interest me by the clique on here, who seem intent to work out exactly how far they can bend the rules in being hostile to outsiders and particularly men (usually asking mumsnet to 'provide clarification' on exactly what they can say - the posters this is, not the men).

A regular from this section posted about men in a thread about men on mumsnet the other day "tbh, I wish they would all just fuck off. Can't we just have this part of the internet to ourselves?"

Attitudes like this are damaging when you have guys like me who are here because they want to educate themselves on the issues their daughters/nieces and loved ones might be affected by. It's 'by parents for parents', not 'by women for women'.

And the goading is underway elsewhere on here today. Sigh.

generally we ask that posters don't 'chase off' others with opposing views.

I would think that ganging up and posting cake recipes as soon as somebody 'robustly disagrees' would likely constitute this. I've seen a lot of posters shut down this way.

Absolutely.

Imagine if we treated posters who are anorexic the same way as we are supposed to treat those who think they should be another body?

"Well then, if that's what you think, then it must be true. No psychological, medical or ethical issues here! And it would be cruel of us to even think otherwise. God you're fat."

I know nothing about running or moderating a forum.
I know MN is huge, no idea how it compares to other sites.
Do moderators talk to each other, or is it a sort of one person to each board? Would there be team meetings? Updates?
I suppose I am just wondering whether everyone at MNHQ would be up to speed with recent revelations. Would there be some sort of scrutiny of the posters who report frequently, or the posters who are frequently reported.
It seems to me that to regular posters on FWR that the targeting and and reporting is obvious. We know is doing what and to whom.

LangCleg's explanation of the 'sacred caste' & safeguarding was so clear. It's what I always keep in my head. I miss her too.

Just musing on the echo chamber part. When can more people who think the earth is flat, the moon made of cheese and babies pop out of cabbages be brought on board? And pandered to and indulged as their incredible beliefs are given serious standing on a par with less 'progressive' and contrary ones with a firm footing in science.