So Mumsnet ignored our request to have something to do with 'feminism' or 'women' in the name of the 'naughty step' subtopic

I've not read the full thread so apologies if I've missed.
I'm GC
I imagine they haven't gone for sex based rights as that may be felt to imply them taking a "side" perhaps?
Rather going for a more neutral title with debate in it implies some kind of neutrality

This is super confusing. Isn't the rape of nuns part of the subjugation of women based on sex? Why is it in feminism instead of sex and gender?

'"As far as I recall, HQ confirmed that people accessing the site via the feminist board increased twelve fold in one year and was 177,000 in one month. Accessing. So newbies.'

They didn't necessarily register.

How many came to see how horrible it is.

I mean we don't know.

I really don't think that losing this conversation or a lot of the more frequent posters would impact them. I really don't.

They didn't have to host this. It's the only place afaik that is open that it's allowed in any way.

I really love this site. It changed my life. It has for so many women.

The whole site has always been s target and the get especially.

They don't need the DDOS attacks and the worse stuff that's happened.

They do not have to do it.

I really don't understand how others really feel the GC conversations on this site are fundamental to their business/ success etc.

I've mentioned that I think (may well be wrong) that the posters on this topic are less likely to meet the cohort the advertisers are interested in.

But I've searched my own posts and came up with this from Jan 2019.

"Mumsnet has twelve million unique users per month. The feminist board is in the top three of dozens of boards in terms of popularity."

"As far as I recall, HQ confirmed that people accessing the site via the feminist board increased twelve fold in one year and was 177,000 in one month. Accessing. So newbies."

I don't think HQ want to reveal this sort of data any more. It's a different culture, even since 2019.

I cant remember what else they said, other than FWR was a significant entry point for new posters. And traffic was going a bit mad.

As MSM reports more and more on this issue, I imagine traffic is still increasing. I know it is elsewhere, as more and more people get involved.

The concept of 'debate' on Mumsnet is somewhat synonymous with AIBU, yet we know that MNHQ won't tolerate the tone on this board that is allowed on there.

Good point. Are we still stifled here - is there still an ever-growing list of topics and words and abbreviations we are not to mention?

Debate?

Oh dear...

And by a "good while ago" I mean years.

Hear hear @LangClegsInSpace

I'm a fairly frequent name-changer. I've just checked and a thread I started good while ago, under a different name, asking for advice and support about a trans-related issue at my DC's school that upset my DC, has been moved to Sex and Gender Debate. It was not something I saw as a debate, or wanted to be a debate. I wasn't asking if I was being unreasonable.

The concept of 'debate' on Mumsnet is somewhat synonymous with AIBU, yet we know that MNHQ won't tolerate the tone on this board that is allowed on there.

Debate has always gone on here but FWR (Feminism and Women's Rights in case you forgot) is so much more than that. It's been a tremendous source of support for countless women as well as a space to do consciousness raising, research and organising.

By labelling this topic 'debate' you are throwing away all of that. You're inviting everyone to come and fight us.

You are removing support for transwidows, for children, parents and siblings, for women who are worried about situations at work or where they volunteer, or in their child's school, or in their hostel, shelter, hospital ward, refuge, support group etc. Or in their trade union, political party or campaign group, or in their literature, embroidery or knitting group etc. etc.

If you want to be the platform that hosts the 'Sex And Gender Debate' then put it in politics not feminism. Throw it wide open. Lots of people who are not feminists have something to say about this. You could say, 'This is a debate topic and we expect posters to argue in good faith. We will not tolerate personal attacks or language which breaks the law, however we encourage posters not to interpret political opinions as personal attacks.'

I would join in a good faith debate under those terms as long as you also supported a feminist space for transwidows and all the other women and children who are being harmed by those who 'don't believe in sex-based rights'.

If there's no feminist space for trans widows then this is not a feminist space.

Sex-based feminism, then?

It has to specifically reference feminism., imo. It has to reference sex, imo.

Although, to be honest I think I’ll just continue using the ‘other topic’ and talking about sex where it’s entirely relevant. Which given that it’s a feminism topic would be everywhere, wouldn’t it.

@JustineMumsnet in a few weeks would you be willing to give high-level data on how many people who hid the FWR topic now have both topics hidden? I'm just curious to get a feel for this silent majority!

Calling it sex based rights is a bad idea .

It would mean pretty much all the posts had to be here! Given the whole of feminism is about women's rights.

We know what MN want this topic for. A name that satisfies them and isn't awful for us. And that won't get them a whole guardian edition devoted entirely to how evil we are. Is the aim.

And thinking about it. Sex based rights is also not good because a massive lot of things being objected to are not legal rights, but longstanding social convention etc.

I thought the money was from clicking on the actual ads?

Although I don't know much about it tbh.

How many of them were people coming to see what bigot central looks like?

That drives an awful lot of traffic that comes to get first I'd bet.

My point wasn't meant to be dismissive of posters, who of course are vital for creating content. It's simply that if the content is generated by a smallish number of regular posters, that is fine if that's what attracts - high number of views and clicks.

Agree Marsha.

I'm guessing here but from what I know from having met lots of fwr regs in the past.

As s group, the demographic the ads on here are aimed at are not of interest to them, for s variety of reasons.

No they probably don’t need us. I don’t really care about that side of it.

It doesn’t mean we can’t have a better title that reflects those who use it rather than those who don’t.

I'm also prepared to cut Justine and MNHQ some slack as I can only imagine the amount of grief they get for hosting these debates. They display an impressive commitment to free speech that few organisations have managed to match.

Looking at it from another perspective, this could actually be a win win. If you think of all those who hate Mumsnet (yet incredibly spend so much time on here looking for things to report), there's now two busy boards to police

Double the time to spend checking women for wrong speak!

I agree with quaggers! For maybe the first time on this matter.

I think I've agreed with you on other stuff though. It's about the conversation not about the people.

Although when you get a MN stalker it's s right pita!

MN has had plenty of exoduses of groups of well known/ popular posters.

And with the best will in the world. Loads of women hide get completely. And are rarely popular!

I've seen numerous threads on chat/ aibu over the years saying what do you think of fwr.

And the responses are mainly not interested, boring, too shouty, scary, etc etc.

Anyway. I don't think MN are quaking in their boots.

They didn't have to host this conversation.

To turn that around to you need us, and getting angry with them. Seems a bit. Biting the hand that feeds you really.

IIRC feminism chat was the second or third (?) most clicked topic/threads. As advertising spends are based on clicks that's pretty significant.

MN is absolutely reliant on posters, we are all the content providers.

It doesn't matter how many people post, the revenue from advertising will be related to the number of views, the length of stay on the site etc etc.

I don't think this is a big section.

Ok I post s lot. But I recognise most of the usernames on this thread for example.

Telling MN that women on FWR posting on this topic mainly are vital to their business is only going to piss them off tbh.

It's just not true.

All this has done is give some people either twice as many boards to complain about or twice as many boards to hide 😂

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/site_stuff/4276869-Seeing-a-hidden-section