To leave MumsNet because it's becoming RadFeministNet?

[SigmundaFraudina]

Had enough of their agenda being forced down my throat whether I want it or not. Major recruitment drive going on lately, and serious opression of other posters views. Just gets worse and worse. This was not what I believed MN was supposed to be about.

I'm off.

Bullying is an over used word. But what happened to the op in the Amsterdam thread was bullying, by any description. Name calling, swearing, deliberate misunderstanding.....I am still boggled. I will never say bullying can't happen on Internet forum again.

I didn't see any of that thread, seeker, so I can't comment. I expect you're right though, the components you've described all seem to be there.

But Lying, this thread was started by an 'anti-radfem' (for want of a better term), attacking the MN radfems. Calling them bullies. Surely it's reasonable for the radfems to want to come on and defend themselves?

Then feminists get called tribal and told this discussion should be in feminism? I can't agree with you there.

The trouble with that, Lying, is that I am happy to be identified as a feminist. It would be quite useful to have a catchall name for those who don't so identify themselves.

And it was against a woman who was approaching a situation from a feminist point of view. Just to reiterate that.

I think if people are coming to Mumsnet, attacking feminists, talking about the "side" they are on whilst mounting very nasty personal attacks, grouping the Mumsnet feminists together and then slagging them off on a regular basis, then it's fair enough to call them anti-feminists.

They want feminist discussion shut down or watered down. They want to make feminists feel so uncomfortable that we won't feel able to speak up for the fear of attacks.

running... I didn't say that only the feminists were 'tribal'. I said, "It's all getting a bit 'tribal' and silly, isn't it?". For avoidance of doubt, I was referring to the posters on this thread - any or all of them. I said that I thought this thread is an example of why discussions should be in their specific board areas - that's my opinion only - I'm not telling you or anybody else that they're to go there.

I think this is an example of how easy it is to slip into a mindset of groups and ganging-up, seeing what you perceive to be there rather than what is actually there.

I dislike people-labels intensely, really, it's the worst thing on MN as far as I'm concerned.

I don't know about that Nyac.

I don't care either way, but the only complaints I've ever seen are about people feeling "ganged up" on various fwr threads. I don't think people want to shut wimmin up, I think they just want to feel heard themselves.

seeker... good for you. I'm a person, a human being, a woman and I'm happy to be identified as that. I'd identify you as seeker, a fellow human being and poster.

Maybe it's the love of labelling and obssession with 'catch-all' phrases to round people up that is what's problematic?

I do think it's fascinating from a historical point of view- if depressing from a personal or political one- that the words used to attack feminists never change Shrill, aggressive, hectoring......all words echoing down the generations. As Rebecca West said " I don't know what a feminist is- all I know is that it is what I am called when I express opinions that differentiate me from a doormat" Or words to that effect.

I didn't report some of the fairly abusive posts I read last night, because I also think it's much more telling if they are allowed to stand.

I just went for bewildering eccentricity instead.

Erm Hully, this whole thread is about how the OP thinks that rad fems should stop being rad fems and should take on her opinions instead. She even gave us a list of how she thinks we should think.

I think that's pretty much the definition of shutting people up and silencing their opinions in place of yours.

There's a difference between being heard and agreed with.

They are separate things seeker.

There is the whole shrill thing, but that is different from the hurt felt by the ganged-up on.

Oh yes, on the op specifically. Keep forgetting the op...

I meant the ganging-up stuff

The op wasn't averse to to a bit of ganging up herself on Jam's relationship thread, if we're talking about ganging up. But starts a whole new thread about it when she perceives she is ganged up on.

That's the nub, the 'ganging up on'.

There's choreographed ganging-up, eg MRA on feminists.

There's instinctive ganging-up, eg an OP posts something offensive and vitually everyone piles in to say 'WTF'.

And there's the weird ad hoc ganging-up, when some posters seem to jump on a bashing bandwagon just for the hell of it - the negative group psychology thing.

"They are separate things seeker.

There is the whole shrill thing, but that is different from the hurt felt by the ganged-up on."

What, like the OP on the Amsterdam thread? The anti feminist crows really went for her- including, notably, the OP on this thread........

And don't forget the "ganging up" which is more than one person disagreeing with someone who doesn't think they should be disagreed with.

soz, my post was unclear.

What I meant was that there is lots of trivialing women's voices "shrill" "harridan" "nagging" etc etc which goes on all over the shop

And then there is the other line of complaint on MN from some women feeling "ganged-up" on on the fwr.

I think you're right, LineRunner. It can be quite intimidating to having myriad posters piling in, one after the other to say nothing more useful than "WTF?". It' aggressive and unnecessary. I don't like 'groups' people can and should have independent thought even if it's within the confines of a principle or doctrine.

That's why I mostly think posters who launch threads with a deliberately provocative post are only worth taking the piss out of.

What happened to thop on the Amsterdam thread was much more than a few people saying WTF......

I haven't read the amsterdam do-dah. Don't think I will...