AIBU to be shocked that the NSPCC cancelled their Facebook Live session with Mumsnetters, because they didn't like the questions? That they can't explain why they aren't putting children in danger?

[loveyouradvice]

I am reeling from this - Mumsnet promoted a Facebook Live for Thursday 12.30... to talk about keeping Kids safe from Abuse, and to publicise their PANTS and SpeakOut StaySafe campaigns.

NSPCC just didn't turn up - and only 4 hours later published a brief statement that said nothing!!!! So lots of people waiting for a no show.

It is fine for them to have the policies they have - IF THEY CAN EXPLAIN that they really are in all children's best interests and that they aren't putting girls at risk..... They haven't even tried to do that... Just ignored us and run. Ignored MUMSNET - which is full of people who raise or give money to the NSPCC, and who use it.

HOW??? I am bewildered beyond words.....

Oh ... and hopefully clicky link here of the questions Mumsnetters asked - really thoughtful cogent ones!

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/mumsnet_facebook_live/a3343961-Facebook-Live-about-talking-to-kids-about-staying-safe-from-abuse-with-NSPCC

You can't post something clearly designed to show women as just as bad as men when you know that not to be the case and then yap about how you know it's not the case but you're being silenced when someone points out that it's not the case.

Reread it in the context of the conversation I was having; perhaps this is just a momentary lapse of comprehension on your part. If this is your usual working level, don't bother.

I have no interest in showing "women are as bad as men". I don't think they are. I was responding to a poster saying in 60 years she'd never seen anything untoward in a ladies' loo. I was making the point that one person could go through life never being hit by lightening, and another could be hit twice. Buuuut that really was all there in my original post.

they’re not just saying that. they posted a private photo of a woman in hospital to take the piss (maybe jealousy because she was doing something especially female? who knows), posted to encourage a pile-on slagging off a woman’s looks.

if i posted a photo of a TRA with the express purpose of mocking them and encouraging others to do so you’d fly into the thread literally can’t even-img, calling us nasty, bigoted etc

No where were we on the subject of street harassment and misogyny? Oh yeah, I remember, the thread was shut down because of a load of single-issue activists hijacking it.

Oh.

I'm surpised if this is the upskirting which seems to be in news at moment thing I though male or female or other everyone would agree it's not on. Though I think street harrisment is wider than just upskirting.

I shall go and do some more reading.

I'm surpised if this is the upskirting which seems to be in news at moment thing I though male or female or other everyone would agree it's not on.

I think everyone does agree on it, Big, but some people think it isn't worth talking about if we can't first all agree that trans women aren't women

You could just as easily go through another 60 years never seeing a woman up to no good in the loos and A tip: it's usually the stuff they do that gives you the clue. You're talking about watching, keeping an eye out. We're talking about prevention (which has worked extremely well up to now) As a woman, don't you deserve prevention? Do you really, truly want to take a massive step backwards?

Well quick read it seems more an issue with Stella Creasy, timing and Stonewall rather than subject of street harassment and misogyny - though some thought provoking points about hate crime in general.

We're talking about prevention (which has worked extremely well up to now) As a woman, don't you deserve prevention? Do you really, truly want to take a massive step backwards?

This is not a war zone. This is not a deprived country. The preventative effects of single sex toilets in this country are slim, because the vast majority of violence towards women in this country - albeit perpetrated by men - is perpetrated by intimate partners of those women, in their own homes.

An extremely small percentage of the total of violent or sexually abusive acts against women occur in unisex public locations; even relatively private ones.

What little prevention is achieved by segregating toilets in 2018 in the UK is just as easily achieved with full length lockable doors, well thought-through building design that ensures toilets are not in remote locations, and the ubiquitous CCTV - which is everywhere these days anyway.

Seriously. If you want women to believe we're living such dire times that the little room we pee in can't be next to a little room with a penis peeing in it, I would suggest you're doing women a MASSIVE disservice. The pernicious effects of telling women we are that weak and that vulnerable in today's society will set us back centuries.

I actually feel sad for you Rat. You appear to place taking a risk before prevention. How on earth did you come about to have this little self worth? I'm not being sarky, I genuinely feel sad.

**

Reread it in the context of the conversation I was having; perhaps this is just a momentary lapse of comprehension on your part. If this is your usual working level, don't bother.

I'm reading it in the context of the body of your work here on MN and calling you a great big RolyPoly fibber.

You say this, you say that - but you meant this, you meant that. You can't answer the question again, you have done so too many times. Where are these answers you world weary genius? Where can we look for 'What is a Woman' the Gospel of Rat?
Maybe we should just take it on faith? If she says she has answered the question, she has answered the question. You just lie and obfuscate ALL THE TIME.

So don't now give us anecdotes to prove us wrong on the big question then say you meant only to answer one post Rat. It just demonstrates your very tenuous relationship with the truth.

And you can take your 'rebukes' with you when you go too.

What little preventionisachieved by segregating toilets in 2018 in the UK isjust as easily achievedwith full length lockable doors

I think a loo with a full length lockable door is a wonderful place to push someone into and trap them there. Much harder for them to call out and be heard too. If I was a rapist, I'd think it was a great idea to have more of them.

I actually feel sad for you Rat. You appear to place taking a risk before prevention. How on earth did you come about to have this little self worth? I'm not being sarky, I genuinely feel sad.

I'm afraid you're rather mistaken about me tilly. Fell sad if you must, by self-worth is really very healthy. Too healthy some would say!

Personally I feel sad for the small cohort of women who view womanhood as a cross of victimhood to be borne through every aspect of life. I am happy to accept my vulnerability when I am vulnerable, but when I am demonstrably not vulnerable I will not have my liberty curtailed by anyone under the guise of my weakness. No man or woman will tell me I am too weak or vulnerable to do something for which there is no basis to suggest I am.

There is no basis to suggest women are too vulnerable in 2018 Britain to wee in a little room next to a little room with a man in it. None at all. Why you would insist every woman think there is - against all the facts available - smacks of dragging women down. And that's a shame. Although undoubtedly it is your own life's experience that leads you to your point of view.

The preventative effects of single sex toilets in this country are slim And you no longer want this slim preventative effect for women and girls? Why not, if I may ask?

If you want women to believe we're living such dire times that the little room we pee in can't be next to a little room with a penis peeing in it, I would suggest you're doing women a MASSIVE disservice. The pernicious effects of telling women we arethat weakandthat vulnerablein today's society will set us backcenturies.

This is just so insulting to the significant minority of women who've lived through abuse and who can't help but feel very frightened of men.

Most people will come away from a sa being profoundly aware of their own vulberabilities. It is a horrible, life-changing feeling. We are physically weaker as a sex. It isn't our fault.

Rat did you even read the news report on how many more sex attacks happen in unisex loos? Having robust self-esteem and an inner sense of being strong and not a victim mean jack shit if someone targets you in a unisex loo.

I'm reading it in the context of the body of your work here on MN and calling you a great big RolyPoly fibber.

Well then you're reading faaar too much into it Certain.

You say this, you say that - but you meant this, you meant that. You can't answer the question again, you have done so too many times. Where are these answers you world weary genius?

I say this, I say that; you misread or misunderstand, I refer you back to my original words. You really are getting yourself very muddled up. And looky here, look at me answering questions about toilets, as I have been so directed!

If you want to know my definition of a woman try searching for the thread?

Actually I just Googled "RatRolyPoly Mumsnet Woman Definition" and look what I found...

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3296479-Alternative-Definitions-of-Woman

There are several more like that one.

So... it really was a truth quite easily provable.

Jesus.

When strong women don't help out vulnerable or potentially vulnerable ones this is what you get.

I'm alright Jill and fuck the rest of you.

This is just so insulting to the significant minority of women who've lived through abuse and who can't help but feel very frightened of men.

Perhaps you're personally offended, but I'm afraid objectively I can't see many people outside of the GC clique agreeing with you.

Most people will come away from a sa being profoundly aware of their own vulberabilities. It is a horrible, life-changing feeling. We are physically weaker as a sex. It isn't our fault.

Yes. I know. But in my view whilst it is a natural response to that to try and be overprotective of oneself and others above and beyond what is reasonable, I do not think it is a healthy one. Or one that should be promoted.

Yes, women have it hard, some women have it very hard. But when balancing liberty and protectionism we can't rely to heavily on the emotional, we have to be reasonable to ensure women retain the maximum possible liberty. Men and others who would keep us down would be all too quick to fan the flames of those reasonable fears so that women would choose to lock themselves away and stay out of their hair when it is not a reasonable response. I don't think we should let them win.

When strong women don't help out vulnerable or potentially vulnerable ones this is what you get.

And when women choose to section themselves off from society "for their own protection" in situations where it offers them no additional protection at all, we are choosing our own oppression.

Now look, I'm all up for sex segregation when it matters, but I'm not up for it when it really fucking doesn't. There are times when I think the evidence shows it doesn't, and you think the evidence shows it does. That's okay. But if you would just accept another point of view, that would be a start!

Rat why do you no longer want this slim preventative effect for women and girls?

Rat why do you no longer want this slim preventative effect for women and girls?

I called it "slim" in the context of fully unisex loos. Reduce that by 99% when we're talking about mostly xx/xy loos (i.e. trans people use the loo of their gender) because there are so few trans people and what effect do you have left?

Now let's compare that to the alternative. The alternative, at best, is a third space. Setting aside for one moment how otherring and outing that could potentially be for trans people, plus entirely unfeasible given the size of the trans population, you can still have people who are reasonably passing using the ladies with you. Even ones who aren't reasonably passing, you ask them if they should be there, they say "yes", what are you going to do? Kick 'em out to the third space?? What about a trans man? Are you going to kick him out?

That tiny percentage of slim benefit vs. the alternative, especially when you factor in the pernicious impact on the self-esteem and sense of inclusion in society for women of fairly arbitrary segregation, is what I've based my opinion on.

You haven't answered Rat Why do you no longer want this slim preventative effect (your words) for women and girls?

You haven't answered Rat Why do you no longer want this slim preventative effect (your words) for women and girls?

Er... I have.

Because in reality is would be way smaller than slim (see above re: unisex loos vs. trans women using the ladies'), and the cumulative negative effects of excluding trans people would easily outweigh it.

And it's not that women don't like the answers. It's that they are not explained or evidenced.

This. ROFL that some people think they have provided answers which satisfactorily address our many questions. Other than "I say it doesn't matter, now STFU."

Ereshkigal! How I've missed you. What took you so long??

Icing a cake?