MNHQ here: Femicide Census - want to know what you could do to help?

[RowanMumsnet]

Hello

Lots of you have been discussing the Femicide Census this week - the data for 2018 has just been released and has been getting some coverage in the media.

We asked Nia, the charity that supports the Femicide Census, what MNHQ could do to help support their work - and they sent us this email. Of course we at MNHQ will be happy to do what we can, so expect to see more about this from us, but for now it felt as though the most useful thing we could do would be to pass this on directly to you - so here goes:

"In terms of supporting our work – it is often just really helpful to have people talking about the issue, referring to the femicide census, retweeting etc – it’s about keeping the issue at the forefront of people’s minds and in particular using language that situates the blame clearly with the perpetrators and recognises it as part of the wider pattern of sex based inequality and discrimination.

As we said in our press release endless excuses and rationales are afforded to perpetrators – he had mental health issues, he was depressed, he was upset at the relationship ending, he had lost his job, he had been declared bankrupt, he was being investigated by the police, he couldn’t cope any more, he found it too distressing to see his wife/mother/child suffer yet all too often if you question it you find he had a history of controlling or abusive behaviour .

All these conditions apply to the millions of women who do not control, abuse, belittle or kill people. Even where the man kills his child somehow it’s her fault. We always scrutinise women’s behaviour and their conformity to some stereotyped, fossilised code of behaviour expected of women and benefitting men and blame her if she is not conforming to that fantasy. So anything your users can do to challenge such misrepresentations or misplaced emphasis or unreasonable rationales would be very helpful.

We also sometimes support relevant strategic litigation and in partnership with other women’s organisations we may attend Court hearings or raise a demo outside the court or similar. We know this makes a difference to the woman whose case it is – it shows her solidarity and we think it may also help build gravitas and credibility for the media and the judiciary so we sometimes tweet demos and welcome women coming along to that. We also undertake other activism – so we are usually present at Million Women Rise March or Reclaim the Night March and again we encourage such visible activism as part of a wider women’s movement.

Of course the other thing is that we always need donations so if women want to do fundraising activities, runs, swims, silences, cakebakes or whatever and raise money for us – we are delighted. We are not big enough to have a dedicated fundraiser role or a team supporting people in the way we would like but we can always provide information, logos, leaflets, links to relevant information about us or about the issue and we’ll support as much as we can – we retweet fundraisers who are doing activities for us and encourage it as much as possible.

Also women’s various workplaces or communities sometimes are looking for a charity to support or their workplace may match funds raised or encourage staff to do fundraising activities so it may be that there are other ways to multiply fundraising reach. Similarly if women are involved in organising or attending conferences and events where there may be demand for a speaker – within limited capacity and with enough notice - we may be able to come out and talk about our work or the femicide census or violence against women. The place to contact us for these sorts of things is [email protected] and we of course on Twitter - @nia_endingvawg

Thank you for all your support"

we're pretty desperate for this thread to NOT turn into another long debate about our moderation, or indeed about the debate around sex, gender and self-ID, because we think that would be a significant injustice to the topic of the OP.

Yes, the topic being the murder of girls by men. You really can't have that discussion without ALWAYS being able to identify males as males and females as females.

As Nia said themselves:

"it’s about keeping the issue at the forefront of people’s minds and in particular using language that situates the blame clearly with the perpetrators and recognises it as part of the wider pattern of sex based inequality and discrimination"

Words mean things. You cannot continue to censor the use of the correct words that put the blame where it belongs.

So talk about this but not completely truthfully

Its impossible to have that conversation without talking about what we actually mean.

Theres only one way of talking about sex based violence, through disccusion of male and female sex. Being honest and stating facts.

Without this the topic is destroyed, and I want to hear/support NIA because death of women and girls has to stop.

That said, if someone has been convicted of violent/sexual offences then our first priority will always be to stand with the victims and - where relevant - the use of pronouns would take a back seat to that so far as our mod team is concerned.

Why do we have to wait for a woman to be hurt before we can name the reality of her endangerment?

It’s not just waiting for them to be hurt. They have to be convicted before we can tell the truth on MN.

To be fair to MNHQ, the courts are telling women to describe their convicted male attackers as ‘she’ so we have slightly more freedom to tell the truth here than in a Court of Law. Slightly more.

@JellySlice

Why do we have to wait for a woman to be hurt before we can name the reality of her endangerment?

One of the reasons we wanted to have this conversation in a separate thread is because we're interested in hearing some concrete examples of this. We don't think there's anything in our rules or the way we moderate that prevents users talking concretely about women's endangerment - I think I did it pretty directly in my second post on this thread (not saying this in a self-congratulatory way, we just think it's not true that it's not possible to do it).

So some concrete examples of how users think they're prevented from doing this would genuinely be useful - maybe there are misunderstandings about our approach, maybe there are things we need to think about. Our position (contrary to some users on FWR, we know) is that taking an approach based in civility does not prevent our users from discussing the male/female power dynamic and disparities in power and control.

So some concrete examples and a discussion might genuinely be useful, it's just not helping Nia to have it on this thread - not least because all the MNers who are bored to tears by this debate (and there are lots of them) will be hiding this thread as we speak, and we think that's a major injustice to Nia, whatever you think of our moderation approach...

BTW we will be having Karen Ingala Smith on for a webchat next week so there will be a chance to talk directly to her about all of these issues

We should campaign for men's violence to be recognised as such even if

• the man identified as female (not about mod policy, this is about what we need to campaign for in the press, police reporting, language used in courts, statistics and general parlance).
• the media to stop referring to femicide as a 'tragedy' as if the man was a victim too. It is a cold-blooded crime of gender violence and this needs to be front and centre.
• we need to campaign against media reporting that in any way sympathises with or identifies with the killer.
• we need to campaign for education in schools that addresses make violence and makes it clear it is not tolerated.
• we need to campaign against violent porn (I'd say all porn).
• we need to campaign against all other treatment and depictions of women that suggest that women exist to please men in any way, shape or form, whether as prostituted women, girlfriends, colleagues or wives. This includes in the media, popular culture, literature and religion.
• we need to campaign for women's and girls' equal use of space from the sandpit and playground to the workplace.
• we need to campaign for women's financial equality so women will never be dependent on men and in financial peril if they leave them.
• we need to campaign for women's shelters that are safe and only for biological women and/or other accommodation for women with children.
• We must campaign against any legislation that stops us saying who (biological) women really are.

Do you really want us to name names MNHQ? I’m thinking of a prominent TW - not convicted of any crime afaik - but with a documented history of exposing their male genitalia at work and elsewhere. I want to say this person is a man. Under your rules I can’t.

@Binterested

Do you really want us to name names MNHQ? I’m thinking of a prominent TW - not convicted of any crime afaik - but with a documented history of exposing their male genitalia at work and elsewhere. I want to say this person is a man. Under your rules I can’t.

Hmm. I don't know who this person is and (see stuff about defamation below) it's probably easier to have this discussion if you don't name them.

If they haven't been convicted of a crime, then naming any individual and saying they are guilty of a criminal act is potentially defamatory. This has nothing to do with anyone's gender identity - it's just a matter of defamation law. So treading carefully around serious accusations about individuals really isn't to do with sex or gender - it applies to everyone.

If a person was merrily 'fessing up to indecently exposing themselves at work and in other public situations and it was plainly a matter of public record that they did so, we wouldn't be minded to take down MN posts pointing that out. There'd be no problem either in saying that they were exposing their penis/scrotum. And tbh it's not likely we'd be falling over ourselves to worry about which pronoun was used, or posts saying that this person is male/a man, given that this would be a post laying out undisputed information about someone indecently exposing themselves (ie a sexual crime).

The issue is that I currently have to say she exposed her penis. If this person had been convicted of a criminal offence you would allow me to say he.

The existence or otherwise of a criminal offence which, for MNHQ is the trigger to allow us to speak truthfully, doesn’t make any difference to the facts of the matter: that it was male patten behaviour and male genitalia.

By not allowing us to say this person is a man who exposed his penis you are obscuring the facts about male violence and predatory behaviour.

How about letting women speak about their material reality, using words that have historically used?
I want to talk about males using the pronouns that I have used my whole life.

Not stutter along with a list of words I can't use properly anymore.
I want to be able to say things that are true, even if this offends someone, the truth should never be taboo.

Calling a man 'he' is not illegal, it is not hate speech, it is a statement of facts that should absolutely not be moderated out of existence.

Mumsnet should get behind women, not be part of the system that is trying to clip our wings even more.

I didn’t say I wanted to talk about possible criminal offences. That’s exactly the point. It’s the situations where there is no criminality but the behaviour is male and damaging for women and girls.

By not allowing us to say this person is a man who exposed his penis you are obscuring the facts about male violence and predatory behaviour

The issue re defamation would appear to be whether or not a penis was exposed (accusation, gossip or proven), not whether the person exposing the penis was male.

This makes no sense to me. If a penis was exposed, it was exposed by a male person.

How can a lack of conviction about penis exposure mean this person is female.

My head hurts.

I'm feeling pretty miserable about the state of the world right now.

Especially women's place in it, how we are treated, what my daughter is likely to face as a female, worried about how to warn her of the dangers.

I think MN can be a really useful place for women who've experienced or are experiencing male violence. I'm grateful for this small space in MN where we can discuss the issues; frustrated that our speech is still circumscribed. We need to be able to name male violence if we have any hope of tackling it.

Good on you and thank you, Karen, for all that you do with NIA. More power to you.

@Binterested

The existence or otherwise of a criminal offence which, for MNHQ is the trigger to allow us to speak truthfully, doesn’t make any difference to the facts of the matter: that it was male patten behaviour and male genitalia.

But we are talking about a case in which nothing has been proved? So there are no established 'facts' here, there are only allegations.

The reason we're so insistent on things that we think encourage civility is that this is a bitter argument in which two groups of people feel genuinely frightened about possible infringements of their freedoms, and policy decisions that make them feel less safe.

We have taken the decision to allow these conversations to take place - which, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, most platforms do not, and is a decision that has had real costs for us.

Given that that's our decision, we have a responsibility to set guidelines that prioritise civility and thoughtfulness as much as possible. It does sometimes mean that some posters can't post exactly what they want in the exactly the way they want to. But we don't think anyone can reasonably accuse Mumsnet of brushing male violence against women under the carpet; we've probably hosted more conversations about it and given more prominence to relevant campaigns than any other UK site (and we're proud of that).

So basically, we can only refer to male violence (physical or otherwise) against women in a factual manner only when and if a criminal conviction has taken place.

Given the dire rate of conviction for many crimes against women, we are pretty much being silenced if we cant talk about it.

How does that tally against the statement given by Nia?

"As we said in our press release endless excuses and rationales are afforded to perpetrators"

Shall we add 'but he hasnt actually been convicted of anything' to the list of excuses? Sorry, she...

That’s a different point Rowan. We cannot make unsubstantiated claims about anyone. That is obvious.

This is situations where a man has behaved in a typically male way - it’s not criminal (or there has been no conviction). but it does damage women and girls by creating a hostile environment for them. These environments facilitate violence against women and girls. Ultimately the words ‘her penis’ contribute to this environment of hostility because it attempts to hide the truth.

It isn't defamation to use sex based words for people.
Maybe mumsnet need to actually stop pandering to these people who are demanding our speech is controlled? I'd certainly fund any legal fees that may be faced by MNHQ, you have the power to put a stop to this runaway train.

@Binterested

That’s a different point Rowan. We cannot make unsubstantiated claims about anyone. That is obvious.

This is situations where a man has behaved in a typically male way - it’s not criminal (or there has been no conviction). but it does damage women and girls by creating a hostile environment for them. These environments facilitate violence against women and girls. Ultimately the words ‘her penis’ contribute to this environment of hostility because it attempts to hide the truth.

OK - we are probably butting up against the limitations of talking about a theoretical case here; one of the reasons we don't issue long lengthy lists of exactly what is permissible is that we really do try to moderate contextually. We'd always look at the posts in context and take a view (and the existence of a conviction or a prosecution would be an important part of that context).

One of the reasons we emphasise civility is that it's pretty difficult for users to get on the wrong side of the Guidelines if they post in a civil way. Most trans people experience the deliberate rejection of preferred pronouns as hostile, and we don't want Mumsnet to be a hostile place for them. Also, obviously, it is never OK to imply - deliberately or otherwise - that 'all transwomen behave in this way' or 'all trans people are like this'.

Of course there's never a problem in talking about male-pattern behaviour in general terms, and if we judged that there was really compelling evidence that a transwoman had indecently exposed themselves we're unlikely to be minded to delete references to male-pattern behaviour and male genitalia. But it really would all depend on the tone of the post and the exact context. And we know some FWR users are concerned about racking up strikes and deletions - so posting with civility in mind is always going to be the safety-first approach.

Civility is a problem word here. It’s not civil to women to ask us to lie. It’s not civil to say ‘her penis’. It is not civil to women to expect them to constrain their natural and truthful speech.

This has nothing to do with criminality where you have a separate and legitimate problem.

To be fair I dont want to get into the war of words that happened on Twitter. That’s horrible. I don’t want the right to say to someone ‘you are a big fat hairy bloke’ or even meaner. I want to be able to speak biological truth. I want to say ‘his penis’.

Well, civility is really important for us and that's not something we're going to be changing our minds on. We're not a free-for-all (in FWR or anywhere else); having a few principles by which we moderate, which we try to make as broad and thoughtful as possible, is what makes Mumsnet work. And we do fundamentally disagree that civility is an unreasonable thing to aim for.

So, women have to be nice. That's it, is it? Women have to put civility, kindness etc before the truth?!
And the base of this entire debate is that men (mostly) are asserting themselves as a sex class that they simply are not, and in doing so are erasing women's rights to safe spaces apart from the sex class that are men.

But as long as we play nice, eh.

And, for what it's worth, no amount of civility will be enough for the TRAs, unless it's total capitulation to their demands, it's considered 'transphobic'.

But your civility is deeply offensive to me Rowan. Why is there a hierarchy of who we must be polite to ? None of this is polite to women.