MNHQ here: webchat with MPs Jess Phillips and Flick Drummond

[BojanaMumsnet]

Hello,

We’re pleased to announce a webchat with Jess Phillips MP and Flick Drummond MP, co-chairs of the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Women and Work, on Monday 23 January at 2pm.

Monday sees the release of the APPG’s first annual report, which explores the broad theme of ‘women returners.’ It has considered ‘a range of diverse issues which impact on the ability of women to return to the workplace, particularly after taking maternity leave or fulfilling caring responsibilities.’

Jess Phillips is the Labour MP for Birmingham Yardley. Before this, Jess spent five years working for Women’s Aid, and served on Birmingham City Council, where she was appointed Birmingham’s first ever Victims’ Champion. Since being elected to Parliament in 2015, Jess has served on the Women and Equalities Select Committee and the Backbench Business Committee. Last year she authored a guest post on Mumsnet in support of the Reclaim the Internet campaign.

Flick Drummond is the Conservative MP for Portsmouth South. Prior to her election in 2015, she worked as an insurance broker, Ofsted lay school inspector and was a member of the TA Intelligence Corps. Flick now sits on the Women and Equalities Select Committee, where her work has included contributing to the Gender Pay Gap inquiry, in which she called for more flexible working conditions to be offered at the start of employment. Flick cites her own experience of re-entering the jobs market after raising her children as important in giving her a first-hand account of the unique difficulties that women face in the workplace.

So if you'd like to talk to Jess and Flick about women and employment, returning to work, their experience of being women MPs (or just plain MPs), sounding off on Twitter or anything else that takes your fancy, do please join us on Monday. As always, please do keep in mind our webchat guidelines - one question each (follow-ups if there’s time) and please be polite!

Thanks
MNHQ

I do get the frustration. Flick and Jess clearly do stuff on a whole range of issues that would be of interest to MNers. But I really don't think the accusation of drowning out is fair when they DID answer plenty of other stuff, and there is nothing to stop them. People who want to ask about y can do so even if ten times as many people are asking about x, and the guest can and did answer the y question - it is not like a RL setting where people can be literally drowned out.
I can see it's awkward from MNHQ's side firstly if people are unwelcoming, and secondly if a guest comes along wanting to talk about something in particular and hardly anyone wants to ask about it, but honestly, it's a measure of how concerned many of us feel about this issue that despite Flick and Jess having lots of other interesting stuff to talk about, we wanted to prioritise this.

ItsAllGoingToBeFine

You have missed from your list, the times MNHQ asked for posters to refrain from posting the same sort of thing over and over again.

[quote ItsAllGoingToBeFine]

• At least half of the questions were on the "trans issue"...
• The webchat was not well "attended"

I think we'd argue that these two things are connected - possibly the webchat was less well attended because it was clear that it was going to be held hostage to this one issue. If you were interested in other issues, or if you'd previously experienced a similar hijacking on MN, you might well decide that it wasn't worth the candle.

The bottom line is, it's not on to barrack if you don't get the answer you want, I'm afraid. Ultimately we'll end up with no guests at all, and that will benefit no-one.

MNHQ you should probably get in touch with the 7 women you banned and let them know why you banned them then. Let them know which of their specific questions were verboten.

Most of the 7 banned women made an effort to ask questions relevant to the subject the MPs came on to discuss - women and work. These questions were still ignored. We didn't ask about Jess's broken heart, we asked about women and work.

As far as I know none of the 7 women have received any notification of this 'temporary suspension' - not much use posting on here.

I think we'd argue that these two things are connected - possibly the webchat was less well attended because it was clear that it was going to be held hostage to this one issue. If you were interested in other issues, or if you'd previously experienced a similar hijacking on MN, you might well decide that it wasn't worth the candle

That is a fair point (although I disagree )

However, if that is the case, with the greatest of respect, you need to make it clear on webchats that people should not ask what is important to them, but should stick to asking purely about the specific topic that the guess wishes to speak about. Make it clear, and delete questions about that you feel inappropriate. Or you could just state at the top of every webchat "questions relating to transgender issues will be deleted".

Otherwise future webchats may well also be "hijacked" by women who happen to have a shared concern that is not specifically and precisely to do with the advertised web chat topic.

At least that will mean you can stop people asking about biscuits, which of course while immensely important, are not quite on topic...

'However, if that is the case, with the greatest of respect, you need to make it clear on webchats that people should not ask what is important to them, but should stick to asking purely about the specific topic that the guess wishes to speak about.'

Yes, this.
It would at least be transparent.

My impression of the webchat, coming in partway through, was that there was a volume of trans*-related questions with varying degrees of direct relevance to the "women and work" headline, and that none of those was being answered, while nearly every order question was looked at.

It also seemed rather disjointed, which made me wonder why you'd bothered having them in together - they weren't addressing each other's points or sharing out questions to answer, either of which would have made it more coherent. I haven't seen a joint webchat before: is it a new thing?

A MN webchat is rarely an AMA but often they kind of turn into that kind of chat. It might be helpful to add that rider into your webchat guidelines. If a guest has come on to talk about his new cook book and not his new marriage then it's sensible to say so at the outset (perhaps not in those terms).

I feel that the recent posts from MNHQ indicate a bias against the concerns prevalent on FWB. It was a bit "stop talking about this distasteful topic" rather than "that question has already been answered and the focus of the webchat is meant to be xyz so are there any more questions about that?"

Obviously it's the business's prerogative to have a bias or declared position, but you keep saying you don't have one so I think you should try harder to be neutral if you want to be neutral.

Mumsnet HQ, would you please be willing to find someone, some politician, who is willing to come along and a answer questions on this topic, please?

If such a large and prestigious organisation as Mumsnet cannot find anyone to debate this openly, might we be right to assume that from the point of view of politicians we are pretty screwed?

I hope you will someone soon.

The web chat was a a bit of a fiasco. It doesn't reflect well on the politicians but the people 'sanctioned' were ordinary posters who politely asked questions that were ignored.

You have a very loyal and active following, Mumsnet, please listen to our concerns.

Thank you.

To be fair though, MN will presumably invite speakers that they think will be popular and increase their traffic. They are a business, they need to sell advertising etc. They don't have to do anything we ask, just for our benefit. They'll only do it if it benefits them in some way. I can see why issues around transactivism and women's rights is a topic they'd wish to avoid on a cost/benefit analysis.

@ItsAllGoingToBeFine

you need to make it clear on webchats that people should not ask what is important to them, but should stick to asking purely about the specific topic that the guess wishes to speak about. Make it clear, and delete questions about that you feel inappropriate. Or you could just state at the top of every webchat "questions relating to transgender issues will be deleted".

Being prescriptive about what can and can't be asked is the opposite of what we're about, ItsAllGoingToBeFine. But we do think it's important that people don't pile on if they don't like the answer - and certainly, that they desist when asked to do so by MNHQ.

You need to be honest in your intentions and say that no more trans questions are allowed then, not just ban people for asking perfectly respectable questions.

Why are some concerns more worthy than others?

As far as I can see from reading the web chat, ALL the other questions were answered. No one was drowned out at all.

I still maintain that it is rude to ignore people who ask difficult questions.

@HumphreyCobblers

You need to be honest in your intentions and say that no more trans questions are allowed then, not just ban people for asking perfectly respectable questions.

That's what we did, here.

You weren't as explicit as that, though. It certainly wasn't clear that you wanted an end to trans* questions, rather than an end to the haranguing version.

so you did. Apologies.

Any opinion on if it is equally rude to ignore lots of posters when you come on to do a web chat?

Katemumsnet I second the request of a brave MP to discuss the gender versus sex issues.

I would point out that most of the questions were woman centered.

WE need a clear definition of what a woman is in the MP's eyes, so we know who they are aiming to help and why. It isn't a 'trans' issue it is a woman's one.

I think we all share concerns about women's safety, dignity and future rights and THAT is what we really need to talk about....but sadly we can no longer talk about women's rights without being told we are not thinking about mens feelings....This is just crazy !

Hope you can find a brave MP to talk to us vipers. Whoever chooses to stand up first for women's rights, will have plenty of female backing in the coming years, surely someone would be willing to come here ?

Datun did you finish your lines?

I won't ask legitimate questions of barrack MPs on MN web chats

Yes I did ! So on this occasion they're not sending a letter home to my parents.

What about asking Dr Julia Long on for a webchat? I know she isn't an MP but if I remember correctly it was a very popular idea once upon a time.

"But we do think it's important that people don't pile on if they don't like the answer"

What answer?

That's the point. The central questions were not answered. It was really, really clear, how very important this topic is to mumsnetters because at least half the questions were about it. Just one honest answer might have given us something not to like.

I mean on one level, I don't blame them. They are female MP's and transactivists are violent men. (Have a look at their fantasies about punching women and setting us on fire.) Jo Cox died because a violent man didn't like her politics. But OTOH, just by being female and in the public eye, you are a target for violent men and silence doesn't necessarily protect you.

I think it's instructive that they didn't feel they could talk freely. Either because they know that being a woman is a biological reality, not just a feeling, but it has become heresy to say so, or because they genuinely do believe there is truth in the notion that biological sex is determined by your feelings, not your DNA, but they cynically realise that most women will be utterly pissed off with them for saying so.

Or of course, they haven't got a clue because they haven't realised how important this issue is, so they haven't done the reading. That's also a possibility. (I'm always astounded by how little background reading people in power manage to get away with before making decisions which affect thousands of people.)

They certainly aren't aware of the issues with Mermaids. I winced when they suggested them.

I think the fact that Jess recommended Mermaids to Fish spoke volumes. She clearly had no idea of the actual nature of that group.

There is a third option ask which is that they would be hounded out of their job if they gave a biological definition.
It is awful this is the political environment we live in but many people on this thread wouldn't be able to express their views freely at work without risking losing their job - why do we assume MPs are any different?
I also think that in the case of Sophie Walker/the WEP the question of "what makes a woman" is central because that is the tenet of the party.
In this case, both parties they are members of have issues with women and aren't wholly behind women's rights. And "women returners" by default are likely to be women who have given birth so the trans issue becomes less relevant.

"There is a third option ask which is that they would be hounded out of their job if they gave a biological definition."

See, I don't believe that.

Most people do not believe any of this nonsense.

The electorate is not going to throw Jess Phillips out of her job because she thinks biology is real.

For other stuff, maybe, but this? No. Transactivists are a tiny minority and most people know biology is real.

I think it's instructive that they didn't feel they could talk freely. Either because they know that being a woman is a biological reality, not just a feeling, but it has become heresy to say so, or because they genuinely do believe there is truth in the notion that biological sex is determined by your feelings, not your DNA, but they cynically realise that most women will be utterly pissed off with them for saying so.

Or of course, they haven't got a clue because they haven't realised how important this issue is, so they haven't done the reading. That's also a possibility. (I'm always astounded by how little background reading people in power manage to get away with before making decisions which affect thousands of people.)

Thank you Basil for the clarity of your posts!

Please, MNHQ, can you organise a webchat with someone who was involved in the trans rights report from the women & equalities commission and who is prepared to answer our questions about the effects on women and children's rights? I don't think this is going to go away.