Bloggers Specials this week

[HandDivedScallopsrgreat]

Hi MNHQ,

I wonder if you could tell me the reason behind endorsing/promoting a blog regarding a wife who believes her husband, a convicted rapist, is innocent. I was quite shocked to find it in the weekly parenting news e-mail.

There are a lot of women on MN who have been victims of rape and whose attackers will never be brought to justice. It is incredibly hard to get a rape conviction due to all the rape myths, one of which is women lie and the man didn't do it. I feel it is insulting to the victims of rape and could be triggering.

A couple of months ago you were asked to support a campaign to help dispel rape mytha which you looked on favourably here but endorsing this blog seems to fly in the face of that.

Thanks

'we all know that going to the boss is a last resort'

Well, exactly.

That is the point I am making.

I don't expect Justine and everyone else to be available for an instant response, but why did anyone need a 'last resort' in this case? Should it not have been a simple matter of saying 'that is obviously wrong, I will remove the links to it and issue an apology'? The fact this wasn't done suggests at least some members did not realize what they were looking at. Which is, as you say, understandable given how widespread rape myths are, but still I would think a cause for concern.

Yes, I see what you mean.

Tbh I don't think it can ever be viewed in black and white.

I read this thread last night and although I haven't read the blog in question I can absolutely see that it is somewhat inappropriate to promote the blog of a woman who is defending a convicted rapist.

but I wonder where we draw the line?

When puddytats' dh went to prison for fraud she protested his innocence even though he pleaded guilty, and many mumsnetters supported her. (this was still a woman defending a convicted criminal).

When Fran Lyon was battling against social services wanting to remove her child she posted all over the boards and mumsnetters supported her, to the extent that anyone who spoke out against her was quickly silenced by the majority. NO she hadn't been convicted of anything yet but to be honest none of us could have known either way whether ss in fact did have good grounds and whether that baby might have been at risk.

When the sally clarke/Donna Anthony/Angela Cannings cases were ongoing many mumsnetters were in support of those even though they were (at the time) convicted murderers.

When a relative of the couple jailed for poisoning their adopted child with salt came on here protesting their innocence mumsnetters supported them and believed them.

Now I will add at this point that in many of the instances listed above, convictions have been quashed and those particular individuals were released, so in fact maybe that support was not unfounded. But at the time we didn't know that - at the time people were standing behind child murderers and abusers, and other convicted criminals. And on a parenting forum child abuse is surely no less of an emotive subject than rape?

For the record I agree there is nothing inspirational about someone who defends a convicted rapist. But equally I think there is nothing inspirational about defending a convicted fraudster, or child killer, or supporting someone who is suspected of being a risk to their child from leaving the country to escape social services.

If mumsnet shouldn't be supporting the wife of a convicted rapist, then perhaps mumsnet ought to also think about whether posts in support of other convicted criminals should be reconsidered as well.

Either we're supportive, or we're not. Crime is crime, and while some crimes are of course far more emotive due to their nature, someone isn't less of a criminal because their crime was fraud as opposed to rape.

The blog poster here is also a victim. If I'm right (and I haven't read the blog, perhaps someone could pm it to me?) the DNA came to light because of an attack on the actual blogger herself? so she is a victim of domestic violence, and is still being loyal to her own abuser. That in itself makes her worthy of our support, does it not?

I absolutely agree that the blog should not have been featured as blog of the week. But if it is being removed from the network entirely, I do think that the reasons behind this should be considered. Is it being removed because the man she is defending is a rapist? or is it because he is a convicted criminal? Because if the former, then I think this needs to be considered, and I think that if someone is being rejected from the network on the basis they are defending a convicted rapist, then that filter needs to be extended to include all crimes, because all crimes have victims. It's just that we often don't consider the victims of many crimes (fraud often considered a victimless crime, for instance).

.

I agree that the wife is also a victim.

And I agree that we need to consider the victims of all crimes.

But it's not as if this poster has not received support elsewhere on the boards. I don't think anyone is saying that is wrong. It's her blog being promoted that is inappropriate. So TBH, I do not think it can be compared with all the other cases of MNers supporting posters in situations where they were defending or standing by convicted criminals.

There is a difference though, I think, wannabe. In part because this is a crime against women, and MN is a site where victims of that crime come for support (as they do for domestic abuse). And also because the conviction rates for rape are so much lower than for other crimes, and victims are notoriously disbelieved in a way which simply doesn't apply to other crimes.

In view of this, I think it is especially important that mumsnet is seen to protect the women who have been raped who come here for support that is often not forthcoming elsewhere.

This is something I tried to say in my first post on this thread and didn't really manage to articulate, but I'm thinking of it again reading wannaBe's post.

This woman is a victim of DV, which she herself says, and which she thinks was brought on by her own PND. I can't begin to say how sad and upset for her than makes me feel. I wish I could help her. I bet other people feel the same. This is one of the things MN is good at, is reaching out to women in situations like this.

But, this blog is by a woman who stands by a convicted rapist. It has been promoted on a busy website. I think it would be massively naive not to predict that, had it remained, it would soon have received some very upset, angry comments because, frankly, some people do that. I don't think, for the record, that anyone on this thread is coming at it from that angle. But come on, someone sooner or later would have had a rant at this woman. As no doubt happened on the threads wannaBe mentions.

That would not only deflect support from the blogger, who has started her blog because she feels isolated and scared, and whom many of us would be concerned for given what she says about DV, but it would also deflect attention from the perpetrators of rape and the victims of it. I think this woman would be the target of anger that is really generated by what a court has judged that her husband did. And then the focus is off rapists, off rape survivors, and back onto a woman who's effectively standing in front of her husband taking the flack. Score one for the patriarchy.

I don't think individuals MNHQ necessarily should have been expected to see that one coming and it is more a judgment call, but it is important too.

For me it's really simple: There is no place on Mumsnet for defence of convicted rapists (in this case he was convicted on strong forensic evidence). There is no place on Mumsnet for perpetuating the damage done to a rapist's' victim by tacit support for her denial of her abuser's guilt.

In this particular case, as I and many have said, she has a right to her opinions and to publish her blog. MN has no business assisting the promotion of a blog that protests the innocence of a convicted rapist regardless of how small a percent of the total blog postings that forms.

The Bloggers Network is different to the Talk boards. There is less moderation by other posters. There is a tacit understanding that the premise of each blog reflects the Mumsnet ethos in some way. That is not the case on the Talk boards where it's clear that each opinion expressed is independent and anything that deviates from the ethos is picked up by the self-moderation of other posters.

I don't believe MN read all of the blogs suggested for the bloggers network. And therein lies the problem. That and the naivety/ignorance/stupidity of a single MNHQer (and that's for MNHQ to investigate, not us. Not least because we can't).

I do not believe this monumental fuck up is indicative of a problem with MN's culture or ethos. If I thought that I wouldn't use the site.

The Bloggers Network is different to the Talk boards. There is less moderation by other posters. There is a tacit understanding that the premise of each blog reflects the Mumsnet ethos in some way.

Sorry, but I have to contradict this.

I don't think that each blog reflects MN ethos in some way.

They are VERY varied, both in topic and in opinions.

And that gives credence to a "MN ethos", which I am not actually sure what this is or how you would define it.

ok, so they would perhaps not have accepted a blog from BNP and there is an emphasis on parents and parenting, but they are not all MNetty blogs.

Our aim is to:

? Make parents' lives easier by pooling knowledge, advice and support.

? We try, as far as possible to let the conversation flow and not to over-moderate. Mumsnet is a site for grown-ups.

That's the aims of MN as published by MN. I think MN does have an ethos. We might not be able to articulate it fully but most of us know what it is when we stray outside of it or see others do so. Part of that ethos is seeing parents as people, not just mum or dad. I would say the bloggers network reflects that.

For example, the Bidisha blog. She's not a parent but she writes eloquently on issues that affect parents, particularly mothers being a feminist blogger. That fits with the first aim and also the second of being for grown-ups.

Blogs about craft, feminism, parenting, cooking, activism etc etc are all relevant because they fit with the aims and consequently the ethos of the site. The convicts blog does not meet the aims.

I should be clear - I don't think Bidisha blogs about parenting. She blogs about feminism which is relevant of interest to the MN demographic.

agree with MmeL that it's not about a mn ethos.. If you look at the bloggers network the variety is immense. There are parenting blogs, craft blogs, cookery blogs, my own blog is an opinions blog which centres mostly on my opinions of news events (although I branch out from time to time into other realms) but no parenting or children in sight.

I've just read the blog and without going googling to find the details of the crime I can see how it could have made it through. Because only in the first post does the poster make mention of the actual crime. There are only two places where she mentions the fact that she believes him to be innocent. Nowhere does she mention that he was violent towards her, there is mention of his being suspicious/insecure in one part but that is all. The rest is predominantly about her life, which will of course include prison visits because that is now a part of her daily life.

I fail to see how it made it into blog of the week purely because of the small number of posts on it.

But on reading the actual blog, while she is of course defending a rapist and that is not to be excused, it doesn't read like a blog of someone who is continually defending a rapist, iyswim, it reads as the blog of the wife and mother living her life while her husband does time. In fact if you take the actual crime out of the equasion, it is exactly the kind of blog that might fit with some peoples' idea of the mn "ethos" in terms of that it is a site for parents... this woman is a parent living a hard life...

So on that basis I can see why and how it slipped through.

And knowing that there are hundreds and hundreds of blogs on the network, some with hundreds and hundreds of posts, I can also see how it's just not possible to read through all of them in their entirety to ensure that they won't offend.

"The convicts blog does not meet the aims." I disagree. She is a parent bringing up her children while her husband is serving a prison sentence. She is a parent, posting on a parenting forum, how does that not meet with the aims?

And how many other women, mothers, do you think there might be out there who are bringing up children single-handedly while their husbands/partners do time?

The crime is emotive, I get that and I agree, and I cannot see how anyone could stand by and defend a convicted rapist. But equally I cannot understand how a woman can stay with a man who beats her up time after time, yet many do - this particular woman included if google is to be believed.

Just because this woman's husband is doing time doesn't make her less of a parent, or less entitled to the support offered by a parenting forum.

I think she does mention it, actually. I can go and check, but I think she mentions his conviction resulted from a DNA sample given following DV.

I don't think anyone is suggesting this woman shouldn't get support from MN. But this is a blog, which is different.

Wannabe if you read my other posts you will see I expressly state that the only issue is with the rape denial and that everything else would fit the aims and ethos. Other posters have made similar points.

It doesn't matter what the majority of the blog is about. It is written from the premise that this man is not guilty. He was tried by jury and found guilty of a crime with minuscule conviction rates. I read the first two and last two posts on the blog. There was enough in there to worry about.

I think I'll have to agree to differ on the ethos point.

Wannabe at no point have I or anyone on this thread said the blogger does not need or deserve the support of this parenting forum. I have made that point very clear in all my posts and expressly in at least one.

wannabe the very fact that she mentions her DH is in prison for rape, should be the alarm call.

It doesn't mean that the blog might be considered not consistent with MN ethos automatically; but it should mean that it's worthy of further investigation.

And that further investigation, with a very few clicks, would have revealed just how inappropriate the blog was.

I totally agree with all your points about the blogger needing real support from MN. I'm not sure she's in a place where she can face up to the reality of her situation yet, but I hope she knows that when she's ready to, she will get all the support she needs from MN.

so if this woman posted on talk that she was to all intents and purposes a single parent because her husband was doing time for a rape she believed he hadn't committed but was having a hard time of it, bringing up the kids on her own, them only getting to see their dad for two hours a month, having to juggle work and prison visits and school and all that being the parent of a convicted criminal involves, do you honestly think she would get support here? Honestly? Or do you think she would be hounded off of mn for supporting a convicted rapist (despite the fact she herself was a victim) and that before the thread had reached the end of page one someone would have outed her by linking to articles about the case...?

The man is a rapist, I'm not disputing that. And from what I've read about him on the blog he sounds like a fairly unpleasant individual anyway. And it does sit somewhat uncomfortably with me that someone would want to defend someone who was convicted based on DNA evidence.

But clearly this woman is in need of support because she herself has been a victim. If anything, this is a time when she would be best placed to leave a violent relationship, while her agressor is behind bars and cannot influence or get to her, and perhaps if she'd had the support that some on mumsnet can offer, she might be able to see that she is also a victim here.

But instead the defense of the rapist (who is also been violent to her) blinds peoples' view of everything else.

If she herself was not a victim of this man and was just blindly defending him I would absolutely agree with any negativity directed towards her.

But I think the fact she is herself a victim of this man changes everything, and that she herself is not in a position to see just how wrong her views are, and as such, she needs support.

Basil
When I first read the blog, I was very uncomfortable. Maybe I am shite at googling, but I didn't find out the details of the case until yesterday when someone PMed me.

So I don't think that MN would have found it immediately.

That they should have looked closer, is now clear. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

wannabe, she's a regular - she's had support here.

(Support, incidentally, not being identical to 'agreement' or 'enabling', FWIW.)

Wannabe are you reading a different thread? There has been no "negativity direct towards [the blogger]" from the vast majority of posters.

There has been questioning of MNs actions and judgment. That is all.

MmeL I found it fairly quickly but also MNHQ should have asked for more detail.

You say it made you feel very uncomfortable. At that point (assuming anyone at MNHQ was reading the blogs) they should have gone back to the blogger for clarification.

Fwiw I think it's a procedural issue. The alternative is that a MN staffer read the blog and didn't get the uncomfortable feeling (worrying and potentially an indication they are in the wrong job or very green and not adequately supervised) or did get that feeling and didn't investigate (negligent).

But I do think it's for MNHQ to investigate.

well I've googled and I can't find anything either.

Maybe the understanding from mn should be that they won't allow the blogs of partners of convicted criminals - any convicted criminals.

Isla yes most of the questioning has been towards mn hq, but to be fair the blogger herself hasn't posted much on this thread. I presume that if she had, many of the posts would equally have been directed at her.

Wannabe I know there are lot of tossers on MN nowadays, but there are also plenty of sensitive, kind, intelligent MNers who can see that there is no contradiction between someone who desperately needs support and someone who is in total denial and maybe not be in a place where they can accept that support right now.

MN is still big enough and decent enough, not to have the peanut gallery take over in a case like this. I do believe the blogger would get support here. As LRD has pointed out, she already has done. And I trust that she'll get more.