Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk

Back to thread
Original poster

Madmouse's open letter to MNHQ about the treatment of those with disabilities on MN

34 replies

madmouse · 20/06/2012 19:05

Dear MNHQ

I joined MN when I was pregnant with my lovely ds. That heady autumn with bump before such words as NICU, neonatal seizures, brain damage, cerebral palsy, speech delay, special school entered my vocabulary.

That was 5 whole years ago - and all that time MN has been a part of my life. Got a lot of support from my ante- and postnatal buddies and from experienced SN mums. Gave back where I could. Became ill with PTSD, found the MH threads, recovered, started to give support on the MH threads.

Now I've come to the point that the only thing stopping me from leaving MN is that I would let down people on the MH threads. Other than that your (MNHQ) behaviour today has been an eye opener and a bit of a final straw.

MN has become, like RL, a place where disabled people and people with disabled children are not safe, not treated equally and not extended the same courtesy and respect as those without disabilities.

What happened today is just a tip of the ice berg. Day in day out threads appear with the same old theme. AIBU to use this disabled space because my baby's maxi cosy is too big and the P&T spaces are full, AIBU to use the wheelchair space on the bus (those two appear weekly by and large), AIBU to think it's nice to be disabled because you get lots of benefits, AIBU to think disabled people have it easy, AIBU to think I should have a free car too seeing as that I pay taxes.

It goes on and on and on. And none of it is ever challenged other than by a small group of us who do all this fighting in RL too - because it affects us and our children.

There is such thing as discrimination. And you do have a duty to stamp it out. Hand off moderation is no excuse certainly seeing how quick you were to delete 2shoes thread when some of us started fighting back against the endless threads of threads which in turn are copies of last week's threads.

I am very disappointed. And I think you have some thinking to do.

Best wishes

Go to post
MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 20/06/2012 20:19

Hello,

We've just posted this on the other Site Stuff thread, but thought it might be worth putting here too:

First off, we're very sorry to see that what's happened over the past couple of days has upset some of you. We at MNHQ are immensely proud of the SN boards, and of the incredible advice and support that the posters on there offer each other. (I've held meetings with some disability rights organisations/lobbying groups, and they've been open-mouthed at the quality of the postings on those boards; one of them told me that it was as good, if not better than, the advice offered by their paid phone-staffers.)

We'd hope that this goes without saying, but just in case it doesn't: we take disablism seriously, and we will delete it when it's reported to us. We also appreciate that those caring for other people with SN (or those with SN themselves) don't need any unnecessary hassle in their lives, and we try to take that into account when we consider reported posts.

All that said, we think Mumsnet is a place where people without much experience of SN should be able to explore issues around this topic (as with almost any other topic). There's a big difference between someone rocking up and posting abuse about those with SN (which would be deleted), and someone posting a genuine query about the ethics and etiquette of a situation like that described in the original thread. Those of us who've been around for a while have seen these issues rehashed time and again, but we need to bear in mind that every week we have many new members for whom these are not familiar arguments.

The original thread seemed to us at MNHQ to be a genuine query posted by someone whom we have no reason whatever to be suspicious of. The second thread was started when the first maxed out at 1000 posts; again, we think that it's not unusual, in MN terms, for follow-up threads to be started in these situations - so the second one did not seem to us to be an unreasonably bitchy thread-about-a-thread (ie the kind of thread we'd delete), nor did it seem to be unnecessarily goading.

We have been through both of those threads and deleted anything we thought to be a beyond-the-pale personal attack (if you think we've missed any, do please report them). I think I'm right in saying that we did not spot any posts that seemed to us to be disablist; but again, PLEASE report them if you think we've missed some and we will consider them carefully.

The third thread came to our notice some time after it was started; this is our bad, and we're sorry about this. Some days are heavier than others in terms of reported posts, and today was one of those days. When we got around to the reports of it, we thought that its wording - unlike those of the first two threads - was very likely to inflame the situation, and so it was deleted. This was also our reasoning with 2Shoes's subsequent thread.

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 20/06/2012 20:42

@CelstialNavigation

I too see far more prevalent disabilist attitudes on Mumsnet than in RL.

And it makes me wonder if it increases because this is a place that permits it. Because MNHQ do permit it. They "let it stand" as its "useful" for posters to "be educated." And when one post stands, other people seem to feel its okay to join in with equally disabilist views.

Can you give us an example of the kind of thing you mean, Celstial? Our Guidelines say that we will delete disablist posts, and (as a team) that's what we strive to do. We're extremely sorry if that's not the way it seems to some of you.

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 20/06/2012 20:52

@madmouse

MNHQ I'm not surprised by your reply but certainly disappointed. Because I do not actually believe you are this naive.

Naive enough that after 999 comments on her first thread the OP then needs to fill another page justifying using the disabled space with her buggy during which she takes great care to show how great the similarities are between having babies and being disabled. Followed by another few hundred responses. You call it genuine, I call it anti-disability attitude.

We're sorry to disappoint - genuinely.

But, yes - we think that, on balance, it's better to allow people to air a genuine misconception (in this case, broadly speaking, that in some circumstances it might be OK for a pram to take a wheelchair space), for a couple of reasons. Firstly, it allows other posters (by no means exclusively posters from the SN boards) to put them right. Secondly, we believe that hosting these debates (always with the caveat that they remain reasonably civil) does an awful lot to inform the opinions and attitudes of those who do not deal with disability issues on a daily basis. Over the years, we've seen countless posts by MNers that show how far our members are informed by the experience of reading these threads.

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 20/06/2012 21:02

@madmouse

Rowan I think that maybe MNHQ and some of us have different ideas about what disablist is.

Yes, this may well be true - and this is an issue we've encountered on other boards as well (for example, definitions of 'sexism' in FWR, and definitions of 'rape apology/rape myth' after we began the We Believe You campaign).

We believe in light touch moderation, because we think it makes for the best discussions. But every so often that butts up against some MNers' (understandable) wish for more moderation in a particular area - often because, as someone (sorry) has said here, because they have an entirely understandable wish for Mumsnet to be a safe space.

As ever, we are ready and willing to listen to what you all think; I'm sure nobody at MNHQ is going to claim that we have nothing to learn here.

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 20/06/2012 21:36

@cakeismysaviour

Maybe when trying to decide whether a post is disablist or not, MNHQ should replace the disabled person in the scenario with someone from a different minority (eg a racial or religious minority) and if it is considered discrimatory then, it needs to be deleted.

This may help MNHQ to see the disabilism that is currently accepted on MN.

The thing is, if someone were to start a thread about (to grab an example) why the Black Police Association exists, we would absolutely let it stand. Or if someone were to start a thread questioning the need for taxpayers' money to be spent on furthering equal opportunities for BME groups.

What we would delete is a thread saying 'should BME people be allowed to use public transport?' - and we would delete that thread if you substituted 'people with SN' for 'BME people'.

I think the grey area here, as some have pointed out, is whether it's disablist to express the view that facilities designed for (for example) wheelchair users might not always exclusively be accessed by wheelchair users.

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 20/06/2012 21:47

@EightiesChick

Rowan, I wonder if you could respond to my McCann analogy?

I think (and I'm not the expert on this) there are two elements to our treatment of McCann postings. The first is that the situation they're in is unimaginably terrible to most of us, and we think speculation about their possible involvement is simply beyond the pale. The second is that quite a lot of what gets posted about them is libellous, and we will always delete potentially libellous posts when they're reported.

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 20/06/2012 22:01

@CelstialNavigation

"RowanMumsnet: I think the grey area here, as some have pointed out, is whether it's disablist to express the view that facilities designed for (for example) wheelchair users might not always exclusively be accessed by wheelchair users."

And the OP asked that question by referring to the person with a disability as "a wheelchair". More than once. She referred to the actual person as "a wheelchair." And that was just the first post on that thread.

I can see from your posts that you would not do that yourself. You can obviously see that it's wrong. So why was the OP allowed to do that and have their post stand?

Yes, that's ugly. I can't say (obviously) what was going through the poster's head when she wrote that. I can imagine that some people almost literally only 'see' the wheelchair, and so refer to that rather than to its owner. But if we thought someone was deliberately and persistently referring to wheelchair users as 'wheelchairs', I think that would go.

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 20/06/2012 22:03

Actually, I don't 'think' that would go - I know it would go.

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 20/06/2012 22:16

Just to spell it out: we would never discriminate against, or fail to value, one group of MNers on the basis of their notional lack of appeal to advertisers.

Obviously there are posters here who feel that their perspectives have not been valued, and for that to have happened we must have fallen down at some point. But whatever the explanation is, it's not about money or commercial reach.

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 20/06/2012 22:40

@CelstialNavigation

I know the OP apologised on her next thread (regardless of her "justification" the term should in no way have been allowed to stand) -Ii don't understand why the OP of her first thread which contained the language was allowed to stand for days, and is still not deleted. Despite people pointing it out on the thread.

See, there is an example of something HQ and ourselves agree is "ugly", but it would only be deleted if it was deliberate and persistant.

Whereas if that was a derogatory racist term it would be deleted immediately without waiting to see if it was repeated or persistant.

There is a difference in how the policies are applied for disabilism. I don't think it's a deliberate decision on HQ's part to permit it more, but unfortunately the end result of applying the guidelines fairly lightly in this area, means that the end result is that disabilism is permitted more.

Thanks Celstial - that is a good example.

In the spirit of teasing it out (not dismissing your point): looking at my post further down, I referred to 'a pram' and 'a wheelchair'. I think you could make the argument that - in the context of a generally respectful attitude - those are acceptable shorthand terms for 'a child in a pram' and 'a wheelchair user and their wheelchair'. What's not acceptable is deliberately referring to a wheelchair user as 'a wheelchair'.

Does that make any sense?

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 20/06/2012 22:43

@CelineMcBean

I do think postings should stand for the most part - I like to know who is an ignorant twat - but sometimes it would be useful to have an official clarification of the law, acceptable language and the reminders on a thread are good for this. It's not the job of those already living difficult lives to have responsibility for managing the ignorance of some posters.

Yes, this a fair point and we should try to do this more often.

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 20/06/2012 23:00

@2shoes

thats it for me, I have emailed mn hq and been ignored, I have asked them on here and been ignored. my thread was deleted. yet a newer one was left!! bye

Very sorry 2Shoes - service hasn't really been normal tonight because of this and the other Site Stuff thread, so reports and correspondence are backing up a bit. We will take a look as soon as we possibly can.

MNHQ

HelenMumsnet · 21/06/2012 10:30

Morning, folks. Thanks for your patience. We'll do our best to answer your latest Qs now.

To start with, though, just to recap for those who haven't read all the thread...

  • We do not tolerate clearly disablist posts on Mumsnet - and will delete them, as soon as we are made aware of them, with no debate, discussion or mitigating pleas.

  • We may not, though, delete a post that forms part of a reasonable and valid discussion, if we believe that post was made in genuine and honest ignorance. Instead, we may decide it's best to let it stand and allow others to voice their own, more enlightened, views. However, if the original 'ignorant' poster persists with the same sort of posts after that - ie when they can't possibly be ignorant any more - we would look into deleting/mailing/warning/banning, as appropriate.

  • We've always thought it's wrong to adopt a policy of blanket censorship. We feel it's wiser to judge each post that's reported on its individual words and context, and make decisions on a post-by-post basis.

  • We agree that we were slow to act on the original two pushchair threads. Unfortunately staff sickness left us on the back foot but we should, at the very least, have posted on the threads to make our stance on disablist views clear.

  • The two deleted threads were deleted for different reasons. One because we felt it was deliberately inflammatory; the other (2shoes' one) because it was a thread about a thread. 2shoes: we're sorry you didn't get any satisfactory replies yesterday; I'll look into that today and mail you as soon as poss.

  • The current pushchair thread has not been deleted because, as we posted on the thread last night, we believe the OP, who's been an MNer for ages, started it in response to last night's Channel 4 news report and was entirely unaware of the other threads. And, at least the last time we checked, it was a valid discussion, with no disablist content. We have, however, posted on it to remind people that we don't tolerate disablist posts - and we will keep an eye on it today. Please do report to us any posts that concern you.

  • And finally, we couldn't refute more passionately any assumption that MN SNers don't matter to us. MNSN is undoubtedly one of the aspects of our MN Community of which we are the most proud. It's one of the things that makes coming into work every morning a truly uplifting experience even when you're mad at us. We may not get everything right all the time but the last thing any of us would dream of doing is make you feel you don't matter to us. If that's the impression any of you have got, we are really sorry.

MNHQ

HelenMumsnet · 21/06/2012 10:55

@ASillyPhaseIAmGoingThrough

Add fathers for justice to your list, yet disaist comments are tollerated.

No they are not, ASillyPhase. Please see our post just a few moments ago.

MNHQ

HelenMumsnet · 21/06/2012 11:01

@amillionyears

And as for their constant excuses "staff sicmness left us on the back foot",other times it is "our mail software is [with incredibly bad timing] on a go slow" yadada yadada yadada.Bare minimum staff overnight etc. All are excuses for not employing enough staff,to keep MN costs down and MN profits higher.

We're not making excuses, amillionyears. They were two genuine reasons for our less-than-ideal response time but we do - and have - apologise fully.

MNHQ

HelenMumsnet · 21/06/2012 11:03

@Badvoc

It makes me sick, it really does. Have been an mn regular (with a couple of name changes) for 5years but this attitude by mnhq is making me question my membership. So very sad. Mnsn section and home ed section has helped me so much - my son woudnt be where he is now without the help and advice I gained on here. I have people I count as friends on my post natal thread and some of the humorous threads are truly eye wateringly funny. I will miss that :(

What attitude, Badvoc? Do please tell us what in our most recent post makes your question your membership. We'd like to be able to reassure you.

MNHQ

HelenMumsnet · 21/06/2012 11:09

@Badvoc

MNHQ :None of your posts are answering the questions being asked are they? Why does mn tolerate openly disability bashing? I am sure we could all find threads or posts in the last month that mn have let stand. Is that what we have to do? Actually list the offensive threads? Oh sorry I forgot we can't, we are busy dealing with the issues and realities that sn and sen bring to our lives.....

No, we have just said that we do not tolerate disablist postings.

And that, from now on, we will be more vigilant about going onto thread and reinforcing that stance.

If there are threads or posts we have mistakenly let stand in the past month, we would be happy to revisit them. As we've said, we don't go in for blanket censorship of certain topics (though, God knows, that would be easier) so we have to weigh up each reported post in context. We acknowledge that we're not perfect and that we have much to learn but we'd like to think we're always open to your questions and responsive to your feedback.

MNHQ

HelenMumsnet · 21/06/2012 11:09

@ASillyPhaseIAmGoingThrough

Last I saw the post I reported still stands.

I haven't seen your report, ASillyPhase, but I will go and have a look and see where it is in our inbox.

MNHQ

HelenMumsnet · 21/06/2012 11:13

@Maryz

You see, I wouldn't be half as upset over this if they hadn't deleted 2shoes' thread so quickly - within 2 hours it was gone, the others were/are there for days.

If her thread had stayed, we could have had a rant from the other side.

I actually don't mind the light moderation - I don't even mind so much leaving some nasty comments, as long as we are allowed to call people on what they say, and tell them exactly how offensive they are.

The trouble is so-called "light" moderation only works if it works both ways.

Leave the bus threads if you like. But allow people to educate on them - including allowing us to call people selfish, self-centred and ignorant, if that is what they are. And allow threads like 2shoes' to show the "other side".

It does sound as though the timing was unfortunate, Maryz. But I am sure as sure can be that it wasn't deliberate (not our style, as we'd hope you'd know).

And calling people selfish, self-centred and ignorant, while very possibly true, would be making personal attacks. We're sure you could find other ways to phrase those points, though.

MNHQ

HelenMumsnet · 21/06/2012 11:23

@Badvoc

Sigh. You say that you are "proud"of the sn/sen section on MN" We are not here to make you or anyone else proud Helen, not even MN. We are here to try and forge a place - albeit a virtual one - that is safe for us. Where people understand, where we can share advice, tips and info. where we can laugh at things others would deem unfunny I.e. our struggles with our kids sn/sen and others reaction to it. We are not here to "educate" the ignorant and bigoted. Sorry. Do you tell other section users (like the stately homes thread) that offensive posts are let stand so that others can be "educated" about childhood abuse? I don't think so. Does that answer your question?

We do completely understand that you don't want to feel that it's your place to educate the ignorant and bigoted. And we agree that it's not your place to, either. And apologise for past communications from us that made sound as though it should be - no one should be getting that kind of mail from us any more.

However, MN is a place that doesn't censor or pre-censor debate. We believe that, through reasoned, civil debate, attitudes can change. Which means we do, at least initially, allow uncomfortable and even offensive opinions - on all sorts of topics - to stand (unless they break our guidelines).

That said, we realise, as we've said here earlier, that we could do more in these instances to post on the threads and let everyone know where we're coming from - and what we absolutely won't tolerate. We think it would be helpful, from now on, to spell out our thinking on the boards for all to see, not just in mails to those who've reported.

MNHQ

HelenMumsnet · 21/06/2012 11:25

@ASillyPhaseIAmGoingThrough

You see those personal attacks on the disabled are worded just so, so they don't break talk guidelines, made by prolific posters who know what they can get away with.

So is there going to be short term bans for repeat disablists?

Yes, as we said earlier, if we notice (or are tipped off) that a poster is persistently attacking the disabled but perhaps flying below the guidelines radar, we would definitely take action.

MNHQ

HelenMumsnet · 21/06/2012 11:25

@Glitterknickaz

SillyPhase no, of course there won't. HQ want to keep those posters. Those who have left in the past (including me), those who are considering their membership now.... we don't matter.

HQ have made it absolutely clear that we will be treated differently and that we matter less.

I'm only here to support and maintain links with friends I've made here. That's it. I'm fully aware that MN is hostile for people with disabilities and their carers. Which is really sad.

We're sorry to read this, Glitterknickaz. Where have we made it clear that we will treat you differently and that you matter less?

MNHQ

HelenMumsnet · 21/06/2012 11:30

@HelenMumsnet

[quote ASillyPhaseIAmGoingThrough] Last I saw the post I reported still stands.

I haven't seen your report, ASillyPhase, but I will go and have a look and see where it is in our inbox.[/quote]

OK, have found it. You have mail, ASillyPhase Smile

MNHQ

HelenMumsnet · 21/06/2012 11:44

@Glitterknickaz

By telling us that posts we actively find offensive and disablist should stand for education purposes.

Things that directly involve our children being sneered at allowed to stay for purposes of debate....

It wouldn't happen to ethnic minorities, or persons of certain religion, sexuality or race yet it does to our families.

It's openly condoned in the name of debate.

So some posters' right to post inflammatory, offensive and borderline illegal bile overrides our rights to be treated with equality.

OK. Thanks for your reply.

As posted below, no one should be being told any longer that posts you find offensive should stand for education purposes. We acknowledge that we did often say this in the past but we've been educated!

Inflammatory posts, illegal posts, sneering-at-children posts - those should all be deleted as soon as we're made aware of them with, as we said earlier, no debate, discussion or mitigating pleas.

Where there is a muddy, grey, uncomfortable area is where a post might be offensive but not deliberately so - ie not inflammatory/goading but ignorant. That is where we think it's right to judge each post individually and in context, rather than just have a policy of blanket deletion.

This is, of course, tricky and we may not get it right every time, and you may not agree with us every time. But our intent is very much to be consistent and fair across all sensitive topics, from disability to religion. We don't have a different yardstick for disablist posts, if that's what you mean.

We obviously haven't done a great job at communicating this to you, though. We will take that on board and pull our socks up - both in our mails to those who report, and in our posts on the boards.

MNHQ

HelenMumsnet · 21/06/2012 14:20

@PurplePidjin

There always is, they do it everywhere. Unfortunately, MNHQ give them the benefit of the doubt in case they're posting in ignorance...

Well, yes. But not if the same poster persists in doing so again and again - beyond the point where they could reasonably be assumed to be posting in ignorance. We'd appreciate a heads-up on anyone who's doing that.

Watch this thread for updates

Tap "Watch" to get all the latest updates