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

[madmouse]

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

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.

I keep typing replies to mn hq, but give up I am too angry
imo they have made their position clear.

I'm furious too. I think I need to step away from Mumsnet for tonight at least. Before I spontaneously combust

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.

I've seen similar happen in groups where one person makes a racist remark and others seem to realise this is somewhere permissive for them to voice racist beliefs.

MNHQ would not sit back and allow that to happen. Any racist remark gets deleted and rightly so. They send a message.

They send a different message when its people with disabilities being discriminated against, that disabilism is not bad enough to actually delete. That they value self-moderation above preventing disabilist attitudes on their site. And for the life of me I do not understand their priorities there.

It would be different if people with disabilities or their families or carers were saying to let such posts stand and that they want to engage in debate with the people who post such things. But they aren't. they are asking for such posts to be deleted, not sanctioned by leaving them there.

I think HQ are utterly utterly misguided when it comes to this and there is a risk of disailist attitudes becoming more and more prevalent on this site as a consequence.

Why is it the responsibility of the disabled to educate morons? Do they not have enough to deal with? Do morons not have access to Google or relatives who posses common sense?

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.

I didn't read 2shoes thread, as I didn't see it. but I totally agree with MM points and others. MN, for me, used to be a haven where I could talk about the difficulties in raising my sons with sn, but for a while now I haven't felt inclined to post as I don't feel it's the supportive place it once was. I use a FB sn site instead.

Oh and I'm glad you are proud of the SN boards but that's missing the point. This is about treating people with disabilities properly when they dare come out of their designated corner and take part in the rest of MN

Totally agree with your latest post MM.

TheJoyfullPuddleJumber - oh I have.

The other week I was called a stupid little bitch by a woman whom I challenged for parking in a disabled parking space at Sainsbos without badge. As always I start by saying 'excuse me you have forgotten to display your badge (because they may have an invisible disability). First she said she had to park there because the P&T spaces were full and she had to pick up her kids (from Sainsbos???) then she said it was not illegal to park there, then that she was disabled and just had lost her badge and I was a judgmental cow for assuming she wasn't. And then the rest of the name calling.

Completely agree with the OP.

Why on earth is there a need to discuss the "ethics" of whether a wheelchair space should in fact be used by someone in a wheelchair?

I don't think that 'pride' in the SN boards necessarily makes up for unpleasantness elsewhere. Criticism of the McCanns is deleted for being 'not in the spirit of Mumsnet'. Surely criticism of a disabled person wanting to use facilities designated for them has to come under that same heading?

I appreciate that MN provide this place for is for free and if we don't like it we can go elsewhere, but I have to agree with the broad point being made on this thread, and I feel that the wrong calls have been made recently by MNHQ.

@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.

well mnhq you thing dicusion is important but if it was discussuion around race , relgion or sexuality your jump on that a dam site quicker .And would not tell posters that they need to educate people

coppertop Exactly. I saw that thread title numerous times in active convos and didn't read it for two reasons: 1) I know the answer to the question, ta very much, and 2) I guessed that some of the responses would be infuriating. I guess the answer is to get on the thread and bat back after all, since moderation won't ride to the rescue.

I am posting to support madmouse on every single point in the OP. It's how I have felt for a minimum of 2 years now.

Nice to see that Rowan has produced the same old pat answer. Exactly the same answer that's given every time. MNHQ talk the talk but allow the bile to fester on unhindered. They're all talk, no action.

But then.... people with disabilities and their carers in general don't have the money to spend with MN's advertisers, so we'll never get equality.

"It would be different if people with disabilities or their families or carers were saying to let such posts stand and that they want to engage in debate with the people who post such things. But they aren't. they are asking for such posts to be deleted, not sanctioned by leaving them there."

Well said celestial. Mumsnet, disabled people and their carers understand the need for education better than anyone, but we need to be able to 'educate' in an environment that is respectful and safe from attack. This continual stream of threads questioning our basic rights to the support and adjustment needed for everyday life is not a safe and respectful environment.

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

Disablist is ok as long as that poster fits the demographic and can earn the site £££

@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.

Rowan. You could start by deleting the original wheelchair space on bus thread.

Or do MNHQ think it is ok to question whether a disabled person should be allowed to access the facilities that were created for their use?