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

So HQ deem McCann postings as 'beyond the pale'
Guess what the targets of the anti disability bile on here consider that 'beyond the pale'.

But being as we're not 'naice' we don't count.

@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.

She does clarify her use of language later on, and apologises.

Well said MadMouse.

I love MN and hugely appreciate the support I've had here over the past 4 yrs.

I think most of the time if someone spouts crap they get called on it, but in some cases I do feel MNHQ could be rather firmer about what's unacceptable.

I suspect several posters would become more understanding if they had to walk even half a mile in your shoes.

Just wanted to say that I'm standing shoulder to shoulder with you.

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

All we see are words on a screen not the person.

disability can be anything, mh, physical etc.

I notice the spellingpolice seem to have calmed down for dyslexic disabled people.

personally I have minor specific brain damage which. is a result of a physical disability, I explained in my op I had a disability and later when mocked I explained where the damage was, I was made out by people who. were ignorant of such issues to be not functioning in parts that are not effected.

basically prolific posters misread my op, and wrote responses that werent the situation, others came along who skimmed and accused me of things I never had said, because someone else misread.

someone with experience of brain injury wasn't heard on the thread and as they were prolific posters. well worded posts. of abuse stood, it was in part disablist. I have seen more than one of those hipocrites claim d8sablists are not on, on this thread.

at the end of the day people with issues will bully anyone they deem beneath them, wrong, with their limited knowledge, and changes in the law is the only way forwards.

give it a year or two no one will be anon and be able to escape cyber bullying.

I do love the way mn hq are supporting the thread about wheelchairs on a bus.
I wonder why?
tbh I think the sn community do not fit the demographic that mn advertisers want.
so we don't count, harsh but after today I would rather think that than the alternative.

Back from settling the baby, to see that MNHQ's stance hasn't changed one iota.

I am so angry that any reply I attempt to write will probably get me deleted.

We're not £££ earners, Cake.

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.

Glitterknickaz nail on head.
op on thread has 3 young children, just the kind of people mn advertisers want.
carer and disabled child. no money. nah not an advertisers dream

Theeeeeee wheelchairs on the bus are fighting for a space, fighting for a space, fighting for a space. The wheelchairs on the bus are fighting for a space, all day looooong...

marking my place, will read 2morrow

I can see why you're pissed off, but I don't believe for a minute that it has anything to do with advertising demographics.

Are they supporting the thread or the moderation policy that has to cover the huge mish mash of thousands of posts, posters, their (sometimes) rushed out ill judged posts (not to mention the genuinely offensive stuff, and the stuff that people can't quite make up their mind about)?

It IS possible to discuss issues like this sensitively - but internet forums aren't always a brilliant place for that. But for every dolt who fails to get the point there will be hundreds who read the thread and agree or learn something - maybe think about something they've never given the time of day to before?

We don't all know the pitfalls of every issue we talk about - the red flags or no-go areas that are going to seriously upset another poster or reader on the site - but as soon as you start killing threads where this happens, you lose the opportunity to correct those wrongs and you kill a key part of the community - this is about talk after all, and in these cases. answering the question - are they being unreasonable? Yes they are. So tell them.

I personally think people need a space to ask the question and be told they're wrong. I'd rather that than see those posting those questions immediately shut down - who benefits?

I don't know the ins and outs of this particular issue - my comments refer more to the principle of the MN moderation policy - and I don't know to what extent it's been breached either way (as many are suggesting) - but I think the principle stands.

I know it's exhausting and depressing to see the same things come up over and over again - particularly when the outside world is becoming more narrow minded and negative on these issues.

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.

so you want us to educate.
tried that doesn't work, been doing it for 6 years, fed up with the abuse.

In London this week a load of disabled people had a protest for better access.

I can't ever recall a group of Mums with pushchairs had a protest for access.

Pushchair issues are short term inconvenve. The light weight child in most cases the child becomes mobile and the pushchair isn't required, that is unless the child has sn.

oh dear mn hq will now have to delete this thread, as according to their email to me.
" so it would be better to continue the discussion on there rather than folks starting numerous threads about the same thing or similar."

so this one will have to go now.
ooh hang on my thread wasn't about the same thing or similar. so should have stayed.
(still waiting for a reply to my email)

Celestial - I'd say her use of language is more open to interpretation than something that is racially abusive. Wrong and offensive yes, but maybe not as easy to spot?

2shoes - that's how these fights go. I'm in half a dozen right now that I expect will last beyond my lifetime. If I stop and others do they get worse - it's crappy but the only way things change.

this new thread has been hera for ages, not been deleted
how odd

Just wanted to say that although neither I nor my family at the current time have a disability (and unlike most other protected characteristics disability can affect everyone so I stress current time) I object to disablist postings and I do report citing the Equality Act to avoid doubt.

However, some of the language and ignorance on the bus thread was - to coin a phrase - beyond the pale. Being ignorant about disability is no more acceptable than being ignorant about race or sexual orientation for example.

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.

Kladdaka just said this on the other site stuff thread:

Allowing an environment to grow where disabled people feel less valued and less able to participate is just as disabalist as allowing direct insults.

That just sums it up perfectly. If you read this thanks Kladdaka

Pushchair users did protest in Edinburgh. Long story, though.

Apparently Lothian Buses drivers were getting fed up with getting hassle from passengers with prams who couldn't fold them and wouldn't get off when the space was required by a wheelchair user. So they introduced a rule, rigidly enforced, that passengers could only get onto a bus with a foldable pram / pushchair. They even published pictures of permitted / non-permitted prams. Only one unfolded pram is ever permitted on a bus at any time. If another pram user wants to get onto the bus, one must be folded, and the driver tells them that before they pay. If a wheelchair user wants to get onto the bus, all prams must be folded. No grey areas, no debate, no exceptions.

Lots of Lothian passengers thought this was overly draconian - not all prams are foldable, not everyone wants a foldable pram for a newborn, not everyone has a car to use instead. People simply couldn't believe that people with non-folding prams wouldn't just get off when a wheelchair user required the space. Lothian Buses insisted that their experience was to the contrary.

So - parents of small children travelling with prams on buses mounted a campaign for better access - and won, in as much as the new fleet of Lothian Buses are now built with both a pushchair and a wheelchair space. And there's still only one unfolded pram per bus allowed (although non-foldable prams are now OK) - but it's common to see a quick agreement between parents about who will fold if, e.g. one child is sleeping, or one pram is groaning with shopping. Not always who was there first. It's bus life, and it works - but only because Lothian got completely hard line on it a couple of years ago. It's taken a while to get to the current situation.

What Celine said.

"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."