FWR split continued

[RebeccaMumsnet]

We have decided to start a new thread about this as the other thread was near capacity and taking a while to load.

Here is Justine's post from earlier on

We can give a Radical Feminism topic a go if that's what people want and see if it works. Obviously we need to be crystal clear that no one is obliged to post in one particular place and no one should feel excluded from any topic but we could test it out, and see if it helps resolve tensions. We'll do that in the next few days.

There are a couple of other things to think about as well.

First, those who come onto FWR to derail and inflame. We acknowledge that we have been too slow in the past to spot these posters for what they were. We're sorry about that and hope we're a lot quicker at dealing with them now. We're all for opinions but we do draw the line at posters whose only obvious intent is to goad.

And secondly, this idea that FWR can be an unwelcoming place to those who aren't following the 'party line'. Judging by posts on recent threads and by our inbox this is a view of a significant number of Mumsnetters and obviously that's not a healthy situation. Mumsnet is a place for discussion and for diverse opinion and it's the exchange of ideas and tolerance of differing opinions that makes it the board it is.

We do hope threads like this help to clear the air a bit and remind everyone that, whatever the differences of opinion, the FWR board will only ever be the stimulating, thought-provoking, enriching place we'd all like it to be if people feel that they can express themselves without being jumped on.

Please do continue to let us know your thoughts.

I didn't see any personal attack? You're right it is a judgement call with things like this. Shall we ask mn to clarify?

Is this going to be 'semantics' again?

When garlic says that 'you' lose credibility, when she says that 'you' are defending a indefensible position, when she says that 'no-one who fails to understand basic logic': is she not talking about me as a person? When she talks about 'your choice of words' is she not quite clearly indicating the person behind the post?

This has made me giggle - sorry - it sort of reads like Bill Clintons "I did not have sex with that woman"!

You could of course turn it on it's head and argue - lack of PIV is damaging to women - because while yes, we have AI, test tube babies, etc, without intercourse we as a race would become extInct.

Eclectic, please do not write what I have not written. I have not claimed personal attack - I wrote criticised.

Yes, unfortunately it is about semantics again.

Is that an attack? I believe that saying "PIV is damaging" IS an indefensible position. I don't see how that's personal.

OK, criticised. Sorry.

Sorry, I though criticising a person (not their post) was a personal attack?

Sorry, I did say "defending an indefensible position while making an important point."

That's because of the logical fallacy in your choice of words.

If your position is "Penetrative sex is risky for women" - I don't disagree at all.

If you do, in fact, mean that ALL PIV is ALWAYS damaging to women, which is what your stament "PIV is damaging" means, then I was wrong to say your language misrepresented your view. And, if that is what you mean, your position is indefensible. Millions of women are undamaged by PIV.

Throughout this post and others, I am someone who has defended the right of all of us to criticise everyone else. I'm not fussed by it.

It's everyone else who has been saying that criticising the poster, not the post, is beyond the pale, absolutely unacceptable, etc.

I just thought garlic's post was an example of how easily it can be done.

But I don't mean that? I stated quite clearly in my posts, that when I write 'PIV is damaging' I mean as for women as a CLASS, compared to men as a CLASS? I even did a 1,2,3 step by step breakdown of how I got to that shorthand statement?

I completely agree VG, I fall foul of it sometimes...mn rules though.

It's a bit like 'smoking kills' on the side of the fag packet. It doesn't kill every smoker but it's still true.

But the problem is garlic wasn't using offensive, emotive terminology 1 so the comparison isn't the same.

I personally never said it was beyond the pale, don't think anyone said that actually. I think I said it was unhelpful.

If criticising doesn't bother you, why even bring it up?

The point is that your argument did contain logical fallacy, which a. makes it impossible for you to argue, because you'll just get a ton of women telling you you're wrong and b. detracts from the argument that PIV is, indeed, risky. If you'd phrased it so I think a lot of women would agree with you.

Why use a shorthand that isn't true though?

Why not just say risky?

And frankly, calling it a) 'my' position and b) 'indefensible' is pretty absolutist in itself.

It's not 'my' position - if I could come up with links like that and write stuff like that I'd be a better academic than I am. Loooooooooaaaads of intelligent, thoughtful women have presented the 'PIV is harmful' viewpoint much better than I will - equally, lots of intelligent, thoughtful women have argued a different position.

It's been around for a while, mind.

The comments about lazy language and lazy thinking would be upsetting for many and are not really necessary. Either everybody has to be careful and gentle with each other or nobody does. The whole premise of these threads has been that rad-fems alienate and upset by not engaging in PARD. It would seem pretty straightforward to therefore assume that robust criticism is not ok from anybody.

Its not the same really, smoking does contribute towards death in all cases. PIV does not damage women in all cases.

THANK-YOU PUBES!

I was trying to think of another example but I need another cup of tea...

how is it offensive or emotive to point out stuff like smoking kills or obesity is bad or PIV is harmful to women? Or that PIV is just one way of having sex or can't men have sex with one another, just bum fun?

I agree that "lazy" probably isn't the word I'd have chosen. That wasn't too polite.

No, some smokers don't die of smoking related diseases. About half, I believe.

And Hester, cheers for your post re: pregnancy (it sounds extremely traumatic). It's stuff like that that makes me comfortable in stating 'PIV is harmful'. Because something like that literally will never happen to a bloke and also, there's not a whole heap of literature or media representations of pregnancy as something potentially lethal.

A little attention to the people who are harmed rarely goes amiss, I find.

Er, and yellow, I am definitely going to bring up personal criticism on a thread where personal criticism is being cited as a dominant, if not the dominant, reason for almost two thousand posts on how FWR fails in all sorts of ways.

I have been one of the only voices pointing out that it's ok to criticise, and that sometimes it's easy to imply or infer that it's the person being criticised, not the viewpoint. I don't like to drag across threads if possible so garlic's example was very pertinent.