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.

Dittany -

I had a question in the tail end of that thread that I'd like to re-ask

When you posted your OP about renaming FWR as 'anti-feminism and misogyny' I think the point was to say that there are people feeling welcome to post under the topic of feminism who shouldn't be.

Did and do you mean by this:

• MRAs, hairy truckers, and out-and-out trolls and stirrers (Category A)
• People who consider themselves feminists, but who some/you consider anti feminist (Category B) ? I think this includes myself, Eclectic, Hmm, Widow Wadman?many others but can?t think of the names right now.
• People who don?t consider themselves feminists but want to discuss common issues (Category C) ? I think Pan is in this group, but also many random MNers who delve into FWRs from time to time when it pops up in active convos.

-MNers who want to argue against feminism ? like the woman who had a bone to pick with Aung San Suu Kyi last week (Category D)

For me I think Group A should be unwelcome, others should be welcome. Including of course Category 0 ? Feminists of whatever flavour ? radfems, liberals, Marxist whatever?.

Apologies if I have put anyone in the wrong group, and for talking about y?all in the third person etc? but I think it is helpful to be specific. Is there common ground over who should be welcome in FWR, or there real differences?

...others feel free to answer too.

I like the posts by the radfems, they always make me think. I hope they don't all leave over this.

Beach/dittany, I'm more of a lurker but I've enjoyed both your contributions to FWR for some time, and I've learned an awful lot more about feminism as a result. I'm genuinely gutted that you have both decided to leave. I couldn't deal with the sustained abuse you get either so from that POV, it's understandable, but gutting all the same. The FWR will be a poorer place without both your contributions.

The only people I've ever really seen given the labels that have caused so much division here are your group A, Himalaya

You've definitely been given a hard time in places but I think you give as good as you get, as do the rest of group B. Speaking personally, I find the debates in this group really beneficial, helpful, and thought-provoking.

Group C, I don't really know, but group D are the ones I'd like to be able to nudge in the direction of a paddling pool.

Hmmmm, I have been horrified by mental health slurs, and the apparent assumption that the default setting should be to engage racists and sexists. Terrible stuff that has been glossed all over in favour of deeming 'anti-feminist' The Worst Thing in the World To be Called.

I really want to second banana in this. If we're going to have a Himalaya and a WidowWadman than we need a Beachcomber and a Dittany.

We need all shades inbetween, of course, but we need them to post!

Dittany you did call it anti feminist to try to address policy re China.

I tried to ask why etc and you wouldn't answer, just repeated that we couldn't discuss policy because first we all had to give the problem the right name.

Attempts to discuss this further were met with accusations of derailing.

On and on and on it goes. How does anybody have the energy for this, it baffles me.

Thank you banana. I'm really touched by posts like yours. I've enjoyed participating and have learnt a lot too.

Victor I was appalled by the mental health slurs too. And I agree with what you say here; the apparent assumption that the default setting should be to engage racists and sexists. Terrible stuff that has been glossed all over in favour of deeming 'anti-feminist' The Worst Thing in the World To be Called.

I'm category B on the Himalaya scale.

I call myself a feminist, but my views have been seen as anti feminist.

I am so sad. I can't begin to read all this but everything I have seen is just making me utterly miserable.
Bye.

One group that you left out, Himalaya is 'posters that are often ignored in favour of a relentless focus on dittany'.

No need to be gutted banana, I imagine the period of absences will be brief as usual.

Vezzie - can I just take this opportunity to say that I think your posts on FWR are ace.

But Morris, there are SO MANY posters on FWR that will agree with you! So many! There are also plenty who disagree, but meh. Dittany disagrees with you: meh. She's representative of the PLENTY of feminists who will disagree with you on some things and not on others. That's the POINT.

She doesn't exist in a vacuum, you know. There are plenty of posters who disagree, all over MN. It's only dittany that gets this.

'posters that are often ignored in favour of a relentless focus on dittany'.

That is very true. I know it has put people off posting because they get ignored whilst people home in on dittany.

YY: vezzie's posts have been amazing.

Maybe some of you don't hang out in feminist spaces on the internet but I do and let me tell you this: FWR is awesome.

I think allowing the thread in radfeminism to run was a complete mistake and I would love for HQ to post on here for why they thought it was a good idea to allow it to run and I would love them to say again on here that it was deleted for being a sustained attack on one poster instead of giving the idea that it was deleted for being a bunfight.

MNHQ, please can you get on with it and make a decision because this is counter productive and just creating more bad feeling.

FWIW my vote is a feminist cafe and a human rights space.

Again, very true Victor.

I read quite a lot of feminist stuff on the internet and I agree that the MN FWR section is a pretty unique place. It is probably the busiest internet feminist discussion space there is right now (or certainly in the UK).

The variety of topics and views is impressive.

yep Himalaya, that's a fairly accurate tho' loose sub-division. I engage with those 'common issues' everyday. Where do I get my "Cat. C" tee-shirt from?

Maybe next we could have a split of AIBU into two boards, YABU and YANBU?

A lot of posters want to have a discussion about whether they're being unreasonable or not without being exposed to the hardline YABU agenda and without being accused of being unreasonable.

I think allowing the thread in radfeminism to run was a complete mistake and I would love for HQ to post on here for why they thought it was a good idea to allow it to run and I would love them to say again on here that it was deleted for being a sustained attack on one poster instead of giving the idea that it was deleted for being a bunfight.

I agree with this and would like to add my voice to ComradeJing's request.

These things count.

Plus, I have lost all the material for my play

What Comrade said. This has been very badly handled.

I will be very sorry to see dittany and beach go.

Lots of us on all 'sides' seem to be in favour of the cafe + support + theory/analysis idea or something along those lines.

I think the radfem section should be taken down entirely while this is being thought through - it's clearly not a solution to anything and is causing nothing but bad feeling.

What exactly was MNHQ's response on the deleted thread? Does anyone have it?