Deleted for calling someone out on gender stereotyping

[Feenie]

Absolutely appalled. I called a poster out for posting the worst kind of gender stereotyping bollocks (possibly exact words) and was deleted.

Wtaf?

I didn't contravene any guidelines, unless we 're adding swearing now. I merely said that the post was 'a load of gender stereotyping bollocks'. Which it was. That was it. Which guidelines does that contravene? I'm very happy to be deleted if required, but come on!

I would also like to see an end to covert email exchanges

I absolutely agree with this, asking people to message then either ignoring or sending out stock replies helps no one, all it does is hide HQs absolute incompetence from the rest of the board.

It's a crap system.

Have had an email from MNHQ saying they’re reviewing this thread and the original thread so let’s see if we get any kind of sensible response!

Hello folks, thanks for all your comments here.

To clarify, we've not implemented a blanket ban on bollocks, or indeed any swear word - as you can probably gather with a quick look around Talk...

While some may argue that the real spirit of Mumsnet is made from juniper berries, we broadly think it is, as it were, to be supportive of each other. Obviously this isn’t easy when another poster says something you think is way off the mark, but we think it’s reasonable to ask users that when they disagree with someone, to make their point as part of a civilised discussion. It's never our intention to castigate users - we're all grown ups here after all - but we do have guidelines to ensure Talk is a nice place to hang out.

It’s also completely reasonable for MNers to take issue with any decision made by MNHQ, and believe it or not, this is something we find incredibly useful when shaping our policies - the last thing we want is a moderation culture that's just one big monologue. The site is moderated seven days a week, so as you’d expect there’s quite a few of us - we all have varying approaches but we communicate frequently with each other and strive to be transparent, consistent and fair. None of what we do is an exact science, and so we’re always happy to reflect on our decision making - which we do every time it’s challenged.

Ok.....I’m not sure that actually told me anything though. I mean you’ve said a lot about MNHQ but nothing about whether (on reflection) Feenie’s comment should have been allowed to stand.

I think what really bothers me about this is that MNHQ seems to have become happier to allow gender nonsense, and quicker to delete comments that are at all gender critical. Not sure if that’s a fair impression, but I’m aware of TRAs very actively trying to silence debate by intimidating the moderators on various chat groups and I wonder what’s going on here?

I think "gender stereotyping is bollocks" is a fairly mainstream opinion on here, rather than particularly uncivilised.

The spirit of mumsnet lately (having been here since 2006)

1. Transphobic
2. Snowflake
3. Oldtimers not welcome.

We're turning into netmums.

Particularly gender stereotyping as extensive as it is in the post I was offended by. I didn't feel as if that was something I should be patiently taking the time to fully explain. It's MN, fgs.

we think it’s reasonable to ask users that when they disagree with someone, to make their point as part of a civilised discussion

You won't do anything but delete posts, then.
I thought you drew the line at personal insults.
Otherwise, it's hypocritical of you because so much nastiness is still allowed. You'll end up with.
"I disagree with your ideas, hun" and not quite MN.

Exactly. Have you looked at colditz's link above, MNHQ? Which of those uses of "bollocks" were making a point as part of a civilised discussion?

That reply hasn’t really cleared anything has it

That didn't clearly answer a single point I raised, Becky.

Hi Becky

Could you answer a question for me please?

The OP's email says... We had been asked to take a look at your post by the person who had written their advice on educating boys, and when we read it we did agree with them that your post was a bit much.

So does that mean that reporting is not anonymous after all?

Hi everyone,

Reporting is anonymous, as anyone who has reported to us over the years knows. We made an error in making it less so there as we thought it would be helpful in explanation. Our mistake, for which we sincerely apologise. (Nor are any of us interns, fwiw, but even oldies make mistakes.)

As to the fact of the deletion, we do stand by it, sorry. We have always taken context into account when deleting and having canvassed the team we still read the post (we can still see it on our system) as being unnecessarily aggressive given that the thread was asking for support for a child who was struggling to learn.

Well, that’s you told, isn’t it, Feenie hun?

Now off you go and sort out some pink fairy unicorns for your lil girl, and some nice blue trucks for your lil man.

💙💙 #boys willbeboys 💙💙

Lol

Thanks for explaining again, Helen, although I remain amazed by the decision.

It's very telling, though, that such an unanimous decision at MNHQ's end has not one single solitary post in support of it on either this or on the original thread.

Not one.

Ahh ok. Thanks for the clarification Helen

we still read the post (we can still see it on our system) as being unnecessarily aggressive given that the thread was asking for support for a child who was struggling to learn.

But the post wasn't directed at the OP on that thread. It was a strong reaction to a post that is clearly gender stereotyping boys.
Even if boys in general behave as the pp described, the pp couldn't possibly say if that generic observation applied to a specific boy.
So, yes, it was bollocks for two reasons.

Basically stereotyping is fine on MN calling stereotyping bollocks is NOT fine.. ok good to know

Feenie - i'm with you. It was heavy-handed deletion. It was bollocks stereotyping.

I think MNHQ recently wants to legislate against strong emotions. I find this a bit strange, since AIBU is full of outright rudeness about subjects which aren't important or emotionally engaging in any way.

I think that if MNHQ is serious in addressing ill-humour, it should start there

OK. Right

So what we’ve learned from this debacle is...

• reporting is anonymous, unless MNHQ decide to tell everybody who reported, in which case it’s not anonymous at all

• posting gender stereotyping bollocks is ok, pointing out gender stereotyping bollocks is not ok

• MNHQ unanimously totally disagree with all the users who’ve bothered to express an opinion on this.

Been a regular for years and years, really unimpressed with recent decisions.

I find MNHQ's deletions of the past couple of years very puzzling and don't post much these days except on books& music threads for this reason. It feels like I am one controversial thread from a ban, and could easily get there if several people report my posts. It doesn't seem to matter whether those posts are really against Talk Guidelines or not.

I'm waiting for a clarification of the new rules on a thread such as this one, to go back to posting las before.

MNHQ, how do you decide when someone's being inappropriate or when the reporter is being a snowflake? Is it report = zap or report = check out = possible zap?

@YetAnotherBeckyMumsnet

Is the reporter of Feenie's comment an employee/advertiser/friend of MNHQ by any chance?

Otherwise, I really cannot understand the completely bollocks decision.