'Liberal Feminism' subtopic

[PersonFrom2045]

Hi @MNHQ

Following on from this AIBU thread:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/3804680-To-think-mumsnet-needs-a-separate-Gender-section?

There was limited interest in a 'separate Gender section' but some agreement that a 'Liberal Feminism' topic might be a good thing.

The idea of this would be to create a subtopic within FWR that was free of TWAW debate, without affecting any of the existing FWR topics where TWAW debate features heavily.

I'm aware you are reducing the number of topics at the moment rather than adding to them, but I thought it was worth floating the idea.

it has come from lurkers - whose wish is to read material of interest to them and not to post at all.

Exactly. And it was those very same magazine article seekers who led to the loss of Dittany. Any of you reading this who participated in that hounding and then didn't contribute once your block was gone should be massively ashamed of yourselves. That there is still a call for another board is a reflection on you, not any "rad fems".

I've never seen people say it the other way round, unless goading.

Dissagreement is not goading.

Dissagreement is not goading

Is it your assertion that the women on FWR are either too stupid or too dishonest to apprehend the difference between goading and disagreeing?

So everyone who says it the other way round is goading?

"goad
provoke or annoy (someone) so as to stimulate some action or reaction."

This is what I said Dione

I've never seen people say it the other way round, unless goading.

This is how you appear to be interpreting it

So everyone who says it the other way round is goading?hmm

How else is your comment meant to be taken then?

My comment?

It's the difference between 'I've never seen', and 'it never happens'.

One is my argument. The other is a strawman.

I'm sure you find that distinction meaningful. To me it looks like splitting hairs.

Given that no- one, apart from you can have any notion of what you have seen or not seen, your comment is, to be blunt, of no use to anyone apart from you.

Really? I don't think we can have read the same thread

Yes, it was the same thread Cohle

No. I've never seen it, because it doesn't tend to happen on FWR.

You get a few posters saying that they used to be gender critical/feminist/whatever, but having seen the shrieking, vitriol, pearl clutching on FWR, they've gone completely the other way. And are now far more likely to support the transgender ideology.

When asked, there is no explanation of any 'disagreement', just complaints about tone, ad hominems, etc.

FWR has always attracted people who want to goad. Its very existence annoys some people.

"I never saw a Purple Cow,
I never hope to see one;
But I can tell you, anyhow,
I'd rather see than be one."

When asked, there is no explanation of any 'disagreement', just complaints about tone, ad hominems, etc.

That's my experience of FWR too Datun.

You get a few posters saying that they used to be gender critical/feminist/whatever, but having seen the shrieking, vitriol, pearl clutching on FWR, they've gone completely the other way.

I remember a long thread that was basically filled with 2 members doing this, on about how they were totally GC but FWR posters made them basically..TRAs instead. It was rather unbelievable but..each to their own.

They did not have one even slightly GC view between them, and I highly doubt that a few posters on a forum being 'nasty' would make your view on such an important topic totally 180, to the stage where you are sounding exactly like activists for the other view. I could understand maybe not wanting to post if it seems militant, but not at all the total change of views.

Mind, those posters did only 'come out' as people who 'used to be GC until feminists said something I didn't like' when it was pointed out that 'peak trans' only ever goes one way. All of a sudden, those people simply had to point out that it absolutely does go the other way, they were living proof, whilst spouting endless TRA tropes and showing not even one single GC viewpoint Spent hundreds of pages high fiveing each other, and coming out with endless MRA type views, obviously in an attempt to prove how they really did used to be feminists!

As for the topic, I wouldn't be opposed to a libfem section tbh. Though how would this 'no trans' thing be policed? Anything that veers into trans discussions moved to the main feminism part or something?

I would have thought, that in order to be any kind of feminist, you must be GC though. I cannot imagine anyone feminist who places any worth in regressive sex stereotypes and thinks that sex is totally irrelevant and instead being a woman depends on you being feminine, but maybe those do exist I guess.

I used to be put off by how academic the FWR board was. I didn’t go to university and I’m not particularly articulate. Then, as I got older and uglier and wiser, I thought “fuck it” and started a (very few, because someone has usually beaten me to whatever I want to discuss) threads and lo and behold! Other people posted on them. Some disagreed, some agreed. Just like a message board.

Of course threads about TRA activism and threats to safeguarding are front and centre at the moment, because it’s a huge threat to women and children’s rights, safety, health etc and how/if we can even define what a woman is. But there are also interesting discussions on other topics - the “modest fashion” thread ran for pages and pages, for instance.

So my opinion, FWIW, is that if you don’t like the tone of FemChat, post some threads you are interested in and see if they fly. If they don’t, a sub-section is unlikely to gain traction. If they do, problem solved

What I meant to add was, I do agree about the siege mentality and that can definitely seem off-putting to new posters. But if you understand how the board is genuinely under attack (and for all I grumble about the Special Rules, I am grateful to MN that we have this space) and how individual posters standing up for women’s rights and safeguarding are being picked off one by one by “gaming” of the reporting system by TRAs, and then also how many faux-disingenuous people join or start threads along the lines of “I’m so dumb about all this, please educate me” and then not very far in, reveal that they are not posting in good faith, you’d understand why we’re sometimes a bit suspicious or not welcoming with open arms. I can think of three particular posters who literally only ever turn up on FWR threads to posit a male-centric, why-can’t-you-women-be-nicer-or-quieter position with ever more reaching straw men arguments or false analogies. Engaging with them quickly demonstrates they are not coming at any debate from a different feminist position from GC; they simply don’t have a feminist position at all, because they think women should shut up.

So that’s what we’re up against in FWR, but that shouldn’t stop anyone from starting a thread on a topic important to them, GC or not.

If we have two separate feminist chat sections into let’s call them GC FWR and non GC FWR, then the TRAs will go after the GC section with bells on and it will be isolated and a lot easier to get rid of. It will be gone. And that will be one more place we can’t discuss women’s rights.

I don’t see why people can’t hide the threads, topics they don’t want to see and lurk on, post on, start topics on stuff they are interested in. It is good to see the full range of topics in feminism and I wouldn’t want to the threads to end up as arguments about whether this or that should be posted in the other section...

I don’t like AIBU so I hide it. I don’t ask MNHQ to make it friendlier... although I wish I could take it off bloody trending as as I get drawn in occasionally.

What makes you think liberal feminists all think TWAW? It really is a tiny minority view feminist or not.

I'm a bit hmmmm about a "liberal feminism " titled subsection if you are already deciding in advance what people should think and say there. Not sure how that works.

But maybe worth a try though if it stops people moaning.