Why is it suddenly ok to make multiple threads on the same subject over and over again?

[DayBath]

I'm talking about the Feminism board. Please could MN explain why it's ok for the same poster to keep starting new threads on the same topic repeatedly without the previous ones filling up or reaching any limit?

Surely there's a point where this is considered "not in the spirit" as you love to say. By all means this person should be allowed to post but why are repeated threads within hours of each other being allowed to cause Groundhog Day over there?

@MaudTheInvincible

Performative obtusity is definitely characteristic of some people's posting style when these topics are being discussed

Yup.

@Mockolate

Yes I don’t understand how inviting people who are PBP over

PBP are previously banned posters, they can't post if they've been banned so not sure who this is referring to?
People who are on Twitter are able to make an account just like anyone else can, PBP can't post as they're banned as far as I'm aware, unless it's changed MNHQ?

How can you be posting on here and have never seen a deletion because the thread was started by a PBP. Unbelievable in every sense of the word.

I am also furious.

We are committed to allowing conversations on this topic to showcase the full range of opinion.

WHAT TOPIC?

We now have:

'conversations on this difficult issue'
'these discussions'
'conversations on this topic'

I would like MNHQ to be upfront about what conversations and discussions they are aiming to host here, and on what topic, because I don't think there's a shared understanding.

You say your aim is 'to showcase the full range of opinion' which implies your aim here is to host 'the trans debate' and that you are happy to co-opt FWR to provide this 'showcase'.

Because despite some very long threads in previous years about whether FWR is a feminist topic or a topic about feminism, you never did go over to twitter and invite F4J, or Jeffrey and pals to come and start threads in order to 'showcase the full range of opinion.'

Because obviously that would be a horrible thing to do if 'this difficult issue', 'these discussions' and 'this topic' meant the rights of women and girls. Especially for a site called Mumsnet with a stated aim of making parents' lives easier and of which Justine said in 2016, Of course - given we're called Mumsnet - we're always going to be a space dominated by women but the only qualification we require of our users is a basic level of civility.

Posters on FWR want to discuss the sex based rights of women and girls. MNHQ appear to want to use FWR for some other purpose. Please can you straightforwardly say what your purpose is? It would really help in understanding some of your recent decisions.

Also can you please answer all the other questions that have been raised on this thread, especially the OP's.

Yup, we don’t want to discuss trans rights we want to protect and advance rights for women and girls.

Not sure what MNHQ thinks there is to debate re womens rights or why inviting users from other SM platforms with a stated non interest in said rights is going to add really.

Thank you for the link to Justine's post from 2016, @YetAnotherBeckyMumsnet. There are lots of brilliant bits aside from those you quoted. My favourite bits are:

Mumsnet has always believed - been founded upon - the idea that civilised debate is a broadly positive thing. That we can disagree but agree that people have a right to different opinions. That freedom of speech is in general good and that we'd rather let the conversation flow than censor it.

... there are always going to be posts which fall into a grey area - posts that cause offence without intention, perhaps by using words in common use that some believe should be disallowed ... And our inclination here is to err on the side of free speech rather than censorship.

We do understand it can be frustrating being told that we'd rather host a debate about why something was offensive so folks might change their mind, than delete it.

At a time when the rise of intersectional politics often seems to be squeezing the space for public debate, when no-platforming has entered the everyday vocabulary of university campuses and social media reverberates daily to howls of outrage over some linguistic transgression or other, this seems more important than ever.

We understand how anxious many who’ve battled for women’s rights feel. We understand that language plays an important part in making them feel marginalised and vulnerable.

In an increasingly polarised world of trigger warnings and safe spaces, preserving Mumsnet as a place that can host the widest debate in the most civilised fashion seems more important than ever. You’ll have to forgive me if this sounds pompous but this really is about freedom. As so often George Orwell put it best: “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”

It would be completely disingenuous for MNHQ to pretend that their position now is the same as it was in November 2016 when this post was written - over a year and a half before the Special Rules came into effect. Even the quote you have chosen from Justine's post does not reflect the situation as it is now -

We're mindful of the fact that many of our users are exhausted and often in impossibly difficult situations and would much rather people just understood or piped down - that we just deleted those comments which upset them or banned those who made them. But rightly or wrongly, that's not the Mumsnet we've chosen to be.

You've deleted loads of comments from regular posters because they upset certain people and you are apparently now banning long term posters too. From what I can make out this is in response to 'howls of outrage over some linguistic transgression or other' - to quote Justine.

If you're no longer interested in hosting a feminism board and would prefer instead to 'showcase the full range of opinion' on The Trans Debate then please say so honestly and please change the title of the topic so that nobody inadvertently posts on a board they think is to do with feminism, but isn't.

Agree, LangClegsinSpace.

I am in FWR to discuss the rights of women and girls and threats to them. I'm not interested in the 'trans debate'.

I don't appreciate being harangued by disingenuous posters to explain the 'MN view' as if there is one, or to defend MN (I would, fwiw, until MN start to delete long standing posters who have been polite, eloquent and thoughtful and posted for YEARS, but mods allow new posters to apparently post with impunity and be rude as all get out to others, accuse us of being transphobic, etc).

Your dedicated members have been forced off the board and site. People on Twitter crow about their 'win'. You've been played.

Is MoleSmokes banned for asking a question?

Many casualties over the last few days. Not much more can be said without becoming one of them.

@LangClegsInSpace

Thank you for the link to Justine's post from 2016, *@YetAnotherBeckyMumsnet*. There are lots of brilliant bits aside from those you quoted. My favourite bits are:

Mumsnet has always believed - been founded upon - the idea that civilised debate is a broadly positive thing. That we can disagree but agree that people have a right to different opinions. That freedom of speech is in general good and that we'd rather let the conversation flow than censor it.

... there are always going to be posts which fall into a grey area - posts that cause offence without intention, perhaps by using words in common use that some believe should be disallowed ... And our inclination here is to err on the side of free speech rather than censorship.

We do understand it can be frustrating being told that we'd rather host a debate about why something was offensive so folks might change their mind, than delete it.

At a time when the rise of intersectional politics often seems to be squeezing the space for public debate, when no-platforming has entered the everyday vocabulary of university campuses and social media reverberates daily to howls of outrage over some linguistic transgression or other, this seems more important than ever.

We understand how anxious many who’ve battled for women’s rights feel. We understand that language plays an important part in making them feel marginalised and vulnerable.

In an increasingly polarised world of trigger warnings and safe spaces, preserving Mumsnet as a place that can host the widest debate in the most civilised fashion seems more important than ever. You’ll have to forgive me if this sounds pompous but this really is about freedom. As so often George Orwell put it best: “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”

It would be completely disingenuous for MNHQ to pretend that their position now is the same as it was in November 2016 when this post was written - over a year and a half before the Special Rules came into effect. Even the quote you have chosen from Justine's post does not reflect the situation as it is now -

We're mindful of the fact that many of our users are exhausted and often in impossibly difficult situations and would much rather people just understood or piped down - that we just deleted those comments which upset them or banned those who made them. But rightly or wrongly, that's not the Mumsnet we've chosen to be.

You've deleted loads of comments from regular posters because they upset certain people and you are apparently now banning long term posters too. From what I can make out this is in response to 'howls of outrage over some linguistic transgression or other' - to quote Justine.

If you're no longer interested in hosting a feminism board and would prefer instead to 'showcase the full range of opinion' on The Trans Debate then please say so honestly and please change the title of the topic so that nobody inadvertently posts on a board they think is to do with feminism, but isn't.

Hear hear LangClegsInSpace.

MN have moved a very long way from the sentiments expressed in Justine's 2016 post.

Well if MN are OK with having their site trashed across twitter, advertisers being dogpiled and pulling their ads and losing revenue because of it, who are we to argue.

Architects of their own misfortune 🤷‍♀️

Is it possible that some of the new/prospective members feeling “unwelcome” on MN haven’t fully/fairly explored the site?

I think most “regulars” know that some boards (AIBU is frequently cited) are more rough-and-tumble than others. We also know that some boards are general: on Chat or AIBU or 30/90 Days Only, almost any topic goes. Many other boards - like Scotsnet or LGBT Parents or Baby Names or What We’re Reading or Vegan - are intentionally topical and it’s basic etiquette to try to post on the relevant board and keep roughly on topic. Members who feel their group or interest or need isn’t represented via a specific board and don’t want to post on a general board can do the legwork to demonstrate broad user interest and ask MNHQ to add a board - as PatricksRum ably demonstrated with the recent addition of Black Mumsnetters.

If new posters are coming to MN already determined to participate in one specific, topical board - in this case, Feminism Chat - and then they’re going offsite and condemning MN because off-topic posts and replies are/were not welcomed on that topical board -- that situation is categorically different from a particular poster or a particular demographic being or feeling unwelcome on the site as a whole or on that particular board.

An ardent carnivore (for example) can happily post about meat all day on the Food/Recipes board or on the more general boards, but will reasonably get short shrift if they post repeatedly on Vegan re beef, chicken, prawns, etc. This is not excluding a poster or group, it’s excluding irrelevant content on a topical board. No one cares if a rampant carnivore goes on Vegan to ask for help deciding what type of tofu to try or what to cook for a vegan guest - people do that periodically and are welcome(d). But no sensible person would come to MN intending to read (and willing to read) ONLY the Vegan board, and then go offsite to complain that MN is unwelcoming to carnivores. And I would expect MN to support the regular users of Vegan if this practice became contentious or interfered with the intended use of the board - even if the new user(s) genuinely believed that those foodstuffs should be centred on Vegan.

The same concept applies to the Feminism Chat board. I understand that "feminism" can be confusing, and has many strains, and usually a robust debate going on among them. But feminism does have a clear definition: it is the theory and practice to improve the lot of all women, of women as a group. I see more and more posts and replies on Feminism Chat that seem to think that feminism means anything that involves one or more women in any way. This is incorrect.

Recently there was a long thread about differentiating sexual orientation from sexuality, and one poster kept pressing women to respond to a clearly male-centred idea of sexuality, ignoring women who described a different take. The thread then devolved into what men like/appreciate/find sexy about women. A regular poster pointed out the problem, and another new poster came in and said it's natural to ask what men are feeling about women. I would absolutely expect to see something like that on many other MN boards and have no problem with it there - of course there are heterosexual or bisexual single (or just curious) women here who may sometimes want to chat about what men find attractive about women, and probably men too who’d be happy to have that conversation. But it does not belong on a board about feminism. Feminism is clear that women are subjects, not objects.

If potential new MN users are asking to feel completely welcome engaging with the posters and material on Feminism Chat specifically, but they do not want to post about feminist topics/women’s rights and habitually reply to threads on that board with off-topic comments, then I’m not sure that their expectations can be met without fundamentally changing the nature and purpose of the existing board.

A possible compromise solution might be to set up a new board dedicated to discussions on Trans rights - or even something like the now-defunct niche Reddit board “GC debates QT” (not crazy about the name, but you get the idea) to explicitly discuss various conflicts between gender ideology and feminism and between women’s existing rights and certain strains of trans rights activism, policy, legislation, etc. That way, the discussions about feminist topics and women’s rights could retain their integrity on Feminism Chat AND members with other perspectives and experiences could engage with that group of posters and could also be fairly and prominently represented too.

Either way - while an individual thread asking questions about or critiquing a particular feminist view, talking point, article, book, etc. is appropriate and welcome in Feminism Chat, constant raising of issues and views that have nothing to do with feminism gets just as tiresome for Feminism Chat regulars as constant random references to trout and truffles and turkey - or indeed, to toboggans and trespassing and Trudeau - would for denizens of Vegan.

If MN wants to change the definition of Feminism Chat so that it's no longer about feminism - I would be unhappy, because I think you're all done a wonderful job holding the line for women in a hostile environment. But it is your (MN's) choice. I just ask that you tell us clearly when and if there is no longer a space for feminism on MN, and perhaps change the name of the board so that new users are not misled. Either way, I thank you for giving us the time to really understand the need for, and to create, portable feminist spaces online.

Maduixa

Great points that bear repeating over and over!

@Maduixa

Is it possible that some of the new/prospective members feeling “unwelcome” on MN haven’t fully/fairly explored the site?

I think most “regulars” know that some boards (AIBU is frequently cited) are more rough-and-tumble than others. We also know that some boards are general: on Chat or AIBU or 30/90 Days Only, almost any topic goes. Many other boards - like Scotsnet or LGBT Parents or Baby Names or What We’re Reading or Vegan - are intentionally topical and it’s basic etiquette to try to post on the relevant board and keep roughly on topic. Members who feel their group or interest or need isn’t represented via a specific board and don’t want to post on a general board can do the legwork to demonstrate broad user interest and ask MNHQ to add a board - as PatricksRum ably demonstrated with the recent addition of Black Mumsnetters.

If new posters are coming to MN already determined to participate in one specific, topical board - in this case, Feminism Chat - and then they’re going offsite and condemning MN because off-topic posts and replies are/were not welcomed on that topical board -- that situation is categorically different from a particular poster or a particular demographic being or feeling unwelcome on the site as a whole or on that particular board.

An ardent carnivore (for example) can happily post about meat all day on the Food/Recipes board or on the more general boards, but will reasonably get short shrift if they post repeatedly on Vegan re beef, chicken, prawns, etc. This is not excluding a poster or group, it’s excluding irrelevant content on a topical board. No one cares if a rampant carnivore goes on Vegan to ask for help deciding what type of tofu to try or what to cook for a vegan guest - people do that periodically and are welcome(d). But no sensible person would come to MN intending to read (and willing to read) ONLY the Vegan board, and then go offsite to complain that MN is unwelcoming to carnivores. And I would expect MN to support the regular users of Vegan if this practice became contentious or interfered with the intended use of the board - even if the new user(s) genuinely believed that those foodstuffs should be centred on Vegan.

The same concept applies to the Feminism Chat board. I understand that "feminism" can be confusing, and has many strains, and usually a robust debate going on among them. But feminism does have a clear definition: it is the theory and practice to improve the lot of all women, of women as a group. I see more and more posts and replies on Feminism Chat that seem to think that feminism means anything that involves one or more women in any way. This is incorrect.

Recently there was a long thread about differentiating sexual orientation from sexuality, and one poster kept pressing women to respond to a clearly male-centred idea of sexuality, ignoring women who described a different take. The thread then devolved into what men like/appreciate/find sexy about women. A regular poster pointed out the problem, and another new poster came in and said it's natural to ask what men are feeling about women. I would absolutely expect to see something like that on many other MN boards and have no problem with it there - of course there are heterosexual or bisexual single (or just curious) women here who may sometimes want to chat about what men find attractive about women, and probably men too who’d be happy to have that conversation. But it does not belong on a board about feminism. Feminism is clear that women are subjects, not objects.

If potential new MN users are asking to feel completely welcome engaging with the posters and material on Feminism Chat specifically, but they do not want to post about feminist topics/women’s rights and habitually reply to threads on that board with off-topic comments, then I’m not sure that their expectations can be met without fundamentally changing the nature and purpose of the existing board.

A possible compromise solution might be to set up a new board dedicated to discussions on Trans rights - or even something like the now-defunct niche Reddit board “GC debates QT” (not crazy about the name, but you get the idea) to explicitly discuss various conflicts between gender ideology and feminism and between women’s existing rights and certain strains of trans rights activism, policy, legislation, etc. That way, the discussions about feminist topics and women’s rights could retain their integrity on Feminism Chat AND members with other perspectives and experiences could engage with that group of posters and could also be fairly and prominently represented too.

Either way - while an individual thread asking questions about or critiquing a particular feminist view, talking point, article, book, etc. is appropriate and welcome in Feminism Chat, constant raising of issues and views that have nothing to do with feminism gets just as tiresome for Feminism Chat regulars as constant random references to trout and truffles and turkey - or indeed, to toboggans and trespassing and Trudeau - would for denizens of Vegan.

If MN wants to change the definition of Feminism Chat so that it's no longer about feminism - I would be unhappy, because I think you're all done a wonderful job holding the line for women in a hostile environment. But it is your (MN's) choice. I just ask that you tell us clearly when and if there is no longer a space for feminism on MN, and perhaps change the name of the board so that new users are not misled. Either way, I thank you for giving us the time to really understand the need for, and to create, portable feminist spaces online.

Clear sensible and fair 👏 thank you .

It's strange that the new members all decided to post on the FWR board and not on Chat. If you wanted to know something about the site wouldn't it make more sense to ask the general population of users rather than a specific group?

Jane now now, you're being totes paranoid I'm sure.

I'll be ok now I've ordered this

You need a lovely knitted cover for that

Excellent post Maduixa

I have noticed this too. How a few posters this weekend, have posted the same nonsensical drivel over and over - mostly on threads about the way men treat women. Several posters have said that men (allegedly) have it as bad as women in life, and have repeated this drivel over and over all weekend. One poster started up a new thread today - as the first one filled up yesterday - and there was absolutely no need for the second thread.

It's not gone down well though, as most posters disagree, and this poster has now flounced!

I am also baffled about a thread that was posted on here tonight... A poster put a thread on about her MIL's attitude towards her son's hair. It was there for 23 minutes, and had 16 responses, and it was taken down, with a message saying 'we are taking this down at the poster's request.'

How on EARTH did this get taken down so quickly?!

And WHY?!

So this is still going on. Posters who are not here in good faith are allowed to dictate what happens in FWR. I am getting really tired of goady, irrelevant threads being posted by people not interested in debate and then left to stand, clearing out good faith posters with deletions on the way. If it's not about feminism, why is it there? As PP said, that wouldn't happen on any other board.

The hostile nature of the posts are completely not in the spirit. The posters seem more interested in putting words in people’s mouths that can be taken out of context.

There is absolutely no engagement. Most of the time posts are not even read. I don’t have confidence that this board will be even handed in moderation anymore after this weekend.

Some very "not in the spirit " posting occurring on FWR the last few days.

Fantastic post from @Maduixa, beautifully put.

In particular, this bit, which I wholeheartedly agree with:

A possible compromise solution might be to set up a new board dedicated to discussions on Trans rights - or even something like the now-defunct niche Reddit board “GC debates QT” (not crazy about the name, but you get the idea) to explicitly discuss various conflicts between gender ideology and feminism and between women’s existing rights and certain strains of trans rights activism, policy, legislation, etc. That way, the discussions about feminist topics and women’s rights could retain their integrity on Feminism Chat AND members with other perspectives and experiences could engage with that group of posters and could also be fairly and prominently represented too.

@MNHQ, could you give us your thoughts on this suggestion, please?