Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Site stuff

Join our Innovation Panel to try new features early and help make Mumsnet better.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Thread about Kathleen Stock's book deleted

63 replies

BernardBlackMissesLangCleg · 08/05/2021 13:55

Hello

It would be helpful to understand why the thread about Kathleen Stock's book was deleted if MNHQ wouldn't mind explaining their reasoning?

The thread was a number of women discussing the work of 2 feminist academics. Feminist academics are generally by their nature controversial and get up men's noses, otherwise they're not doing it right!

If you could provide some guidelines for how feminists can discuss Kathleen Stock and Julia Long's work on the Feminism board it would be most helpful.

Thank you in advance.

OP posts:
GCAcademic · 11/05/2021 08:39

Yes, what about the posters who come onto FWR with a stack of generalisations and misrepresentations they’ve made about “GC Feminism” and start calling us thick, white, middle-aged bigots? That kind of thing seems to be actively encouraged by MNHQ.

EmpressWitchDoesntBurn · 11/05/2021 09:33

There have been a few posts lately along the lines of ‘I’m a cis woman and GC feminism is bad for me because...’

RufustheBadgeringReindeer · 11/05/2021 10:38

@GCAcademic

Yes, what about the posters who come onto FWR with a stack of generalisations and misrepresentations they’ve made about “GC Feminism” and start calling us thick, white, middle-aged bigots? That kind of thing seems to be actively encouraged by MNHQ.
The MNHQ comment upthread just isn’t good enough

Women on the feminism board should be able to discuss feminist literature

A vague ‘generalisations about AGP’ isnt helpful in the slightest

If the guidelines are that clear (and they must be because every time there is a deletion you mention them) then it would mean that no FWR poster would be deleted cos theyd know what NOT to say

Maybe someone could tell us if there are particular chapters of the book we should be avoiding talking about?

This is so ludicrous that I don’t actually have the words 😀

RufustheBadgeringReindeer · 11/05/2021 10:44

@Barracker

I still have the deleted thread open on a tab.

There were only two deleted posts. And one which quoted one of the deleted posts.
I found it bemusing that the thread was zapped.

But if I understand the rule correctly, as others have said, it appears to be:

Don't be general. But also don't be specific.
Use words to say what you mean, but not the words that say what you mean, use the words that don't. Stick to facts, but not the facts that hurt feelings, use feelings that hurt facts in that instance. You are welcome to your opinions, except when your opinions are not welcome. Robust debate is encouraged, as long as it doesn't debate robustly, in which case fragile agreement works. You can say what you want in good faith, after checking the talk guidelines to make sure it's permitted to have those thoughts and use those words. Follow these rules and all will be well, except when you do and you're not in the spirit.

I honestly don't know why anyone finds it hard.

Actually I take everything back i said in my earlier post

Is obviously just me that doesn’t get the arbitrary rules that only work one way

barracker gets it 😀

NutellaEllaElla · 15/05/2021 10:02

I see that MNHQ are waiting for us to just stop objecting to this. So i'm bumping the thread. Smile

Quietlyloud · 17/05/2021 19:35

I’d like to know what’s so special about those with AGP that we can’t talk about them. What other things can’t we talk about? The hypocrisy of saying we can’t generalise and can’t talk specifics is fucked up and insulting. @MNHQ wise the fuck up and sort it out.

EmpressWitchDoesntBurn · 18/05/2021 08:52

Lily Maynard’s just published her review of the book, with quotes from Tinsel & KeepPrisonsSingleSex.
lilymaynard.com/kathleen-stock-material-girls-review/

BaronessBomburst · 18/05/2021 09:01

I missed all this but will gladly bump the thread too.
I found Barracker's quote from the Stonewall Manifesto particularly insight.
Wink

Datun · 18/05/2021 09:59

[quote EmpressWitchDoesntBurn]Lily Maynard’s just published her review of the book, with quotes from Tinsel & KeepPrisonsSingleSex.
lilymaynard.com/kathleen-stock-material-girls-review/[/quote]
That's a very readable review. Lily Maynard certainly knows how to draw in the reader.

And it does indeed highlight some blindspots that Kathleen stock has.

In terms of her conclusions regarding AGP, I would still like to know where she gets her stats.

Mulletsaremisunderstood · 18/05/2021 14:04

It's so disappointing that MN (a site primarily for women) will not allow proper discussion of women issues.

The over moderation of FWR is a disgrace.

BanditoShipman · 18/05/2021 14:12

Bump

Leafstamp · 21/05/2021 20:39

Did anyone get a personal reply on the topics raised on this thread? Am wondering whether to report a post as that usually generates a personal response.

ItsLateHumpty · 24/05/2021 02:54

And this deletion is even more annoying because we have the ever so helpful posters complaining that we only ever talk about transgendered people on FWR but a thread about AGP (covers all people however they ID) and feminist literature is deleted on the back of a whole 2 posts being deleted.

I found Barrackers FWR chat rules easier to follow than the actual FWR rules 😬

New posts on this thread. Refresh page