Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

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

dear MN HQ could you please be so kind as to explain to me publicaly why you allow thread like the super race one

207 replies

saint2shoes · 24/01/2009 11:04

to continue? IMO it has some very offensive posts on it, but you still have not pulled it.

OP posts:
silverfrog · 28/01/2009 09:41

Lemontart, I understand what you are saying.

I feel the same way, often, and I have a disabled daughter (or whatever I am supposed to say now).

The thing is, I don't mind what is said, more how it is said, if that makes sense?

It is entirely possible that people do not know what the current pc term is (I do not know myself), but it is still possible to make your point without being offensive/insensitive.

I even waver on the ASD girl/girl with ASD sometimes (my daughter is (has?) ASD). It is tricky, as the autism is such an integral part of her that she is an ASD girl, but then again she is not just an ASD girl, she is a girl with ASD. It really can be a minefield, but I would like to say that you would not offend me if you did not use the latest pc term (certainly not just for that reason!)

LeninGrad · 28/01/2009 09:44

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Lemontart · 28/01/2009 09:56

thank you silverfrog

the fear of offending people is very real and it is a shame if that overtakes to the point where it holds you back from engaging and talking to people.

I was out for coffee with my mum the other day in a small cafe. There was a young mum with a little girl in a wheelchair with major disabilities. She had this lovely smile and was cute, like most toddlers. My instant reaction was to smile at her and make a comment to the mum - as I would normally do in public if you end up sitting near someone and just say hello (try to be friendly LOL) I smiled and said hello to the little girl and the mum and then clammed up. Suddenly I was torn up inside worrying. I worried that the woman would think I was only smiling and being nice out of some weird sympathy/pc thing or even think me patronising. I wasn?t, I was acting like I always do if I see a little toddler and they beam up and grin at me - I can?t help but engage and make some non important general chit chat with them. Just who I am. Then, I spent the rest of the time chatting with my mum acutely aware that this woman was next to me. Had I looked uncomfortable? Had I been relaxed and PC with my language? Did she notice I was being careful with what I said and did that annoy/upset/irritate her? Did I talk too much or not enough? Dammit! In the car on the way back to my mums I discussed it with her. She said that I make it all about me instead of about the little girl - perhaps I do, but only because I am annoyed that my fear of upsetting and offending might actually be making it more likely that I do come across as awkward and be misread as something it just is not! She was a sweet little toddler and I said hello and smiled at her and then at her mum. End of story. The mum and child probably had not thought anything of it and not given me a second thought. So why was I left feeling bereft and uncomfortable somehow?

Perhaps I am just an overly analytical nutter! My reason in sharing this rather embarrassing little event and admitting to just how insecure and lunatic I can be, is to show how difficult it can feel. Please don?t slate me on this as I am being painfully honest about it all. I do not approve of my thought processes and am annoyed it was such a big deal to me. But it was.

Is it tricky or is it just tricky in my head?

Will I need to name change after this?!!

Lemontart · 28/01/2009 09:57

I agree about the humanity LeninGrad and even as a fairly ignorant and unaware person, I have been disgusted and upset by many things people have posted on these last two threads.

PeachyBAHonsPRSCertOnRequest · 28/01/2009 10:03

I think it is tricky but you know what I don't always get it rigt either LOL.

Not just on disability- I spent 3 years studying world faiths / ethics / culture and still get racial terminology wrong as well.

There's a thing on Sn that we try and see beyond the words after one too many fights with no basis beyong terminology.

Personally, I don't care if you call my boys disabled , imapired, handicapped (now there's word!) or whatever- retard I hate as it's become synonomous with stupidity and my lads are not that. I try and think behind the phraseology and look at the sentiments expressed.

What I like about the phrase disability is that there is a wide acceptance that the disabled need support, and it's become linked with Disability Living Allowance. I ahve found that despite my boys having invisible )well sort of, you can tell ds3 is these days I think) ASD if people make remarks the explanation that they receive DLA tends to help their case.

Lemontart · 28/01/2009 10:10

So (and I really do apologise if I am coming across as a bumbling fool on this) you think it is ok to still use the term "disability" - just avoid saying "the disabled man/woman/child" and express it as a person with a disability rather than disabled? Honestly, I feel so clumsy with this and the thing about impairment just threw me a little.

silverfrog · 28/01/2009 10:13

Lemontart. all the things that went through your head would have gone through mine in the same situation. Perhaps we can form an overly analytical nutter support group

In all seriousness, though, if you are genuine and honest, then I do not think it will be taken the wrong way.

I wrote a post on the "positive examples of people who have said the right thing" thread - hold on and I'll find it...

Right:

"A couple of weeks ago I was sat on abench in tyhe shopping centre with dd1 & dd2. They were eating raisins (this constitutes an exciting outing for dd1 ) and an elderly lady was sat next to the girls. She spoke to dd1 - the usual "what's your name?/what's your sister's name?" etc.

I answered that dd1 might not reply as she isn't always able to due to being autistic, and the lady replied "I don't really know much about that - how does it affect her?" but said in a really nice, interested tone."

And the thing is, it was fantastic that someone was upfront.

Dd1 was being socially awkward, at an age where she shouuldn't be (in fact, compared to NT children she was being downright rude - ignoring the lady, singing to herself, demanding my attention when I spoke, etc) and so it would have been odd if the lady hadn't felt a little wrong-footed herself. So I explained, and she explained she didn't know much about it, and then we were off, chattign away.

So please don't let a moment's hesitation stop you form being you - whether that's talking to someone, or pulling faces at the cheeky toddler from across the cafe.

And yes, the use of disability as you've described it is ok by me

PeachyBAHonsPRSCertOnRequest · 28/01/2009 10:13

Yep that doesn't upset me at all tbh.

At risk of outing myself and being banned from MN I use he's disdabled a lot; I don't have the energy r wherewithal to assess everything I say!. And i'm not going to be angry at someone who uses a term inadvisedly unless perhaps they should know better- if you workedas a supporter for a child with DS and said 'I workk with a dows' I'd be very ; if you said 'there's a downs kid in ds's class' with no knowledge of the two term differences I might mention it but no more.

IYSWIM?

Just do the best you can but FGS don't let it stop you talking to poeple or cause you worry!

Lemontart · 28/01/2009 10:21

Peachy - thank you for being honest! It is reassuring to read that people with more personal experience find the constant pc language issue not always easy either.
You are right, I should not let it affect my natural behaviour with others just because I worry about my ignorance regarding language.

You have given me a little more confidence in all of this and not to expect people to be inflexible or lack understanding themselves.

Someone earlier mentioned feeling better informed thanks to mumsnet and threads like these. I totally agree.

Monkeytrousers · 28/01/2009 10:54

Yes I know what you mean. I don't think it's a big issue at grassroots as it were, but in councils they have to get it right. I don;'t know whether its a good or bad thing. The point about it making people scared of talking about it is a good one.

I doubt very much most reasonable people mind the term 'dsabled' - and its much better than 'retard', 'invalid', 'mong', 'spaka', etc.

Like Peachy says, you just do the best you can.

FioFio · 28/01/2009 11:22

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

KarlWrenbury · 28/01/2009 11:52

rather than starting a thread abotu a thread?!

PeachyBAHonsPRSCertOnRequest · 28/01/2009 12:40

Ah no technically this is a thread about an e-mail to MN!

Fio you're wuite right of copurse, esp. on two counts- that Sn groups (and I nly use that pgrase for want of a better one) views vary massively: I know of one person who would always tst for future ASD, me in the middle and some on the no tests whatsoever side. It's important to recognise we're linked by the SN rather than anything else.

Also that it would be great if Amber could show how those quotes breech DDA becuase the act is widely under implemented and maybe we all need to start reversing that....?

amber32002 · 28/01/2009 13:20

OK, I can try. But I am NOT a lawyer and I'm only saying this from my own personal experience and to the best of my knowledge from conversations with top lawyers and the government recently, not as an adviser here.

First of all, the general 'spirit' of the disability discrimination legislation is to make places reasonably accessible for people with any form of disability.

That means that each service provider has to plan in advance for how they are to cater for each type of disability, even if someone with that disability isn't there at the time.

And that planning should include a disability policy based on expert advice, and basic disability training so that all staff or people managing the environments have a good understanding of how people with different disabilities can best access not only the space, but any conversations taking place that are part of that service.

So, on a website, the space we're accessing is the mumsnet website. It should be DDA compliant with a high W3C rating allowing people with visual disabilities, epilepsy or an ASD (for example) to use things in an easy way, and preferably with a minimum of scrolling to help those with mobility difficulties. It could well be.

That's the background.

Against that background, the day to day activity of this service is parents communicating with each other and accessing information or taking part in debates on popular topics. Some have disabilities and therefore may need a degree of support, help or assistance to be able to join in effectively. My disability is one in point. A 'reasonable' amount of help, not 'every bit of help imaginable'. It's to be negotiated, discussed, planned for. My trouble is that I can write in a very lucid way, but have a brain that can 'cut out' or go into a terrible panic if faced with too much stress/personal attacks and which leaves me potentially very vulnerable in a hostile environment. I can avoid many of them, but a debate about whether we should be permitted to be born at all is not one I feel we should be excluded from by any comment saying "well just don't post there if you can't handle the heat" or similar thinking (not that this is what was said, I'm just trying to illustrate a point). It just needs careful management. I do a lot to handle my own risks, but I do need a degree of help sometimes.

The need to offer help/assistance comes into effect when someone says "hello, I have this disability, can you help me please". The service provider can go to the charity for that disability and get some handy quick tips for what to do, or what not to do. That shows a professional attitude to being asked.

The DDA also says that service providers must not provide a lower standard of service or to provide the service in a worse manner.

"Examples of a lower standard of service:
? making you wait until everybody else has been served
? giving you less choice about when you can use a service.
Examples of a worse manner of service:
? insulting or humiliating you because of your disability
? drawing unnecessary attention to the fact you are disabled"

In consultation with the government Minister recently, he made it quite clear that he intends these laws to be used to offer as equal a 'playing field' as possible for all those with a disability, in every part of life.

So, we can see from the comments made by parents with SN so far that many, many of them were frightened of posting on that thread, were really worried about some of its content. That's a big Red Flag in terms of deciding whether something is potentially insulting or humiliating for those taking part in the debate.

Would a more vulnerable person with a disability be comfortable taking part? Is anyone supporting them? Is there editorial control that reminds people of the need for respect so that they can show that they have acted responsibly? If someone does press the 'panic' button, as I did, and asks for help or an element of editorial overview to ensure it remains accessible for me and others like me, is the help reasonably tailored to that disability and fairly prompt and appropriate? Remember the aim is to enable the person with the disability to participate in what should be a reasonably respectful environment for that disability. I know that I was scared absolutely stiff, and I've had to rely on autism support to get me through the last few days.

Not every message thread can be respectful. It is not a question of squashing freedom of speech or making everyone totally politically-correct and more polite than the Queen herself. But ones on disability issues, where those with disabilities read them and note the comments, always end up saying a lot about the message board in question.

An overall 'barrage' of negative comments going on for day after day about the worth of those with disabilities can be a hostile and intimidating environment that stops those with a disability from participating and their voices being heard. It does not have to relate to a particular sentence said at a particular time - it can relate to lots of incidents over time, and it can be an overall picture of how the website in question tries to help 10% of the population to join in.

That's the overview.

Unfortunately, many service providers have a "knickers to you" approach so far. I'm sure that's not the case with mumsnet. It makes sense for websites to work with those that want to help them do their best for those with a disability so that it is indeed an equal place for people to be. After all, people with disabilities are customers too.

I'm absolutely sure mumsnet do many things right in this respect. But this particular thread needed a bit of editorial help, and so did I.

PeachyBAHonsPRSCertOnRequest · 28/01/2009 13:25

I hope they read that!

And yes it has put me off posting anything 'negatiove' (ie the stuff I need help with) about ds1 on MN in case people use it to strengthen their ideas of Sn as a negative.

So it has reduced access to me I guess.

LeninGrad · 28/01/2009 15:59

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

amber32002 · 28/01/2009 16:16

They'd have had to - anything that says on a public message board(for example) "black people should not be born/they're not financially worthwhile" would be classed as potentially inciting race hate. Had no corrective action been taken after a complaint had been made about any such statement, the police could have been involved.

It's not about what the website wants, or what its members want, because the law isn't about personal opinion or democratic vote to see if it doesn't apply today/in this place. It's why every business in the UK needs to have really robust and clearly implemented anti-discrimination policies which are aimed at best practice and a 'can do' attitude.

2shoes · 28/01/2009 16:17

y KarlWrenbury on Wed 28-Jan-09 11:52:47
rather than starting a thread abotu a thread?!

I started this thread, as I had had no response from MN Hq at the time. It was also to try and find out why a thread I had started had been pulled.

LeninGrad · 28/01/2009 16:29

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

amber32002 · 28/01/2009 16:52

Anything I've said isn't a gauntlet, if I understand the term correctly, it's helpful advice to the best of my knowledge, which I'm sure mumsnet already knows anyway.

LeninGrad · 28/01/2009 17:08

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Monkeytrousers · 28/01/2009 17:40

They key word in the DDA is 'reasonable'. That reasonablness needs to be based on financial viability for the business too.

PeachyBAHonsPRSCertOnRequest · 28/01/2009 18:02

How much does delete button cost MT? at least for the worst threads (not necessarily whole debate- what, 5 out of 1000 posts?)

sarah293 · 28/01/2009 18:08

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

amber32002 · 28/01/2009 18:09

We have a very high number of parents of children with disabilities/people with disabilities who have expressed their shock, their sadness, their astonishment, and their fear of posting on that thread/their comment that they couldn't cope with trying to post on there.

If mumsnet is about all the people on here being equal, then that wasn't achieved in this case.

Swipe left for the next trending thread