I've asked MNHQ...

[ChinaCupsandSaucers]

.....if we can have a little 'note' at the top of the Stepparenting board, with a list of acronyms that cause offence - to ensure that posters get support and threads aren't sidetracked by inadvertent use of common phrases that are less welcome here on MN;

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/site_stuff/1811572-Board-notes

I couldn't give a fig about anyone's username, actually I most often don't even read usernames unless I am looking to directly reply to that specific poster.

OK
I was posting to Daisy but thanks anyway.

It's just interesting(ish) that for all the discussion about swearing there isn't actually a huge amount on the thread.

But you probably do have to stretch interesting quite far.

Personally I think the discussion about swearing started because some posters appeared to come on to the thread just to swear, without any reference to the OP

Birth mum is not offensive.

Cunt is offensive.

Try it, call a police women either one.

I assume people post out of some insecurity.
How can an abbreviation on a sub forum be offensive?

If you don't like it hide the threads.

But it depends on your audience doesn't it?

I would never call anyone irl a cunt. But I might think it and I might post it (as a non personal attack natch) on here.

Knowing that some mothers find the term bm pejorative and yet demanding the right to use it is equivalent to calling an adult with cerebral palsy a spaz. (Apologies but I just can't believe that I am having to use a term I abhor in order to explain this).

In terms of the original op I absolutely agree that new posters should not be hounded offsite for using the term, but if they were to come on and use similarly disablist language they would also have their arses handed to them on a stick.

The only answer I can see is to make this area opt-in.

In terms of the original op I absolutely agree that new posters should not be hounded offsite for using the term, but if they were to come on and use similarly disablist language they would also have their arses handed to them on a stick.

The issue regarding the term BM is that it isn't universally considered offensive in the same way as the disablist term you exampled is.

If other sites encouraged use of that disablist term then it's not unreqs

If other sites encouraged use of that disablist term, then it's not unreasonable for new posters on MN to use it here ignorant of its offensive nature.

And yet one can find it all over the Internet without looking too hard.

Each site has its own feel and concept, they cannot and would not aim to please everyone.

You are clearly of the opinion that MN should accept the term BM because the rest of the Internet does.

I do not.

Stalemate.

You are clearly of the opinion that MN should accept the term BM because the rest of the Internet does.

scone Have my posts given you that impression? That I'm arguing for acceptance of the term?

I've asked HQ to provide guidance on its use in order to avoid offence and discourage its use - not asked them to tell those who are offended to suck it up and put up with it!

I'm astounded that after both my threads on this and all the discussion, I have managed to commin

I think perhaps you should contact MNHQ to further this discussion. It is their site and they should have the final say.

Sorry x-post, but yes, your posts have leant that impression.

You are clearly of the opinion that MN should accept the term BM because the rest of the Internet does.

scone Have my posts given you that impression? That I'm arguing for acceptance of the term?

I've asked HQ to provide guidance on its use in order to avoid offence and discourage its use - not asked them to tell those who are offended to suck it up and put up with it!

I'm astounded that after both my threads on this and all the discussion, I have managed to communicate my meaning so badly. Perhaps an example of how an original point can be lost when a thread is derailed?

I think perhaps you should contact MNHQ to further this discussion. It is their site and they should have the final say.

Um, that's what this thread is about - my contact with MNHQ? Are we

...talking at cross purposes?

You are clearly of the opinion that MN should accept the term BM because the rest of the Internet does.

Can I do a reality check - is this really how my posts on this thread have come across? If so, then I'm not surprised if I've inadvertantly caused offence in the past - I'm obviously incapable of communicating effectively in writing!

It's frustrating that all SMs are assumed to be the OW. Are stepdads assumed to be the OM? No of course they're not. Stepdads are all seen as heroes who decided to take his wife and his stepchildren under his wing and they all lived happily ever after

I don't think this is quite true, the ammount of threads I have seen recently where step dads are viewed with suspicion because they are more likely to abuse or kill a step child surgest that's not the case.

With birth mum I have only ever heard or seen the term used either in adoptive or surrogate situations but in those cases its the correct term or in situations where the whole tone of the post was very negative towards the mum who was actually the rp so it was being used as a PA insult.

Nothing wrong with a person referring to their own parent as birth if that's how they see the lack of relationship but IMO its a bit iffy using it when your not the son/daughter and your attempting to invalidate a relationship, but you can usually tell when someone's doing that by the entire post.

And I can't really understand why a mum needs to be referred to as a birth mum unless she is not either a legal or active parent,I can't think of any time typing birth mum instead of dsc mum makes sence or would be needed to identify whose who no matter how complicated the family set up is.

Fwiw I'm even more antsy about step dads being dad when there is a active dad already even if the involvement is minimal but then again I'm biased because I have recently watched an 8yo girl fall apart due to her mums desire to invalidate her relationship with her dad because she remarried she was very confused to learn the chap she sees once a month is her dad,was distressing to see.

I have only read this thread and can only speak for my own drug addled understanding (sorry, mega back pain has left me full of diazepam and other goodies) but it has felt that way.

If you want to reach HQ you either need to report the thread or perhaps start another in site stuff.

Adding to the acronyms list might work, but so few people actually read it I am not sure it would work. MN doesn't really do stickies so that isn't really an option, and as it is post moderated new posters still risk being thrown to the wolves if they rely on other members warning them by pm. Plus it means looking at the PM envelope.... Is there a similar warning to that in relationships when a new thread is started, could it be added there?

scone I appreciate you are drug-addled, but the OP, my OP, contains a link to the thread I started in Site stuff, to which HQ have responded, requesting a sticky note about the term BM - as there are sticky notes at the top of the legal, relationships and other boards.

If the term BM was considered to break talk guidelines, any thread started that included the phrase could be deleted by MNHQ, so avoiding the prolonged hounding that the OP receives on a thread that is sometimes kept alive for days by the same few posters expressing repeated incredulity at the OP for daring to use the term.

Lets ban it - then there's no risk of offence!

Ok, have just reread the op, which does ask exactly that . I think I have become confused because each of your subsequent posts seems to outline that you think it is an MN affectation to dislike the term (posts on page one at 7.13 for example)

The reply from HQ is a bit wooly and reflects how difficult that line is to draw, again something that the SN board has had to deal with for a very very long time, the idea that they should 'educate' as to which terms are acceptable. This is an as old as the hills scenario.

I don't think the term can be 'banned' - personally I think a message up top is the way to go.

I can only re-iterate what I have been saying from the outset which is that as difficult as it might seem from the outside, banning or warning about specific terms is something MNHQ (rightly in my opinion) do very rarely.

And whilst this feels astonishingly personal, this kind of impasse happens all over the board. There have been massive blow ups with posters leaving in FWR, the Doghouse and SN in the last year alone.

In spite of the determination to see my interest in this thread as some kind of derailing, my comments have arisen out of my interest in language and how it continues to evolve ( and for anyone who isn't just determinedly trying to have a fight just or the apparent sake of it, I have expressed my views without swearing at anyone)

When I first came on here there were lots of disablist terms used fairly freely. It was only through lots of fairly painful debate that that changed . And out of that (at least in part) the 'this is my child' campaign emerged.

So whilst I expect you feel like batting your head against a wall, the issue remains up for debate and, whilst it seems tedious to those who have made their minds up, only by repeating your views will you gain consensus.
I think I must have had the 'retard' argument 100 times in the last 8 years. Now people wanting to be offensive use different words. Sometimes people use horrible words unknowingly and want to know how others might be upset. I was first on here I was horrified by people using cunt. But I argued and continue to listen to what people say until I change my mind or become more sure of my views.
It's a painin the arse but it's a talk board. That's part of the deal isn't it?

What a,disgrace, describing a Mum as a birth Mum. It days more about the SM than the Mum. It sounds like the sort of attitude of an ow who wants to fully take over a family and replace the wife/mother. What kind of oddbod calls a divorced mum a bm, as if she handed a baby over for adoption?

exactly deep it gives the impression the mum has somehow been downgraded in her role because she is no longer in a relationship with the father.

Deepfried you have just made the point of several posters on the OW point. Exactly the sort of misinformed offensive conclusion hey have been the victim of on here

What kind of oddbod calls a divorced mum a bm,

The kind of person who has used other forums and has been encouraged to use it.
If its offensive on MN then fine, but why not tell people upfront rather than set them up to fail?!?