To all those who say on threads 'I am too scared to go into feminism' - this topic isn't scary!

[GetOrfMoiLand]

I think it's a shame when I see threads where the OP says 'I am too scared to put this in feminism' or something.

I am certainly not knowledgeable about feminist theory, but have never felt that my opinion on this thread wasn't wanted or I was vilified for stating what I believed.

I think this topic is pretty inclusive - yes some people are forthright with their opinions, but nobody's word is god, and I would hate to think that mumsnetters were put off contributing to threads in this topic because they mistakenly think the posters on here are viragos.

I think this sort of discussion just perpetuates the problem, tbh.

One person says 'oh, feminist poster x [usually dittany] does all these horrible things' and objects to that poster being set up as an authority.

Another person says 'yes, but you started a personal attack on feminist poster x out of context'.

At this point everyone feels they must choose sides, and so person one feels confirmed in her belief that the Feminism Section is a hive mind and poster x is accorded special status, and person two feels the argument is driven by personality critique.

Can I just point out that AFAIK dittany isn't even posting here atm? And maybe if we stopped discussing this stuff out of context we could find more shades of opinion without turning this into a game of two sides?

lenin, what I was getting at was that it's the trolls that push us into this situation where newbie/infrequent posters can feel attacked.

Exoticfuruits, I agree with you. I have no idea why people have felt the need to have thread after thread with the main purpose of telling Dittany that she is unwelcome and should not post her views.

This is now getting surreal.

I meant the complaints about my derailing serious threads with my comedy turn thing as said by Milly.

They didn't Milly.

There was one thread and it was in response to the Palin thread which was singularly unpleasant and drove lots of people away. And no one said she was unwelcome etc, the main thrust was why she wouldn't answer questions, and why she thought it was all right to call people names.

I agree in theory lenin ... I just think it's impossible to know, often, if someone is a troll or not. I quite often read something and take it very seriously, get halfway through the thread and find HQ are banning it because it's an obvious troll. If you can spot the difference easily (I know some people can), it presumably matters less - you can just ignore trolls and engage with genuine posters. But if you can't, you have to treat everyone the same and assume they're genuine, and that has potential to be really upsetting, on this and other topics. So I can understand why people react strongly.

Everyone should be able to post their views....

Everyone's view is valid.

As long as it's not obscene/offensive and remains within the law.

I have made a point elsewhere that although I have read a lot of dittany's views-she has never upset me. I don't get upset by views-just by people attacking others if they don't like the message.

It's a public, open discussion board. There is no organisation, there is no rule book, there is party line, there is no leader.

Exactly-so no one has the right to say 'your views are not welcome'.If they think that they can report them- but they would need reasons(other than they don't agree with the majority).

It mostly isn't about the fact that it is Dittany. If there were multiple threads criticising one main poster with a few others thrown in, I would also find that unacceptable as would many others.

Similarly to what LRD was saying, I don't always agree with Dittany, and we have had some disputes, but neither of us feel the need to carry it over on to other threads or other subjects. The fact that none of us are going to say that we agree with Dittany on everything is perhaps the point. If she's not here, that perspective on feminism that she represents isn't here.

Ok, I will put my hand up.

Rightly or wrong, I did feel Dittany was following me across threads and making personal attacks. She denied it very strongly, and I don't have any reason to think she wasn't making that denial in good faith.

But she isn't posting here atm. And what is discussing this going to achieve that saying these things on the relevant threads wouldn't?

I agree with Milly: losing the voice of someone who got into big disagreements is a real loss to all of us.

exotic, actually, you'll find people can say just that. The onus is on you to report them. That is how this forum is set up to work.

I do see what you mean, Milly. And in theory I agree. But Dittany absolutely refused to engage, retract her name calling, or answer any questions on the Palin thread, and the sheer frustration led to the subsequent thread.

I also think no names were mentioned at first, not to get round the personal attacks thing, but because people were hoping to make a general point, Dittany on the Palin thread being the proverbial stick etc, but of course that led to people being really cross and saying do you mean us? At which point names were named.

I am not interested in defending that thread, only in accuracy.

I do know what you mean lenin. I hope this doesn't come across as chippy, but I can't help wondering if you're responding to feeling bad you didn't say something by arguing now that the way regular posters post should change?

I just feel that the air is much clearer if these things are discussed with names, on the relevant threads - or if not that, at least by PMing someone to let them know you feel they're being attacked and to explain why their question got the response it did.

Should she have to engage, hully?

Of course they can say it-they are free to post anything-the point is they shouldn't because everyone is equally free. It isn't something I would report-just a bit irksome.