You don't have to be feminist to post here, but it helps...

[MrsReasonable]

I've noticed that whenever a 'non-feminist' view is brought up, there are occasionally some posts along the lines of 'this is a feminist board, why come here if you aren't...', etc.

Genuine question - is this a feminist board, or a board about feminism? Obviously the majority of posters are feminist, but I'm not sure whether that is because feminists (surprise surprise) like discussing feminism, or because it is seen as a feminist 'safe haven'?

Lenin, I do the 'change subject and swerve' manouevre. Effective for the most part.

All I know about this, is that this is a truly scarey board. For me, anyway.

I'm very feminine, and I like men and I like to take care of myself. I was once slated on here for "altering my appearance" by shaving my legs, whilst posters screamed at me that "no, feminists do not have hairy legs"

Oh, blimey, I've been hugely offensive (again) when meaning to be slightly narky (again) :(

I'd apologise but I'm not sure what for.

Dittany wrote:
my view, and I've been here since the beginning is that this section is successful because of the strong radical feminism, not in spite of it.

I replied:
Several of us have been here since the beginning, we don't all press the red anti-feminist button whenever we disagree with others. But that's fine; you deserve most of the credit so have all of it.

I admit an episode of "what about meeee?!" here, which is beneath me.
I apologise for the narkiness.

As to the rest, am unaware of why so offensive and sorry for injuries. Too tired to continue, please forgive.

Sorry Garlic, I thought you were being sarky and introducing a note of unnecessary discord to what has become quite a constructive discussion.

It's late, we're all being over sensitive and it'll end in tears if we're not careful.

Sorry for misinterpreting and jumping down your throat.

"we're all being over sensitive".... oh are we now??

kidding.

Don't mind me.... I'm going now anyway.... off to run DH's bath.

Let's not forget that feminism upsets a lot of people and that's part of the fun.

Oh I'm a bit nonplussed by htis.

I wish we could all refrain from being sarky/ narky in the middle of the night when everyone's tired. It really doesn't help. I'm off to bed, too tired to say anymore really. Good ngiht allk

custardo:
"[dittany Sun 28-Aug-11 18:31:55
Took me about 45 seconds custardo.]
That's just not true, i thought the thread might get deleted and copied my own posts into a more permanant format so i could refer to them verbatim if this happened.
it took quite some time.
that you would do that makes me uncomfortable
that you would do that out of context and avoid my questions leaves me uncomfortable."

45 seconds might be a slight exaggeration (i have no idea) but i broadly believe dittany, and i think that her ability to post in reply to you the way she did is one of the things that people find most threatening about her. i know i find it a bit awe-inspiring/intimidating/off-putting that while it takes me about 10mins to write and post 3 sentences she has fired off 5 different responses to 5 different people, often including quotes, references and links to relevant information

i'm slightly uncomfortable about making personal comments about people but this whole thread has turned into this so i will say that on the thread about bristol palin in particular dittany's replies made me really uncomfortable - they came across as dogmatic and refusing to engage with people who were wanting to discuss the issue from different angles. but it's her views that have stuck with me, her views that i have come to agree with. so thank you dittany

and custardo, i was the OP on the original penetration=power? thread and TBH i could get all flouncy and accuse you of bullying me. you definitely misrepresented the intent behind my OP on the chat thread you created - i actually got a bit upset about it on saturday, but walked away from the PC. so excuse me if i don't really care about your feelings from now on - have heard about them enough...

OK, I'm going to stick my neck in.

This section is feminism and women's rights, but sometimes the attitude is so against anyone who is unsure of where they stand that it's unreal. We have women who come over here, unsure of what aspects or shades of feminism they agree with. Yet, if we take the Romeo and Juliet law thread into question, then Dittany, you have, in essence, called a number of posters here rape apologists.

Now, you came out with the bit about it being revealed later that the boy in question had raped her. The initial thread had not been about a known case of rape. It was several months later that someone found the article. For you to turn around and claim that those of us who said he shouldn't have been prosecuted for underage sex should have felt ashamed is deeply insulting. It was several months before someone dragged up the truth, it was not a case of posters saying he shouldn't have been imprisoned for rape, it was a case of he shouldn't have been imprisoned for consensual sex. Big difference. Had it been a case of we'd known from the start that he'd raped her, the thread would have played out very differently indeed.

It's also worth noting that a lot of the misogynistic views I held when I first started posting on Mumsnet were the result of a very misogynistic upbringing and an abusive relationship. Jumping on new posters backs and calling them MRA's, trolls and rape apologists does not sit well with me, after a bit of thought. When I approached this site, I blamed myself for being raped... In fact, I didn't even see it as rape for quite some time until someone made a post which included coercion as rape. I still believed I'd consented, even though it was under dubious circumstances; I'd said yes... Had I posted something which had diminished my own experiences, yet not posted that my views were the result of my own experience, I would have been called a rape apologist, MRA, and probably put off this section after being quite upset. Surely, discussion is the way forward, not accusations. Chances are, we may have put potential posters off with our attitude, thus adding to the "evil mumsnet feminist" ideals. We can still put people right without belittling them. The real trolls would remain obvious, but do we have to take the offensive with posters we're not so sure about?

DontCallMeFrothyDragon- well said.

DontCallMeFrothyDragon, on that Romeo and Juliet thread it was practically dittany alone who did not accept that the sex was consensual, she did not believe the boy's account, she did not believe he was a Romeo. Others were accusing dittany of being biased against boys etc. and of being unfair in her views. That thread was brought up as an example in the 4000 post threads of how dittany put people off feminism. On that thread dittany wasn't rude or offensive to anyone, she was just forthright in her opinion that it had nothing to do with being a Romeo. The fact that dittany was alone in standing up for her views made her a target and she was accused of intolerance etc.

"the wrong people are pullled up on the wrong stuff at times"

It was dittany who was pulled up on the wrong stuff and accused of being a meanie as she so often is accused of being.

dittany couldn't believe that on a feminist forum, practically everybody saw nothing wrong with the story of this so-called Romeo and the buggering of an underage girl. She was speechless about it and tried to show why others had formed the wrong impression. For that, she received the usual brickbats. Finally, dittany was proved right, but none of her detractors apologised to her.

Everybody should be allowed their views, but it is hypocritical to attack dittany as being a "meanie" when she defends her views, which are ultimately proved correct.

No, Dittany, I didn't bring it up to show what a bitch you are, as I don't feel that's the case. Not everyone who disagrees with you is attempting to attack you.

Again, as I was saying. When we commented on that thread, we were unaware that it was a rape case. There was speculation, but nothing definite until some time later. The discussion that took place was based on two teenagers having consensual sex, and the tone changed once the truth came out.

I didn't say you'd called them rape apologists per se, I said you'd called them that in essence. You'd implied it. Again, if you read that thread again, you'll see how upset I, for one, got after the truth came out. You implied that everyone who said a 15 year old shouldn't be locked up for consensual sex was a rape apologist. Not the case.

I don't agree with building allies with MRA or anyone else. I believe in principle. Stand up for the truth and your real views on subjects, don't cowtow in order to please anyone. Not everyone likes the truth, but that is their problem.