In light of MNHQ's recent statement that the feminism section is in fact not a feminism section but a section 'about' feminism, perhaps we need to be warning people about this up front?

[Beachcomber]

I'm of the opinion that it needs to made clear that whilst the title may be 'feminism/women's rights', this section is quite different to other boards that deal with feminism/women's rights.

It isn't fair to mislead - lots of posters expect the section to be a place where feminist views can be freely explored without fear of posters' mental health being questioned, and a zone where misogyny is unwelcome. In reality, pretty much anything goes here and whilst it is, of course, MNHQ's prerogative to run their site as they see fit, some sort of disclaimer about the section seems only fair in order to forewarn posters (especially posters looking for support or exploration of sensitive issues).

Perhaps it would be an idea for there to be a header at the top of the section stating MNHQ's position?

All suggestions welcomed .

Oh I dunno Wamster - MNHQ always seem really appreciative of suggestions, as long as they are constructive.

'Tis their forté.

I agree Beachcomber, I've always been impressed with their 'listening and responding' skills.
(Bloody Facebook could learn a thing or two from them.)

'"What I find the most saddening about trolling is when genuine MNers, gather ranks, using the troll as a platform from which to either attack a specific posters/s or to have a go at a section.'

Absolutely. It's the same names time after time.

Mn may very well be great at taking up suggestions but my point is this: they simply cannot keep every single troll off this website. It's a shame but they cannot do it.

bibbity - why do you care?

I care - because I am a feminist and I love posting here about feminism and debating issues/activism/consciousness raising.

I care because I know that a awful lot of people love this section and that it has made clear to them that various things they've felt uncomfortable with over the years are actually patterns which are recognised feminist issues.

Why would you care what was on the feminist section?

Apologies if I am wrong but I've never noticed you posting on feminism about feminist issues apart from on these sorts of threads.

If I am wrong I sincerely apologise.

I will go off and start a nice non bunfighty thread and see who would actually like to discuss feminist issues!

I don't understand this "off message" thing. Truly, I'm not being arsey. The challenges I see on here are against anti-women posts, no matter from whom they come, Are those quibbling about the on/off message message stuff wanting to make contributions that deviate from being pro-women (not anti-men, before some of you start)?

Because the fact that a Women's Rights section of a predominantly women-centred board wants to have a pro-woman slant seems fairly uncontroversial to me. And by pro-woman I mean looking through at issues through the eyes of women's experience,stripping out the layers of conditioning and seeing what's left.

I don't know if I have explained that properly.

Makes perfect sense, Aye :)

I sometimes post in doghouse and it is utterly depressing, upsetting and demoralizing having to put up with people who get into so-called debates having no other interest at heart (least of all dogs, after all we are in the "doghouse" section) but to stir some shit.

I feel your pain and support you guys even though I do not always agree with all you say. Not that you are always say the same thing of course.

OK if you find yourself nodding your head at Aye's post - now go back and read the second post on this thread.

Why was edd just hovering there ready to jump in on a thread like this.

Really - seriously - you all think it is ok for someone to fundamentally oppose feminism and be able to post it here.

Because although there are those of you here who might not define as feminism but I'm sure you are all thankful for the early women's rights activists etc.

thanks bemybebe - genuinely didn't realise that it happened in the dog house

mind you there's been enough about edd that I think we can all just ignore him completely now - but he/they'll be back - eg stan123 etc

and perfect sense to me as well Aye.

There is no reason as to why the FS cannot continue to debate and develop feminist ideas/ideology/sensitivities under the current arrangements IF MNHQ recognises wind-up or abusive posters as they arise. They have the power of the button. But HQ falls back on the now-redundant notion of what is a troll. It's risibly out of date.

What happens between reg. posters is something different.

and there is a massive distinction that makes legislating for the two tres difficile.

imo.

and Hully, I do need to disagree - Bob was a wind-up thingy. He didn't have his psyche shredded. He was just a self-designed bleating 'victim', a status he adored.

Unfortunately it's not just on here that nasty trolls are popping up

Bemybebe thank you that was a lovely post.

Sorry to hear that the doghouse is like that.

AyeBelieve - crystal clear.

BIWI

Trolling on bereavement threads, unfortunately doesn't beggar belief. It's just an ultra extreme aspect of trolls work.

It's this bit of netty stuff that MN doesn't wish to deal with 'cept when it's utterly outrageous. If the net is hallmarked by anything it's the capacity to change and adapt. Unforunatly this includes trolling behaviour, and MNHQ policy should be changing with it?

yeah I think this thing about how the Mumsnet definition of trolls is now completely different from the ones used elsewhere in the net is quite important.

Unfortunately trolls attract trolls. Mumsnet is a target full stop because there are people out there who find the idea of trolling a site full of women attractive. Once someone trolls on here they won't restrict themselves to one section. Any media attention always shoots up the numbers, so unfortunately Justine being on QT will bring in more. Actually I thik even articles about trolling in the media attract trolls.

I'm really for the hide poster function. It's not the same as just ignoring. Just ignoring is all we can do now, and that's cack frankly because it's not really possible to just glaze over every post by a member who posts offensive, deliberately provocative or abusive things. Being able to make selected posts invisible means they just aren't there anymore.

I see the point of a disclaimer. Another small message board I occasionally frequent has a men's room available only to those logged on as men and a women's room for those logged on as women. Of course it was easy for someone to create a fake profile in the opposite gender and lurk, or even participate. Newer members didn't always realise this and sometimes posted quite personal, sensitive stuff. Eventually, the site put a big disclaimer at the front clarifying that it was not confidential, not good to post sensitive stuff, yada yada yada.

I don't think it would be a bad idea to do the same here - about it being unmoderated, hurtful comments might not be in violation of site rules and that it's not a board for feminists per say, but to discuss feminist topics - something like that.

Combine that with the hide poster function and things would be better. I doubt frankly MNHQ would bother with anything more than that, if they'd even entertain these two ideas.

Kind of depressing that sexism is left off the list of things that aren't tolerated on the message board.

Forkful
I care because I am a feminist.

Its true that I don't post much, but I lurk.

yes KRITIQ - there is no will from MNHQ, which makes these requests all a bit useless. And we go round and round and round with zero point.

to quibble over the 'sexists' absence would be too sophisticated for HQ atm.

there no willingness to meet an unnecessary request and frankly mnhq have clarified fem topic is a topic about feminism..and not a feminist space. what some of you seek is not forth coming because its incongruent with ethos of open site.hewever there is a v got at and paranoiac mn never adequately supports fem topics vibe,its untrue.but is oft touted

Apologies for being thick, but would a 'hide poster' facility not create the bizarre situation where I might hide certain poster/s but continue the conversation with others, while somebody else could hide a different selection of posters and therefore continue a totally different conversation?
Could it not lead to everybody keeping those posters visible that they agree with and blocking everybody else?

Much as I have found myself rising to some bait some of the time, I'd still rather see bullshit and decide for myself that that is what it is, than block it.

Also agree with Aye who was crystal clear in what she was saying.

And agree that 'sexism' should quite quite obviously be on the list of unacceptable behaviour anywhere on MN.

And bereavement trolls make me want to believe in karma