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 .

[TrillianAstra]

You'd expect to see feminists here, but there's no entrance exam so remember to use your normal internet common sense.

[LRDTheFeministDragon]

Bof has it 100%. Might be some plagiarism issues.

I think it's only fair though, since this board is just like the others and all, that if we get a disclaimer there should be one in Style and Beauty reminding the regulars we are perfectly entitled to discuss whatever we like there. Then when it gets nasty here we could just start threads there? Or - seeing as no-one ever acts as thread police in AIBU and MN never moves threads, because all sections are really just the same as the others, we could just spam AIBU all the time?

[TrillianAstra]

Have you been watching Men In Black WakeMeUp?

[Hullygully]

IME nutters and trolls are distributed fairly evenly across the whole of MN. It's one big lovely playground.

[TrillianAstra]

In Style and Beauty people are free to say "that's a horrible top" or "you are subscribing to a culturally-enforced beauty norm that is (IMO) damaging to women" or "actually if you wear that your eyes will look like they have spiders' legs attached to them" or "OMG I saw a woman in a wolf fleece". It's about Style and Beauty :)

[CalatalieSisters]

I don't understand what you mean, LRD. Is the problem that people start threads in Feminism that aren't about Feminism, as your post implies? Or is the problem that people discuss feminism here from an anti-feminist perspective?

[LRDTheFeministDragon]

True, Trillian, but you note they are actually still discussing either style or beauty. If we went over and started one of the resisting femininity threads they'd be pissed off - because, though about style and beauty, that is also deliberately against the ethos of teh boards.

In fact, I should try it some time. I thought it would seem rude, but maybe not?

[CalatalieSisters]

I don't think they would be remotely upset to have a discussion of that sort in S&B. Unless of course it was rude and hostile.

[LeBOF]

Just to reiterate something I said on this topic elsewhere yesterday (in case HQ come onto this thread):

I wish someone had warned MNHQ that their post about the Fem Section was effectively creating a Troll's Charter. I've seen it tediously parroted by trolls and friends of trolls almost gleefully ever since.

[LRDTheFeministDragon]

Why shouldn't it be rude and/or hostile? It's acceptable for anti-feminists to be (well, they are by definition) hostile over here, and rude as the guidelines will allow. I see no reason not to be rude and hostile elsewhere.

What is holding me back is I think the regulars in Style and Beauty are nice people and I have a lot of respect for them.

[AliceWyrld]

I don't think it is to do with the same rules as everywhere on MN either. It is about explaining how MN define feminism/women's rights.

You see I had thought, stupid I know, that if you were interested in discussing style and beauty, you went to S&B. Or if you were interested in keeping chickens you went to chicken keeping. Or if you were a parent who was studying, you went to student parents. So logically if you wanted to discuss feminism/women's rights you came here.

However, I now realise I had missed off that if you want to derail discussions about the above, and insult people who were interested in these subjects, that you actually go to the same place. That needs to be made clear for people who get the wrong end of the stick.

In fact perhaps it does indeed need to be a wider MN thing, because, I know I'm being silly but I still wouldn't feel quite right about going to Chicken Keeping and telling them where they were going wrong. Must just be my boundaries or something.

[CalatalieSisters]

In fact, a discussion of that sort in S&B seems to me something that Mumsnet is or was absolutely excellently placed to have. This is what I mean about the problem with establishing a distinct topic for feminism -- it implies that it is something other than pervasive in women's lives.

[Lessthanaballpark]

Sorry. Joining debate at late stage. Can someone put a link to the original MNHQ statement that we are talking about?

[Hullygully]

yy trills and cal

[Beachcomber]

I think posting personal info is something one needs to be careful with too Hully. Especially given the stalking and using of personal info against people that has been going on.

I also think people should refrain from posting really crass ignorant shite about sensitive topics but hey, that may just be me.

We had an amazing thread here a while ago where women shared that they had been sexually assaulted in the past and that they had never spoken out about it for fear of not being believed or taken seriously. Some people chose to share details of their assault and some didn't. A thread like that would never happen now. Or if it did, some posters would feel entitled to come on and make comments about women lying about rape or young girls asking for it (in the name of debate and 'freedom of speech' of course).

I just think a warning that this section is not a feminist section and that commonly discussed feminist issues such as rape, DV, abuse, etc are probably best not discussed here because they will be mocked and derailed is only fair.

Women are used to being silenced and mocked about these issues, in the name of free speech and everyone having a right to express their opinion, no matter how inappropriate it is, so I think people will catch on pretty quickly.

[CalatalieSisters]

Alice, iIt used to be that if you wanted to discuss feminism/womens rights you posted on Mumsnet, not on a corner of mumsnet.

[AliceWyrld]

Indeed LRD. I don't know why the rules should be applied differently. So I should be able to call Chicken Keepers unhinged, surely.

[AliceWyrld]

CalatalieSisters - yes I know. And in many ways that approach is preferable at the moment.

[slhilly]

I said it before, but I think it's worth repeating. What would help most, in my view, is community moderation of the type that they have on Slashdot. We need a system whereby posts can be up- or down-moderated to reflect the value they add to the discussion, as judged by the community at large, with a real consequence of a change in the post's prominence. It's the equivalent of being able to turn down the volume, and it works really well on Slashdot, where the number of idiots trying to derail is very high.

I think that is a better answer to the problem than the alternatives of warning people that trolls may exist but doing nothing more, or of trying to carve out a space that is not so much "about feminism" as "for feminists". I think the latter would be potentially offputting, and consciousness-raising / outreach is an important part of the board's value.

[CalatalieSisters]

"Why shouldn't it be rude or hostile?"

Well, because that is a crap way of debating, as much for feminists as for anti-feminists, and if MRA types sink to that, that is a pretty poor reason for being rude and hostile to other women. I do understand the frustrations engendered by being always derailed by the anti-feminists, but I also think those frustrations seem to have largely eroded the quality of the pro-feminst discussion here.

[Hullygully]

I don't think Chicken Keepers works as an analogy, it's too specific. It's about one species, not the application of a world view to all topics.

[CelestinaWarbeck]

Absolutely agree with what Calatalie is saying. Mumsnet as a whole used to be strongly, if tacitly, feminist-identified (always with dissenters of course) and feminism used to crop up in all kinds of discussions, everywhere, without endless bunfights about whether it was the 'right' kind of feminism.

[Hullygully]

slhilly - wow that stuff about food acting on genes is interesting

[LRDTheFeministDragon]

Oh, so you agree that there is a problem here with the rude and hostile posters, Calatalie? See, anti-feminists here are by definition hostile to the section heading. Which is why I think we need a disclaimer saying 'we know it says 'feminism and women's rights', but women huh? They'll say anything!'