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 .

That's a good phrase, Beachcomber- just using that would help, I think.

Would I be right in saying that most people don't use MN via the topic list; they use it via Active Convos, or "Last 15 mins" etc. The topic area is much less important than the threadtitle. For that reason above all others I think it is odd to think of the feminist topic as being a forum with a distinctive posting ethos, as being for example a "feminist forum" rather than a forum "about feminism". Of course it is obstructive to post eg as anti-formula on a thread supporting someone with difficulties bottlefeeding, or as a Dawkinite insulter on a thread about Christian nuances, or as a sniping Tory on a Labour thread, etc. And similarly it is stupid to post repeated anti-fminist themes on a femnist thread. But that is a problem accross MN, and not usually one that can't be dealt with by the usual "ignore and if nec report".

OP - whilst I think you make valid points, some of which I agree with, if I were MNHQ the tone of your posts in the first half of this thread would really get my back up. I am genuinely unsure at times if you mean to be passive aggressive or hurt and disappointed.

"Would I be right in saying that most people don't use MN via the topic list; they use it via Active Convos, or "Last 15 mins" etc. The topic area is much less important than the threadtitle."

I suspect you're right that most or many people read MN like this. But clearly not all. You only have to do a search on some of Our Friends' names to find that they only seem to post on the Femimism boards. If they post anywhere else, it is usually to respond to something that is also about women/women's rights.

Which would suggest that they are not 'normal' MNetters.

Ah, interesting. And that might mean that 'regulars' have a different sense of what the topic is from most readers/users of it, who probably do enter via Active Convos.

The sticky solution mentioned upthread would only worsen that, because the only people likely to see much of the sticky would be the minority who access FWR via the topic list (which is presumably the only place where it would be stickied) rather than via Active Convos.

Yes - I hadn't thought of that.

I wonder if MN know how people use their boards? I know it took me a while to discover Active Convos. When I first joined, I used to go to the boards I was especially interested in, which meant I had not much clue about what else was 'available' on the others.

feminism section but a section 'about' feminism,

i still dont understand what that means. you see i read it as a messasge to feminists saying ' anyone can post in feminism'

but then i would wouldn't i

Really. I've always been an AC kind of a gal. Perhaps that's less the norm than I thought. I'm sure MNHQ do know exactly the answer to that, and that will obv affect how they respond to the points here.

I would think they do - it's very easy to look at data about how a site is used, how many page visits come via Active Convos and how many via a particular topic.

Yes custardo. It isn't a particularly well-drawn distinction. "About femninism" seems to mean "this is the topic for discussion" -- in exactly the same way that every other topic area means "this is what we are talking about here". The alternative conception of the topic seems to mean "this is a forum for feminists".

Naturally I'd assume that nearly everyone wanting to post there would be a feminist however the topic is conceived.

ah........but what if they aren;t feminists,

must like what if i havent got a sn child but went to sn topic to discuss issues

is that even a fair comparison.

what if i posted in breastfeeding even though i never breastfed - can i do that?

i think by having or even wanting only feminists to discuss feminism is a ery isolationist way of going about things

is what i;m getting at.

i have very recently been told that i shouldnt post in feminism becuasr i am not a feminist and that any posts ''should come from a feminist point oif view"

which i though was a bit off

Well exactly custardo. I think it is wrong to exclude non-feminist viewpoints form the topic of course. The only thing that isn't welcome would be obstructive, derailing anti-feminist discussion. Which is exactly the posting style that eould be unwelcome anywhere on MN, so I don't get the problem that this thread is trying to raise at all. (Though I do understand that the topic is more prone to trolling than some other topics, of course.)

The thread title seems to me to say "Don't you think there should be a warning that this topic operates in the exacly same way as every other topic on MN, and people can say what they like within MN guidlines." Which is odd because I would imagine that most people's assumption would be just exactly that.

derailing is often used - and has been used against me as a way of saying ' i am not engaging with you anymore' its a term mostly used in feminism which means if you dont agree you can accuse someone of derailing and ignore them.

CalatalieSisters Sat 24-Sep-11 10:36:05
The thread title seems to me to say "Don't you think there should be a warning that this topic operates in the exacly same way as every other topic on MN, and people can say what they like within MN guidlines." Which is odd because I would imagine that most people's assumption would be just exactly that.

BINGO!

Coupla points.

The elitist comment wasn't in reference to this thread. It was in reference to stuff that has been said on the board in general, about feminists and the feminist section. Indeed lots of people have tried to listen to those comments and make an effort to start threads that are welcoming for posters who may not be familiar with some aspects of feminist analysis (forkful's thread and Lenin's thread come to mind).

I disagree with the notion that every subsection on MN is considered to be the same and gets treated in exactly the same way.

AIBU has been given a 'header' (I'm not aware that that was considered controversial at the time but perhaps it was, I didn't follow what went on there).

Special Needs has also been adapted in order to deal with the trolling and general nastiness that it attracted.

I'm of the opinion that when a website as big and well known as MN adds a 'special interest/specific topic' section, it is probably with the realisation that different topics present different problems and difficulties.

I remember when the vaccination topic was started and I was hesitant about posting on it because I suspected that I would get told that my child's bad reaction to her childhood vaccines was in my head. I got told exactly that and so did quite a lot of other posters. The section is also however, a great place for info and support as well. I stopped posting there in part because of the personal 'you is mad you is' level of tone that was often present. MN did swiftly ban a couple of trolls we attracted though and on the whole the section is reasonably balanced.

I'm of the opinion that the posters who were unpleasant/personal/aggressive/etc on the vaccinations topic tended to be so out of good faith. They found it really worrying that views like mine were being expressed. They genuinely felt that their children or other children were in danger. I disagree with these views but I understand the place of genuine parental concern that they come from. Indeed they were views that I once held myself.

I think what happens in feminism is a little different however and I may be being ungenerous but I think there is a fair amount of 'baiting the feminists' which goes on.

Constructive feminist discussion is often quite difficult to have (in general, not just on MN) because it is, by definition, outwith the mainstream, questioning of the status quo and questioning of the values of society at large. I think it is worthwhile discussion though and I think it deserves to be nourished in a place like MN. It wouldn't take much for that to be happening.

I think part of the problem is that 'non-feminist' viewpoints are everywhere. IF you've come to a section about feminism in order to talk about feminism and you're met with a resounding wall of anti-feminism, then it's so fecking tiring.

Life is anti-feminist enough. If I got flashed on the way home and want some sympathetic, outraged, and amusing feminist response, I'd look here. If I want to be told to get over it and that I shouldn't have been walking down that street/ wearing that outfit or whatever, I'll post elsewhere on MN.

Why should a group of people interested in discussing feminism have to welcome anti-feminism? Would we expect a group of people discussing anjti-racism to welcome racist comments?

aha, xpost with Beach

Agree about the use of the term derailing, custardo. And I want to backtrack a bit on "Naturally I'd assume that nearly everyone wanting to post there would be a feminist however the topic is conceived." I siad that because I have a very broad concept of feminism which makes me tend to assume that everyone I know self-ascribes as a feminist. That you don't, is imo just the start point of a potentially interesting discussion, not grounds for your being less of a welcome presence on a FWR thread.

That's the trouble with this vague notion of a "Feminst topic as distinct from a topic about feminsm": it makes people think in terms of who is/isn't a feminist and it proscribes or disadvantages whole swathes of welcome discussion.

I have a pretty broad view of feminism too.

For example I think it should be ok to explore the concept of domination/submission within PIV sex, without being called insane or an extremist or someone with emotional problems.

I think this 'broad church' notion has to work both ways.

Custardo I think your comparison to a section like breastfeeding is a good one.

Of course we don't have to be women who breastfeed in order to post there, and that is how it should be.

Equally posters who consistently posted on the forum that prolonged BFing is pointless and a bit sick, or that BF is a waste of time, would probably get people's backs up. If that poster posted a lot in the forum, on support threads and threads with people sharing their thoughts on BF, they would be considered to be wilfully disrupting other people's discussions. (Or incredibly unself-aware.)

(I'm not saying this does not happen over there BTW.)

I've never really explored the 'theory' of feminism so TBH I don't really know what exactly is a feminist or how much of one I am. When you talk of feminist and non feminists I don't really think it is that clear cut (apart from the obvious trolls) as surely most women agree with certain feminist ideals. Even from reading this thread it does come across that some of the regulars really do want to close it down to a core set who must all have the same ideals and beliefs on feminism. Sure, some will not see this but that is how it appears to me, just seems to scare away or put off people who might want to explore or learn more about what feminism means.