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 .

vezzie, yes: I made that remark in the context of backtracking from a rather unreflectedly broad ascription of feminism. And I do certainly agree that we likely hold internalised sexist attidudes and modes of practice even when we do self-ascribe as feminist. I think that goes for all of us.

I don't think I'd go along with equating what I said with "Isn't feminism just common sense" Of course feminism remains controversial/contested both in the characterisation of what its content is and in the task of realising that content in social change. If anything I suppose my broad conception of feminism just equated a feminist stance with an aspiration to approach the relevant questions in good faith and with a guiding commitment to equality (regardless of how poorly people whom I spoke of as self-ascribing feminists might have characterised the equality at stake).

I think I stand by that version of my claim, i.e. that nearly everyone posts with with an aspiration to approach the relevant questions in good faith and with a guiding commitment to (some vague picture of) equality .

BTW for anyone wanting to see a thread being disrupted and derailed and spoilt in exactly they way we are talking about here, pop over and read Bertie's housework support/chat thread.

Agree that that is a very obstructive and unwelcome way of posting, but I don't think it is an example of an anti-feminist dynamic i.e. of the specific difficulties of maintaining a feminist conversation space online (or in rl). I think it is a standard Mumsnet dynamic, across all topics. For one thing the same poster posts in the same way on a variety of subjects ("words on a screen"). For another, OPs who request that conversation on a thread be restricted within a certain range have always had a rather mixed fate on MN. Sometimes it works esp in the case of an OP who is extremely upset about something traumatic that she needs to share; sometimes it meets antagonism.

(Additionally, I don?t think that the view that the SAHP should do most of the housework is intrinsically anti-feminist: it is more that, on the same lines that vezzie speaks of, it is the kind of commonsensical smokescreen that can attract a consensus that obscures real issues underneath. It certainly seems that it is a statement that can be legitimately present in a feminist disc about housework. But of course only if discussed constructively.)

Above all, the reason I don?t think that the thread you link to is a case of anti-feminist trolling is that the poster?s reasons for interrupting the conversation aren?t at all to do with undermining feminist discourse: they are explicitly to do with challenging the nascent posting conventions in the FWR topic that are so much at issue on this thread here and similar threads: she wants to challenge a proscriptive approach to conversation and she wants to challenge some of the namecalling that is meted out too readily to some of the dissenting voices in the topic. Of course it is wrong to do that in a disruptive way, but that is a failure of discourse not specifically a challenge to feminist discourse.

Incidentally (and speaking generally, not just re the housework thread) I do find it heartbreaking that, with all our experience of women?s viewpoints being discounted and marginalised by lines like you are mad/frustrated/too ugly to get a man/have a womb, we can adopt the same humiliating and excluding strategy to other women on a talkboard by remarks like you are a troll/derailer/want to be the centre of attention/get kicks from spoiling others? conversation. (Or sometimes even just by saying ?you are not a feminist so your voice is less welcome here?) Sometimes that denigration is appropriate but I think it is being thrown around much too freely.

yes thanks beachcomber i am the problematic on that thread, no its not derail however naturally it is some will portray it

for weeks now fem topics hare been pushing to have different moderation,asking mnhq sensitive they may be attacked or called names. Lol i that given how some here flame

well,you see many here dish out names as a defaut when they dont like or care for a post

it has become a predictable recognisable feature of fem topics, sure as eggs is eggs when a post isnt liked someone will say
derailer
is you drunk
troll
misogynist
fem topics request as needing different moderation to protect from name calling and abuse. how ironic then that namecalling is a predictable feature

if i had used any of aforementioned names,certainly that would be aggressive,i have not done so.go figure

and really this is all cyclical and predictable and feem topics is really just same as aibu. aggro and oi cant say that and a quick jump shout to derailer

Sorry, sm, for discussing your posting style "behind your back" on this thread. I feel bad about that. I do agree with your sentiments, despite our differences aoubt your posting style.

I' glad that my post of Thu 22-Sep-11 11:53:44 seems to have struck a chord with several posters.

I think slhilly's version of Thu 22-Sep-11 13:50:35 is good and I also like Catitainahatita's suggestion of Thu 22-Sep-11 22:30:24.

Hopefully, something positive might come from a combination of these possibilities.

Beachcomber, presumably now that you have alerted MNHQ to the existence of this thread (thanks), we simply await their response?

I'd still prefer to discuss things from a feminist perspective in the feminist section though, rather than feeling I have to keep responding to somebody who seems cross about that. So without being personal, scottishmummy, I'm going to try and stick to the OP on threads here without going over the same kind of argument with you in circles. Please dont take that as deliberate rudeness on my part: I think I'd rather just agree to disagree and get on with using this section the way I'd like to engage with it.

you know what some of you meed to lose the got at vibe the cat say that here

there are some harsh,emotionally charged,aggressive posts about women and fenimism out there in line. and you know what they are not mine

really some of you need tio take a look at your tolerance of posts you dont like i have never namechanged
i never sent pm
i never traipsed my gripes across mn
i dont post oh so and so she said this,and then complain to other posters
i dont use stereotypical name calling to people here

is this how the fem topics were conceptualised?shadow boxing with other posters?assumption the enemy within is misogynist,troll etc

really?have a think, deep think about why there have been threads in which others assert that they find fem topics unpleasant,cliquey and name-calling. consider the mnhq position too

quite frankly its easier to have a discussion on aibu at moment than it is here.

Are you okay scottishmummy? Your posts are less and less coherent. Maybe you should take a break from all this, enjoy real life for a bit.

Quite honestly I think anyone who feels the need to go onto a thread that has a specific premise, that is that of a support or chat thread, for people with a common interest, and stomp all over it, needs to take a look at themselves.

The immaturity is astounding.

The OP on that thread is not throwing her weight around and bossing people as to who can post what on the thread. She is outlining the point of the thread and inviting people to join in to the spirit of the thread.

Of course people can go on and post whatever old bollocks they like - this is an open forum after all as we get tediously reminded of on just about every thread here.

So yes, posters do have the right to disrespect and disrupt other people's conversations - just as other posters have the right to call them on it, and think they are behaving ridiculously.

This notion that we need to defend the right to rudely disrupt threads, is very very odd and extremely tiresome.

Do people really think their point of view is so important that they must post it on threads to which it is irrelevant? Or is this just reading comprehension/empathy failure again?

There are many possible reasons for unusual typed language, WG. Scottishmummy is writing in her accustomed style. Most people find it coherent enough.

I've been reading her posts for several years, this is not her accustomed style. And most people are not finding it coherent. I sincerely hope that she is well.

no beachcomber,my view in your opinion is irrelevant
imo the content was worthy of comment and not irrelevant
you see that how mn goes
op posts. invited discussion, put pov out htere forothers to comment
others respond not necessarily to op liking,but that doesn't render it irrelevant

posting style?

do you mean belittling insults that barely engage?

Incoherent. Totally.

not so incoherent that some cannot muster a response
it seems to be selectively incoherent eg when dont like content dismiss as rubbish
when wish to challenge a point ive made then it is apparent enough

SM are you ok?

Are you just a bit irritated by the feminists who annoy you or is there something else up?

thats another variation on are you drinking
try harder

BTW, this post;

Beachcomber Sun 25-Sep-11 13:11:22

was in response to CalatalieSisters.

FGS will you stop it with the passive aggressive insults. SM has a point here. You may not like it, but she does.

It is not actually SM. It was a sincere question from someone who has read your posts on MN for years.

It wasn't a dig so I apologise if it came across that way.

I will now butt out.

SM posts are so incoherent that normally I need to read twice to get the gist of them.

Punctuation was invented for a reason, this reason is to make the flow of sentences orderly. I am not talking about the core of her arguments here, but just the understanding of what is communicated.

BIWI- I haven't posted a single insult or rude remark, passive or otherwise, truly. But I posted what I thought was a reasonable explanation of how I don't want to keep going over the same ground on every thread, yet it has gone completely unacknowledged. I don't know what more I can say really, so I guess I'll shut up about now too, and stick to posting on topic.

LeBOF - no you haven't. Sorry. I posted before engaging brain, just expressing frustration myself. But it's the picking away at SM that irritated me.