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 .

I really meant that.

It wasn't intended as a passive aggressive insult, which is why I wanted to clarify that my previous post was in response to CalatalieSisters post.

I can see how it would come across (hence why I apologised), but I would ask the same of any poster regardless of whether I agreed with them or not.

Argh BC - I cross-posted. Wasn't aimed at you.

I shall retreat now before I offend anyone else.

That's ok BIWI.

I posted without thinking, and then realised it could be misinterpreted, which is why I thought you might be referring to me.

No offence taken - unwieldy thing the internet. No worries.

(and NOT a PA one!!)

Gosh, still going round in circles...

I would like to be clear here, so as not to be accused of "trying too hard"

I object to scottishmummy's posts on this thread, because although she denies dragging stuff around MN, she makes the same point on every single feminism thread

Yes, she has a point. Or, more accurately, she had a point the first time she said it, many moons ago.

Scottishmummy...we heard you. Stop repeating yourself. It is annoying, and yes, it derails the thread again

Also. My silly use of Manchester dialect the other night was to make a point.

We all have regional accents. I have a strong Manchester accent. I still type in the Queen's English however, in the interests of everyone else understanding me. No one else on MN types in their regional accent.

To do so, repeatedly, with escalating incoherence, whilst realising you are being annoying and pissing people off by doing so is inflammatory and smacks of disrespect of fellow posters.

Scottishmummy I believe to be an educated woman, so why she feels the need to single herself out in this irritating way is beyond me, and I totally understand if people refuse to engage with her.

That is all I personally have to say.

Housework is calling me.

Vesuvia yes I guess so. I will chap on their door at some point next week if we don't hear anything back. It wouldn't be like them do say nothing though - even if they decide that they want to leave things as they are.

anyfucker you type any dialect,any post you wish
as will i
you see consistently held beliefs are usually replicated eg one doesnt prevaricate wildly in attitudinal beliefs. i accept here many will hold a specific attitudinal pov, and i certainly wont ask them to shuffle the play list

its a bit like me asking people to deviate from their particular pov,as i may have already heard it.chances are i have, but im tolerant enough to hear same view repeated again - as i accept it as strongly held belief

Hello. And sorry to have taken a while to respond to this thread.

Thank you for some very interesting posts - and suggestions.

We do understand that Mumsnet's Feminism section may well be quite different to other boards that deal with feminism - and that this might be (initially) a little confusing for some who are coming here from those boards.

But we do think it's right that our Feminism board operates on the same kind of basis as the other Talk boards on Mumsnet - and stays open to a range of opinions and views (as long as those opinions and views stay within our Talk Guidelines).

We've said it before (but we think it's worth repeating) that we'd like to think Feminism is a place where all are welcome to post, whether you're a hardened rad fem or a non-quite-sure-what-all-this-feminism-is-about type. And, wherever you sit on that spectrum, we'd hope everyone would respect and respond respectfully to others - even if they're sitting right at the opposite end of that spectrum to you.

Our view is very much that feminism, like parenting, can come in all shapes and sizes. And we think that Mumsnet is a big enough and tolerant enough beast to flourish with all of feminism's shapes and sizes being reflected, discussed, agreed with and disagreed with (respectfully!) on the boards.

Rather than having a set of assumptions (however laudable) that posters must accept before posting in Feminism, we'd rather, as Hullygully says earlier on on this thread, "take women gently by the hand and lead them into the feminist light".

@UsingPredominantlyTeaspoons

I really don't know about MNHQ going along with the appropriation of the term 'rad-fem' to mean some sort of extremist feminist.

It was meant with some irony - I should have put it in suitably ironic quote marks. Apologies.

Helen, forgive me, but that doesn't actually clarify anything as far as I can see.

'We've said it before (but we think it's worth repeating) that we'd like to think Feminism is a place where all are welcome to post, whether you're a hardened rad fem or a non-quite-sure-what-all-this-feminism-is-about type. And, wherever you sit on that spectrum, we'd hope everyone would respect and respond respectfully to others - even if they're sitting right at the opposite end of that spectrum to you.'

Fine. Yes. No one is debating this really, are they? What about posters who aren't on the spectrum you mention, but who are anti-feminist? That's what we need to know about I think.

That sounds good, Helen. Though re the last line I'd hope that everyone will interprete that in light of the fact that most posters want an equal exchange of views in which "leading" and "following" amongst women on a talkboard comes second to an equal exchange of views.

Worraloadofbollox.

Unless, of course, taking gently by the hand and leading into the anti-feminist/anti-woman light applies too. Does it?

Oh, and , Helen.

"hardened rad fems" i think that says all that needs to be said about mnhq's attitude towards feminism/feminists. why not just join in with the antifeminists and call us hairy lesbian uppity bitches.

< never thought i'd be giving one to mnhq.

Why on earth is "hardened rad fems" insulting? The thrust of it is simply that radicals are more, well, ...radical than others. There is clearly no negative connotation there. Unless there is something wrong with "hardened". I'm "hardened" in relation to loads of things that I do/believe.

it hasn't clarified anything at all Helen, you've just basically said 'play nicely children' which doesn't do anything about the issues we are raising about the problems caused when people (and not MN regulars for the most part) don't play nicely.

it's just a bit of a joke having a topic about feminism on a website for parents on which sexism is allowed. It leaves the topic open to the 'you're loony' type attack that feminists tend to attract, and encourages the kind of trolls that hang out on threatening Facebook pages.

Yes, I'm upset by that too.

I'm going to sound dead up myself, but actually I don't think I do go around being bitchy to newbies or people who're not feminists. The number of people who've told me I made them feel welcome, or they appreciated my views, is hugely more than the (tiny) number who've accused me of being a nasty feminist (that'd be bob and scottish mummy, to my memory). I go out of my way to be nice because I really enjoy chatting to people about the stuff that gets posted in feminism and am fairly new to it all myself.

It just feels like a big 'fuck off' when the response from HQ boils down to 'just be nicer to the [non-existant] posters who're just shy' because the subtext is 'you're all a bunch of bullies and there are no trolls'. Well, gee thanks then.

cala - spot on, there is something wrong with 'hardened', notably that it has negative connotations.

exactly LRD.

it feels rather as if MNHQ is trying to wind up the rad fems/regulars in this topic.... sort of deliberate policy type thing?

@UsingPredominantlyTeaspoons

I would love to know whether sexism could be added to the things that weren't acceptable in the etiquette guide.

And JustineMumsnet said a while ago ( Fri 28-Jan-11 14:04:13)

'We also have a "beyond the pale" /"anti the spirit of the site" /"this has deteriorated into a bunfight that's causing a lot of misery" level of intervention, which is inevitably a judgement call. '

I wonder whether that could be extended to cover posters attacking someone who is posting for support when experiencing sexism at work or in a relationship, or after rape or sexual assault?

It isn't that I want to banish anyone who doesn't have a membership of Fawcett - it's that sometimes people (often trolls, but not always) seem so keen to prove feminism wrong that they undermine the support being offered by others.

I think the "beyond the pale" /"anti the spirit of the site" intervention should definitely come into play in the scenarios you're mentioning, UsingPredominantlyTeaspoons.