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 .

Not to me it doesn't, and I'm sure not to MNHQ. It means "able to withstand hardship." Resiliant in the face of difficulty.

No, it doesn't mean that Calatalie. It means 'made harder'.

Come on now people, do you really expect a broad reaching forum like MN to start banning posters with unpopular views?

sybil - I doubt they're trying to wind anyone up, but I'm hoping Helen will come back and explain.

Sybil, I struggle to understand how you could think that. MN created this topic because they chose to support feminism. And whatever else is wrong with the site it is a pro-feminist force, because it has created a huge mainstream public space in which women predominate.

Try the dictionary LRD. Blimey, it is quite tempting to give up on this discussion when people are so determined to represnt themselves as hard done by.

Calatalie, I know what hardened means. It means made harder. I have three degrees in English. Please feel free to tell me you want to use the word in a very specific context and with special connotations, but be aware it is not what the word actually, at root, means.

well when I tried the dictionary I got this:
hard·ened   [hahr-dnd] Show IPA
adjective
1.
made or become hard or harder.
2.
pitiless; unfeeling.
3.
firmly established or unlikely to change; inveterate: a hardened criminal.
4.
inured; toughened: a hardened trooper.
5.
rigid; unyielding: a hardened attitude.

so overall not very nice.

Yes, it means made harder. Like plants are "hardened" so that they can withstand frost, and wrought iron and steel is hardened iron. More generally, made harder by exposure to experience, in such a way as to be more resiliant. It is a constructive, beneficial consequence of experience. Unless you think gardeners et al are deliberately making their plants worse.

Calatalie, please ... I just don't have the energy. I don't know why you won't accept the dictionary definition, or anything else, but ... there are ample reasons for someone to be hurt by the term applied to them. Unless you wrote it, there is little point you trying to apologize for it. I appreciate you are probably trying to make me feel better and I am grateful for it, but right now it just isn't very convincing.

Fair play to you Sybil, it is clearly a rich word with many strands of meaning.

I know then, lets seek out definitions of this clearly rich and many stranded word that allow us to say, in defence of common sense and basic linguistic fluency that MNHQ chose inexplicably to insult the posters whose thread they just took the not inconsiderable trouble to read. That would be really illuminating.

It doesn't feel like we've moved much further forward and I'm pretty disappointed really.

I'm also surprised that MNHQ have not addressed the issue of extending the talk guidelines to specifically include sexism. Is there any reason that gender prejudice is tolerated on MN when other forms of discrimination aren't?

I have no idea whether they read the whole thread or not, they certainly haven't responded in a way that suggests they've listened to or understood our concerns.

Calatalie, I really doubt my linguistic fluency and basic common sense are lacking.

Maybe they are. Maybe I am very stupid and lying about my qualifications. You obviously think so. You are so keen to insist no insult was intended by MNHQ (and it probably wasn't, but it was still a poorly chosen word), that you are now supplying the insults yourself. What on earth is your motivation?

The meanings I have spoken of LRD are in the dictionary too.

I'm out of this thread now, at least I hope I can stick to that resolve, because I really do feel that there is a lack of realism about MNHQ's attitude, and about the best way to support feminism on a mainstream site like MN.

Sigh.

Yes, I'm sure they are. In the dictionary you don't bother to cite, somewhere down in about the 9th (context specific) meaning.

If you learned to read a dictionary, you would know that the word, at root, means made harder.

Yes, made harder. But that isn't necessarily an insult. I haven't at any point made any remark to the effect that your linguistic competance is poor, or any personal comment at all. I certainbly haven't called you stupid I'm not sure why you need to claim that I have, or why you need to cite your qualifications. Anyone can use a dictionary. I feel very upset by the personal manner of your reponse to me. It is pretty much of a piece with other ad hominem strategies I have seen here.

I think Helen -and please correct me if I have misunderstood- that MNHQ's feeling on this is that the situation on this section is entirely down to some posters not being very "gentle" with others. The implication being that these ungentle souls are the feminists.

I feel this response totally ignores the complaint being made by some of these feminists (myself included) that there are a number of posters on these boards who post deliberately imflammatory things (ie. 13 year old girls welcome sexual attention from male adults or that women lie about rape all the time) with the express intention of provoking a bunfight. Subsequently they do not explain nor debate their initial statements but rather dismiss all questioning of them as "nonsense" or "insane" or "attempts to silence them". While their first statement can be construed as legitimate as a defence of free speech etc. Their subsequent posters cannot. It is not a debate when one side calls the other "insane" or insists that their arguments are "nonsense" if they have no evidence or argument to back it up.

It is true that the accusation that xyz comment is "misogynist" or "sexist" is very common on this board. It is true that some people are offended when their arguments are termed as such. However, I think you will find that in general every poster who uses these terms also explains why they this is so. This is the behaviour of someone who is ready to debate; not shout down their opponent with the charge of insanity.

Finally, in a debate it doesn't always follow that the arguments of one or a group of people win out. It can be that all continue to hold the same opinion. Thus one poster insisting that xyz is misogynist does not mean that that poster has not listened to the arguments made against them (if there are some) but rather that these have failed to convince. Telling someone their arguments are crazy is not convincing in the slightest. Rather it tends to induce the type of angry interchange that makes the board intimidating for a newcomer.

In short, I agree that all guidelines be enforced. But I also think that the reply offered by MN does not address the whole problem.

Calatalie, you told me I was insisting on feeling hard done by, and you asked me to look up a common English word in the dictionary. You then failed to provide any evidence it meant what you claimed (rather oddly) it meant, and ignored dictionary definitions provided. Then you said that I was speaking without regard to 'common sense and basic linguistic fluency'.

Either you think I'm stupid and a liar, or you just wanted to be rude. Or both. I don't know.

I know you have prob had enough of the linguistics, but I'm an editor and these things grab me hard. Here, from the OED, in the order in which the definitions occur there:

"To render or make hard; to embolden, confirm, to incite to action; to make callous or unfeeling ; to make persistent or obdurate in a course of action or state of mind; so make firm or tight; to render hardy, robust or capable of endurance."

-- so you see the root meaning of "make harder" is used in both negative and positive ways. IT seems to me pretty obvious that the negative connotartions weren't intended by MN.

You see? Now even you admit the dictionary contains the meanings suggested!

I await an apology.