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 .

what is worse is when other mn'ers don't support this and say oh don't be such drama queens, god you're determined to feel hard done by, why do you think you're special, what trolls they're all in your head you just don't like being disagreed with etc etc.

hello! they are real, we have been targetted and they are really nasty pieces of work. no it's not the same all over mn and no we'd really rather not feel hard done by or targeted. it'd be nice to stand by other mn'ers under attack rather than pile in with the trolls to have a pop.

Can we please have something done about BobBanana MNHQ?

s4.zetaboards.com/Misandry_101/topic/9050847/1/

Yes I know trollhunting not allowed.

I will report my own post to MNHQ and no doubt it will be deleted, for linking to a predominantly male website, where some of the posters who enjoy 'debates about feminism' on here, link to threads from MN and slag us off.

But hey, what is a bit of cyber stalking amongst people with a common interest eh?

Never have liked bananas.

charming

yes do check out those links.

and all those who were defending bob and using him as an example of how mean the fems are and how they call troll to anyone who disagrees with them might want to apologise given the above evidence. ho hum. it's all still going on - people being named and targeted, mra sites sending in trolls that we're accused of imagining etc. joy.

i take it the 'organic' on there is the prolific organicgardener who was here and took ages to get banned. another one that was all in our heads i recall.

quote from freedomofspeech:

Radical feminists have been either dumped or let go by men in their lives.

Radical feminists have aged and become sour and bitter, gnarled by their jealousy that normal women get attention from men and they don't.

Radical feminists prefer the company of their own sex, in EVERY department.

Radical feminists are childless and have womb envy which is why they hate women who have children naturally.

Radical feminists are very ugly.

Radical feminists can't argue a point in real life so they make pseudonyms and post their bilge on message boards.

Radical feminists still believe they are hippies from the 60's and organise "Think camps" trying desperately to validate their tired dog eared rhetoric and meaningless dogma to the bored uninterested VAST majority.

Radical feminists are despised by their own sex.

Radical feminists are mocked by the opposite sex.

I'm sure they loved hearing mnhq call radfems 'hardened'.

I'm lucky because my cyberstalkers insult me by writing little sort of poem/haiku type things.

Quality!

sorry for repeated posting but look at this quote:

"I can guarantee that IF the owners allowed an opposite opinion the feminist radical element would move on and shout in an empty space about their imagined woes."

and that's what the owners have done isn't it? they've said this is about feminism, not feminists, all opinions are welcome. and radfems have moved on and been silenced here and many more of us are tempted to do so.

really played into their hands.

Of course my above post will be deleted so here it is without the norty troll hunter link.

I'm lucky because my cyberstalkers insult me by writing little sort of poem/haiku type things.

Quality!

saf, I'm not 'piling in with the trolls to have a pop', I just don't see things as you do. Yes, that is possibly because i haven't experienced what you all have here, but it would be a lot easier to feel solidarity with you if you didn't immediately equate disagreement with trolling.

those things aren't troll hunting - they're just links.

swallowed, "determined to feel hard done by" was a comment I made in response to a poster saying that she thought MNHQ were deliberately winding up the rad fems. I don't doubt for a second that there have been nasty abusive posting patterns that certainly invite the application of Mumsnet's "beyond the pale" criterion, according to which such posts/posters can be deleted/banned because they are not in the spirit of a site that exists to support. Of course such abusive posting exists. My view is just that that sort of acknowledged abuse can be dealt with by the application of normal posting rules, and also that the legitimate fury about posts of that sort is awfully mixed in with objections to contributions from people who either aren't feminists or don't espouse beliefs that other feminists regard as feminist -- in a manner that I think undermines the topic much more severely than the actual trolling.

sorry i'm following mnhq's advice to ignore.

How's the weather where you are SaF?

Swallowed, you are following MN's advice so as to ignore me? I don't really care whether you respond to my post or not; that's up to you. But the pointed comment about ignoring seems designed to position my contribution as something derailing, abusive, trolling? Can't you see how completely opposed to discussion that strategy is? It is a strategy of discounting those with whom you disagree.

Apologies if I misunderstood.

And by the way, there is a huge difference between ignoring on the one hand and actually focusing a gimlet of attention on a poster by a pantomine of oblique comments and off-topic remarks about the weather etc -- which is the very hurtful business of sending to coventry. Ignoring only works if it is exactly that. If people really did ignore derailers rather than engaging in such pantomine, discussions would work much better.

Feminists disagreeing = just as bad as trolling and cyberstalking and written abuse.

I'm following HQ's advice (from upthread) of ignoring when you are finding it hard to be civil, that's all. I imagine SaF is doing the same.

Stops us behaving like meanies you see.

HTH.

Well Cat, I see some people are ignoring my posts already, so they can rise above and do it

Easy when you know how

What's really difficult Calatalie, is that it's become almost impossible to distinguish those posters who want to debate and those who want to disrupt. There sometimes is not a rizla paper to put between the arguments. Some of them are coming from a POV of wanting to silence women on this topic, others are not.

It's why it feels easier not to engage at all. Plus I am so, so tired of having the same conversation over and over again. It doesn't get any of us anywhere really. I'm not going to suddenly have a damascene conversion and agree with you and I doubt you will either. So it's just circular. And wearying.

it's rather grey and overcast but still walkable BC. amazing how quick the transition to autumn has been though - just hoping for a long mild one before winter kicks in.

Sorry if you are hurt Calatalie.

I'm not in the best of moods today - threatening and sinister cyberstalking does that to me.

Anyhoo I'm off for a bit as i now have to go through gawd knows how many years of posts on MN in order to get any info i don't want used in the stalking deleted.

Is it time for the Biting Beaver story?

Absolutely awesome post, Calatalie.

"Feminists disagreeing = just as bad as trolling and cyberstalking and written abuse."

Sorry, I don't understand that. Feminists disagreeing (rather than ignoring or discounting) is something I am very happy with indeed.

So you ignore because you doubt your ability to respond respectfully? That is absolutely fine by me. I have found the personal tone of disagreements on this thread to be very upsetting. I still think that explicitly talking about the weather etc is a counterproductive and unpleasant thing to do. No need to answer. I'm putting my views across because they are important to me, not because I need a response from any individual.

I will lose all respect for mnhq if they do 'do' something about BobBanana.. So far they have been entirely reasonable (I only wish I had a fraction of their diplomacy and patience) and I trust that they won't.

Sometimes the obvious answer is the correct one: don't like the way a forum is being run? Set up your own and have a closed shop where only like-minded people are allowed.