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 .

so if a woman says that then that gives misogynists the right to stalk her and threaten her life?

how are you so informed on this btw? and how come you like to talk about it here so often? and what's with the joking about rape etc? honestly curious as to your motives.

Thumbs up for Victor's post. That sums the situ up well.

Good post Victor

actually don't bother answering edd - forget i addressed you. must get the hang of this ignoring business.

Not quite the full story Edd. Obliging of you to post however.

Yes bad call Aitch. Encouraging that they are looking at the guidelines however.

"regular with an axe to grind"

So, what is the solution? Are regs who disagree with you not to post in future, because it in your view this is tantamount to a troll's charter?

Really, that would simply be substituting one intolerable situation for another. Surely the solution can't create a different set of victims?

I realise that in focusing on this one issue, I risk appearing to downplay the seriousness of the trolling abuse - but imo it's critical. There has to be a morally-unassailable core to the board, otherwise what is the point?

Hully I don't know if you are still following this thread but I hope it is now a bit clearer why I have the attitude I do.

Yes proles, not by MRA's, by trolls. 4chan to be exact

4Chan are the biggest bunch of misogynists I know. What's that phrase they adore so much? There's "Tits or GTFO..."

I bet a number of 4Chan are MRA's...

4chan is a festering pit of misogyny - but they aren't anything like a united community and there's as many users who would 'support' (largely through being totally, utterly apathetic about womens' rights) Biting Beaver as there are ones who would hound her off the internet. MRA trolls would find a good home there, but they'd have to seek it out, not the other way around. They can't point at 4chan and say 'it was them, guv, honest'; it's MRA no matter which way you slice it.

Hey Beach.

I had hid the whole lot for my mental wellbeing...but it popped up on most active and I have been catching up.

A few things strike me.

I read the links, can see no evidence of ol Bob being a troll, he's just quoted, as is Dittany and others. (Imagine if Dittany were really a deep cover counter insurgent?)

There is a strong collective feeling of the need for protection and a space in which to debate fwr issues without derailment/disagreement etc, which can only be provided by a closed forum.

People at the cutting edge of change have always had to fight the good fight. Did Martin Luther et al whine and complain about stalking and threats and unfair treatment? No, he got on with his job, because he saw the cause as greater than one individual. (Obviously him being shot was a bit unfortunate). Or Gandhi? Or Sylvia or Emmeline? Or or or or ....

If you talk about stuff people don't like, if you threaten the status quo, they are going to try and stop you. You can fight them, or you can retreat to a private space.

Suggesting that you carry on here, but all "trolls" "derailers" are banned, leads to one question that I would very much like a clear answer to:

WHO DECIDES WHO GETS BANNED AND THE CRITERIA?

i'm sorry but it is obvious to anyone with eyes that at least two posters are down and out utter trolls and misogynists and we're expected to just put up with them? it's not doable.

The phrase 'insider info' just popped into my head.

Anyway here is the story of what happened to Biting Beaver from someone who has given me permission to reproduce their words here;

BB was an (internet) friend of mine. She had a fantastic blog - anti-porn, anti prostitution, anti-sex industry. She is a sex industry survivor and she was brave enough to speak out against it using her own experience. She was attacked b...y 4chan first because she blogged about an abortion, and then for a second time, which was much worse, where they went after her and pretty much every big feminist blog at the time. Two forums I was on were attacked, one completely closed, another one we managed to defend from them. At the same time we were having to watch 4chan to see where they were with tracking BB down in real life and trying to warn BB of what was coming. They did find her in real life and they also found her incredibly abusive ex and tried to set him on her. Her life was actually in danger. She's disappeared completely from the internet because of what happened. She was totally silenced - a woman who was brave enough to speak out against porn and the sex industry from direct experience. Basically they got her.

So here we have someone who is saying that hunting down and threatening a feminist blogger is excusable because of something she said about abortion. But hey, it's just 'another point of view', right?

indeed, it is just at the opposite end of the spectrum

Yes, apparently so proles

Hully the poster who quoted him was posting under the name of Bobsbanana on the forum.

Either bob is being stalked too (stuff was added to his quote from MN), in which case I think he deserves to know because someone is impersonating him. Or it is him posting.

Sorry, have been out but wanted to add that if feelings have been upset then obviously they have my support rather than my denial that their feelings are valid.

Those boys are pricks on that board, And their mission of fucking up this board has to an extent achieved something.

Well I imagine saying as this website is run by MNHQ, they get to decide these things, non?

(in answer to Hully)