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 .

[CaptainNancy]

The problem I have with your suggestion is that the 'Feminism/women's rights' board is a discussion board just the same as 'Weaning', 'Travel:UK', 'Adoptions', 'Gardening' etc.
Anyone may post threads proposing any viewpoint in a topic- topics are not prescriptive about what may (or may not) be discussed; they are discussion boards, they are there to generate discussion, and many people post on other topics with discussion provoking, or controversial threads. There are dogmatics, derailers, and trolls in many topics (BF/FF anyone? 16 week weaning?) There are idiots across the whole MN unfortuanately... but I don't think there needs to be a specific statement at the top of each topic to highlight this.

There do seem to be far fewer feminists in general across MN though these days. Can't imagine where many of them went...

[giyadas]

I thought it was these paragraphs

"Having said that, Mumsnet is an open forum, which welcomes discussion from those with a variety of opinions and perspective - and the Feminism section of Mumsnet is no exception to that. It is not a closed forum. Nor is a forum in which only feminists can post. If you'd like to post somewhere like that, that's fine - but Mumsnet's not the place.

Despite the recent influx of "visitors", it's not a given that, just because someone posts in the Feminism topic with a perspective/opinion that is not held by the majority of regular posters in here, that they are a troll/posting only to cause trouble. Our philosophy is and always has been to give folks the benefit of the doubt ? otherwise Mumsnet would be a much more hostile and less friendly place.

[Tortoiseonthehalfshell]

Hully, I'm pretty sure that every time that question comes up,the answer is there is no consensus, where have you got the impression otherwise?

[LeBOF]

I think that's the one, giyadas. Did it smell slightly of wee?

[giyadas]

but, no it doesn't say anything about it being about feminism not a feminist board my search skills have abandoned me today

[Hullygully]

Hully - that is exactly what you want

eh?

Aye - I have lots of points of agreement. I thought this thread was to talk about the nature of this board?

bored with

[giyadas]

no, LeBof, it smelled of manky rectal abscesses

[Beachcomber]

I think that is the thread giyadas thank you!

I must say every time I read the MN guidelines I am a bit surprised that misogyny is not up there with racism, ableism, etc.

It does make it hard to have a useful section 'about feminism' if your guidelines imply that misogyny is acceptable!

Still, we have established that it is not reasonable to expect the feminist section to be a space where feminism can be freely explored, without misogynistic views being welcomed too, so I suppose the guidelines are irrelevant really.

[LeBOF]

[AliceWyrld]

That is the one that gets quoted Gidyas. I have no idea where the 'about' one is.

[Hullygully]

Tortoise - because I often see self-proclaimed fem posters being told they aren't feminists. So there must be an agreed consensus as to what constitutes a feminist.

This is not meant to be controversial. It has puzzled me for ages.

[AliceWyrld]

Would that be individuals telling other individuals they don't see what they have said as feminist, Hully?

[CaptainNancy]

And FWIW I think a slashdot style post moderation will not work- many people read slashdot with most posts hidden from view (e.g. >0 rated posts only)- there are so many friendship groups on here that posts will be modded down automatically for kicks, and many genuine posts will not be seen by many readers.

I firmly believe that all contributions to a discussion have value- it is up to the reader to decide which posts to ignore or to take note of, not the enemies peers of the poster.

[LeBOF]

Presumably the common denominator for all shades of feminists is being pro-female equality? So when, for example, a person starts a thread like yesterday declaring they are a feminist but intend not to employ women of child-bearing age, they can rightly be called for being nothing of the sort.

[Hullygully]

No Alice.

[AyeBelieveInTheHumanityOfMen]

I'd rather choose the term anti-women, rather than anti-feminist myself. Would that cause less disagreement?

It would be lovely to have you discussing women's issues on the board from your position of knowledge, Hully. And correcting grammar is an added skill you can bring to the table. We do need to keep standards up, so thank you for that.

[ChickensHaveNoEyebrows]

This is exactly what the weirdy stalker trolls want, of course. The entire board imploding. It's an effective way of stifling actual discussion, isn't it? Having everyone navel gaze as to the purpose of the board? This just goes around and around in circles, with no resolution. MNHQ are not going to moderate this board differently, or more vigilantly, than any other board. So we have a choice. We can keep on shouting about the trolls and unfair it all is, or we can ignore the fuckers and get on with discussing what we want to discuss, keeping in mind that this is an open board and any passing fuckwit can come in and poke at people with sticks.

I am aware that I've probably spelt vigilantly wrong. And I get why the chicken keeper analogy doesn't work. It's because no one talking about chickens will be hurt by an attack on their hobby. They might think you're an arse, but no actual hurt caused. Trolling a space where women might feel safe discussing a vicious crime against them adds to the injury. It is cruel and nasty beyond measure. So perhaps that header should be 'This is the feminist section. It is a space to discuss feminist ideas. Posting personal experiences may leave you open to vicious fuckwits who think that rape and domestic violence are funny'.

[AliceWyrld]

How no, Hully? We're all individuals. It's not possible for anyone to post as more than an individual. I have a view on what is and isn't feminist. As does everyone else. As do you presumably. They might converge, they might not. How could there be a consensus on anything?

[Hullygully]

Aye - you're very welcome

The reading list wasn't intended to demonstrate my intellectual or feminist credentials, it was to demonstrate the era when my feminism was formed. I wondered if since then a Feminist Consensus had been formed about which I am ignorant.

[AliceWyrld]

Hully, no it hasn't.

[TrillianAstra]

I would disagree with saying "You are not a feminist" to anyone who thinks they are one.

Tell them that what they have said doesn't sound very feminist, or that you think it is inconsistent for someone to call them a feminist given what they have written, but you can't say "you are not a feminist" based on someone's posts on an internet forum unless they have said very clearly "I think men and women should not be treated valued and respected equally".

[Hullygully]

Thanks, Alice.

[LeBOF]

Yes Trills. Or "That didn't sound very feminist- are you sure you meant it that way?"

[giyadas]

People do say 'that doesn't sound feminist' but it gets heard/interpreted as 'you are not a feminist'.
I like Ayes suggestion of using 'anti-women'.

[begonyabampot]

for the truly nasty trolls can you not just completely ignore them, not reply. One thing they hate is to be ignored - they'd soon get bored if they didn't get any reaction. By replying you are giving them exactly what they want.

I go to another site and one poster was derailing and monopolising every discussion. The posters eventually completely ignored him and cut off his oxygen.