Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk

Back to thread
Original poster

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?

12 replies

Beachcomber · 22/09/2011 08:50

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 Smile.

Go to post
MNHQ

HelenMumsnet · 26/09/2011 16:01

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".

MNHQ

HelenMumsnet · 26/09/2011 16:14

@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.

MNHQ

HelenMumsnet · 26/09/2011 16:51

@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.

MNHQ

HelenMumsnet · 26/09/2011 21:12

@LeBOF

Yes, Stewie, absolutely.

MNHQ, Are you listening to ANY of this?

Yes, yes we are listening. Hope you will understand that some of us have to pick up kids etc etc, so may not be able to respond instantly.

Anyway, we're here now for a wee while and will try to respond to some of your most recent posts.

MNHQ

HelenMumsnet · 26/09/2011 21:26

@StewieGriffinsMom

We are complaining about the derailers and MRAs who only post in this section to cause trouble; the same types of fucknuts who post destructively in relationships, lone parents, SN and bereavement.

OK, and we try - and having been trying (gawd blimey, you have NO idea!) - to deal with derailers and fuckwits in Feminism in the same way we'd deal with derailers and fuckwits elsewhere.

We look at your reports (that's why it's always worth reporting) and we investigate.

Sometimes, it's easy and quick to take action - we can see very clearly that it a deliberate attempt at derailment or fuckwittage and we delete and ban.

Sometimes, it's not quite so clear, and, after we delete, we need to fire out an MNHQ warning shot.

Sometimes, it's not at all clear - even though on many many occasions we blinkin' wish it were - and we have to let time - and more reports - do the work for us. In these cases, it's often the buildup of reports that allows us to paint a picture of deliberate derailment or fuckwittage that isn't immediately clear at first - often because the poster is posting quite cunningly/cleverly.

These are the cases that, we know, annoy you the most (because they annoy us the most) but we do think it's right to stick to our Guidelines, to err always on the side of giving the benefit of the doubt. If we didn't try to treat each case fairly and on its own merits, regardless of our personal feelings/spidey sense about certain posters, we wouldn't be doing our job properly.

And yes, we do ask you to post respectfully - or, if you can't, just to ignore those you can't post respectful replies to - because it's hard to warn/ban someone for posting in ways that break our Talk Guidelines/wind people up when they can just point to post after post of personal attacks on them.

MNHQ

HelenMumsnet · 26/09/2011 21:30

@LeBOF

Yes, I didn't realise that either- sorry if I sounded rude, Helen. I also thought that what you had just posted was MNHQ's final word on the matter, and it seemed to me to have missed much of the point.

That's OK, BOF. I should apologise really for posting and running (to the schoolgate) but we didn't want another day to pass without commenting on this thread.

MNHQ

HelenMumsnet · 26/09/2011 21:34

@CristinadellaPizza

Thanks Helen. Would you consider adding sexism to the list of -isms that are unacceptable according to the talk guidelines? It seems a real oversight that it's the one thing that is missed off the list.

Yes, we are talking about this.

We are trying to think of a good way to phrase it, though.

We want it to cover straight deletion of outrageous sexist crap statements, while not meaning we have to delete somebody's lighthearted whinge in Good Housekeeping about how useless men are at putting the washing machine on.

Please bear with us while we think on't - or feel free to offer some suggestions here.

MNHQ

HelenMumsnet · 26/09/2011 21:53

@ThereBeBolloX

I don't know what you mean by slippage LW, could you explain more.

It's difficult to discuss this without getting personal. But there are some posters who can't resist cming here because they obviously have personal issues or a political agenda which is anti feminist. We are called hysterical and unreasonable and all the rest of it, even when we link to their facebook pages and YouTube videos where some of us have been quoted. And still they come, and still we recognise them and still they're tolerated and the fact that FFS if you are a new poster and you get deleted 19 times in 20 days, that's not considered at all unusual or suspicious or evidence that you are not of goodwill.

Let's be quite clear here: no, they're not tolerated. If we can make the link between a poster posting here and someone quoting your posts in an offensive/misogynist/MRA way on Facebook/You Tube/wherever, we would - and have - ban them.

Similarly if someone is deleted 19 times in one day (20 days sounds not all that bad, actually Wink), they would be considered suspicious and they would get a mail from us at MNHQ.

MNHQ

HelenMumsnet · 26/09/2011 22:02

@StewieGriffinsMom

Helen, I've had very few posts deleted for crossing MNHQ Talk Guidelines. I've been very careful [except for one small outburst on a disabilist thread] to keep within the guidelines but it is very hard when all we get back is "you need to be nice." I have been nice, and I have reported and I have ignored but the ignoring doesn't seem to work because when we ignore we get recriminated for ignoring.

Totally understand, Stewie. The "rise above" option is a frustrating path to follow. But we're pretty sure it works the best.

Think of it like dealing with a toddler tantrum. The louder they scream, the more you ignore. In the end (and, yes, some tantrums are interminable) the toddler realises tantrums are no fun/get nowhere without an audience.

MNHQ

HelenMumsnet · 26/09/2011 22:11

@StewieGriffinsMom

Helen On another thread recently, someone asked about copyright and the reproduction of MN threads on other sites and whether or not it infringed on the copyright. Have MNHQ looked into this? is it plausible for dealing with some of the more offensive and vile stalker sites?

Tbh, I don't know, SGM. We have trying to follow our own advice and rise above. Grin

MNHQ

HelenMumsnet · 26/09/2011 22:13

@LRDTheFeministDragon

I'm late back, but thanks so much helen, for replying.

We're not mind readers - it is great knowing you are working on it because unless you tell us, we don't know. And I honestly thought you were trying to hint more and more obviously that you really wanted us to stop posting and take ourselves off. I'm glad that's not the case.

We're always working on it, LRD. Really. Even when it doesn't look like we are.

And please don't take yourselves off.

MNHQ

HelenMumsnet · 26/09/2011 22:16

Right, I have to stop posting or my husband will have no clean socks tomorrow Wink

Night all.

Watch this thread for updates

Tap "Watch" to get all the latest updates

End of posts

There are no more MNHQ posts on this thread

Back to thread