Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk

Back to thread
Original poster

Agenda, much?

40 replies

Malificence · 03/03/2012 17:47

I don't usually wander onto the MN facebook page but I was pretty horrified to find what looks very much like an MRA agenda posted on there.
I'm trying very hard to see what relevance the photo used for their site has regarding the voices of unheard children. Hmm Looks more like how they would like to see their women to me.

www.facebook.com/#!/mumsnet?sk=wall

Go to post
MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 06/03/2012 20:52

Hello gender warriors

Please can I remind all and sundry to follow our roooles about personal attacks, please? We welcome robust debate, but outright abuse directed at fellow MNers (of any persuasion) will be deleted. And we'd hate to have to delete the entire thread as a bunfight...

Thanks
MNHQ

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 06/03/2012 22:09

@FrothyDragon

In fact, after reading this, I feel a little betrayed, MNHQ.... Unless Nadine is lying, MNHQ have practically invited Spydii et al... "Mumsnet - they have just contacted me about the posts on their forum. If you feel that a post is derogatory or anti men or makes unfounded allegations about F4J please use the "report" button on their message board system. They are also going to have a look through the posts. Thanks Nadine"

Taken from the F4J facebook page...

Hello

Sorry, I can only respond quickly tonight because frankly, I was supposed to knock off about five hours ago.

The only contact (as far as I know) we have had with F4J is via the Mumsnet twitter account's open feed. You're welcome to have a look via @mumsnettowers. The wording Nadine O'Connor is reported to have used on their Facebook page is not the wording in our Tweets to her.

Thanks
MNHQ

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 07/03/2012 00:35

Hi all,
I've had a good butchers at the deleted posts here and I do agree that we have been a bit over-zealous with the deletions on this thread. I think there have been some dodgy allegations that we were right to delete plus and some unfair tarring all members of an organisation with a wife battering brush-type posts but lots of the posts we deleted were valid opinions about the way F4J members interact and the tactics they use.

Secondly F4J clearly have done themselves no favours by posting crap on our facebook wall and trolling Gingerbread and understandably that has raised the hackles of some normally completely and utterly temperate Mumsnetters Smile.

So to those on this thread who've been deleted and shouldn't have been, many apologies. We do make mistakes sometimes - trust me, it's not always easy to make the right calls when the reports are flying thick and fast.

And to members of Fathers4Justice posting here please note: We are a site that allows and positively encourages diverse opinion and debate but our overriding aim is to make people's lives easier. If you are merely here to antagonise and/or to contribute nothing beyond an intransigent view on a single issue rather than enter into honest debate, then you are not welcome and will be banned.

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 07/03/2012 08:38

@Nyac

I'd like to know why Mumsnet was so quick to delete the feminists' posts whilst leaving the invaders to run around willy-nilly.

Because it's a pattern and it seems like an official attitude towards us coming out of Mumsnet.

Attacks on us also aren't deleted often. So much so that I've almost given up reporting those on me. I probably report one in five.

How come F4J got all their demands met, at the expense of us, but we ourselves have to put up with a lot of insults and attacks?

We certainly did delete some posts that we shouldn't - but, as said, not all of the deletions were unwarranted - some posts were unfair and/or potentially libellous. As said when you are being bombarded with reports it's not easy. You should come into Mumsnet Towers some time and take a look at what it's like in a firestorm - and I mean that seriously.

You shouldn't just assume that we have let invaders run around willy nilly. It's the usual story, it just takes a bit longer and more investigation to establish who's an invader and who isn't (a day, maybe two) whereas it only takes a second to delete a post. Put another way why do folks always seem to assume that because they can't necessarily see any action, no action is occurring?

We put an awful lot of resource into looking into these things, as it happens. As I understand it we have a larger, paid community management team than pretty much all the big forum sites many of which are more profitable than MN and that team is unbelievably dedicated and fantastic (though not infallible!)

But we're not always going to agree with you that all all reported posts break our guidelines - it comes down to this what's valid debate and what is deliberately provocative wind up guff area and it's not always as clear cut a decision as some folks think.

But this idea that there is a systematic conspiracy/official attitude towards the fems board is way off the mark. I'm a feminist, as I suspect most of MNHQ are. It's just that we are also committed to free speech and debate and wish to allow differing opinions. It's a core tenet of what MN is about.

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 07/03/2012 08:39

@StewieGriffinsMom

Thank you Justine.

Are the other posts being reinstated?

I think it's more important to get on with our behind the scenes investigative action - particularly given that now I've posted, the thread makes more sense with it left as is.

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 07/03/2012 11:11

@HandDivedScallopsrgreat

Yes MNHQ when are you going to delete that thread on you FB page which has turned into the Carl and Pete show, basically saying women lie about DV. That isn't true but is allowed to stand? Why are you not protecting your members? Why are you letting a misogynistic organisation call the shots? Just look at the language they use "princess", "miss piggy muppets". Not really language of someone who likes women. Claiming that women falsely allege DV is not said by people who like women.

We don't only allow posts from people who "like" women but we will look at the DV claim for sure and delete if it's as you say. thanks for pointing out.

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 07/03/2012 11:14

@Nyac

I do understand that it's not easy to manage, especially when you're getting opinions and demands from all sides Justine.

But when you've actually got a public invasion, from another website with people telling one another to report regular Mumsnetters' posts. is it really not possible not to take a different approach apart from acceding to the invaders requests?

Also, I do think that the feminists are generally ignored by Mumsnet when we point out blatant trolling and concerted attacks, or even attacks on us.

Also it's difficult to read about freedom of speech when it was our posts being deleted.

Yes it is possible to take a better approach than we did yesterday. Which is why we have apologised and said we didn't get it right.

In general though, reports are NEVER ignored, but we don't always agree with the analysis. It's the policy/conspiracy point that I take issue with, though - we try v hard to treat each report on it's merit and in context.

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 07/03/2012 11:20

@HandDivedScallopsrgreat

OK Justine but most of your members are women. Plus if it were racial you wouldn't let it stand. But because they are talking about women you are willing to? Why do you feel the need to engage with these people? They certainly don't want to engage with us.

I don't particularly feel the need to engage with them, and I think we were far too emollient yesterday, as said, but I don't believe the issue they raise around fathers' rights should be off-limits for discussion.

MNHQ

KatMumsnet · 07/03/2012 11:32

@StewieGriffinsMom

The stuff on the FB page should be deleted.

We've taken a look and deleted that post on our Facebook wall now, thanks for flagging it to us.

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 07/03/2012 11:33

@TunipTheVegemal

Dear Justine and MNHQ, don't you see that by allowing misogynistic attacks (ie posts from people who don't like women about how much they hate them) you are making it an extremely unpleasant space FOR women? The rest of the whole goddamned internet is full of space for people who don't like women and it often becomes a horrible place to be because of that (see for eg the thread in FWR about the cycling forum with the pics of naked ladies on bikes). I thought we could count on MUMSNET to be a safe space for women, that's why we come here fgs! Why the FUCK are you providing a space(on the MN FB page) for men to call women 'Miss Piggy muppets' and saying that's ok because you allow posts from people who don't like women?

Sorry MNHQ I am unbelievably angry and disappointed in you. I don't think I can bear to be on the site for now.

We don't allow misogynistic attacks from people about how much they hate women. As said we will look at those posts - they've probably already gone.
It was a subtler point I was making really (and possibly not very useful) about how you can never really know about someone's prejudices and we don't put a sign up at the door saying "only pro-women folks allowed". Mumsnet is for parents - we believe in posters equally and on the basis of what they post.

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 07/03/2012 11:36

@NarkedPuffin

That's the problem. There are some valid points to be made about fathers struggling to get access to see their children. They don't make them. They are domestic violence agnostics and it takes about 5 minutes for many of them to spiral into conspiracy theories and unveiled misogyny.

This is a group whose own Facebook page had a call for them to troll Gingerbread on it!

I agree with much of that NarkedPuffin - but I still don't think it's fair to make the leap that everyone associated with F4J is a DV agnostic.

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 07/03/2012 11:39

@NarkedPuffin

Perhaps this could have been treated as the planned trolling it was if someone had looked at their own Facebook page.

We weren't unaware of the trolling NP - not sure how many times I can apologise and say that we got it wrong yesterday...

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 07/03/2012 11:41

@FrothyDragon

Not everyone associated with F4J is a DV agnostic, no. But a scary number are... And these were the people who chose to attack MN and it's posters.

And agree with Nyac's post at 11:36

Well so do you think it's right then, that we leave up posts saying eg that all F4J members are wife-batterers or should we delete them?

(In no way trying to say we got the balance entirely right yesterday)

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 07/03/2012 11:52

@FrothyDragon

Of course I'm not saying the posts calling all members of F4J wife beaters should stand. Please don't twist my words. I had enough of that from F4J the past few days.

I'm really not trying to twist your words FrothyDragon - I'm trying to explain that what may look like an act of support for F4J/ betrayal of the fem boards is the moderating team here doing what you'd expect of them - deleting posts that break our guidelines and that you would also delete.

And an invasion - ie let's go on and tell those mumsnetters why they've got it all wrong - isn't necessarily the same as trolling tbh (ie deliberately misleading/antagonising). I think we ought to be able to be robust enough to be able to debate the issue, with the caveat, of course, that if visitors turn out merely to be here to wind up or hear to spread hatred then they are not welcome.

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 07/03/2012 11:55

@NarkedPuffin

Perhaps a thread suspended button might help? Locking the thread and putting up a MNHQ are reviewing this situation. Thank you for your patience. type message. That way MNers would see that you were dealing with it.

I can see the attraction of this, but I also think, knowing MN as I do that another thread would pretty much be guaranteed to start up and it's v hard to put a lid on it without really peeing people off.

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 07/03/2012 12:32

@Nyac

I guess people who don't like black people, or who don't like gay people, or who don't like jews, or who don't lesbians or who don't like disabled people are also welcome to come on over and promote their agenda.

Maybe we could see if there's a group of Holocaust deniers who could take up residence and then who we can deal with robustly.

Yes well as said previously I was trying to make a subtle (possibly to too subtle point) that you don't have to be a particular type to post here but, hey ho, let's invoke Godwin's law...

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 07/03/2012 12:36

@FirstLastEverything

"We don't only allow posts from people who "like" women". Maybe not, but don't you want to encourage posts from people who do? I am Shock at this.

I would also like to emphasise the point others have made, that on other sites joining purely to post about one issue, on one board, counts as trolling. Possibly a need for a 24 hour time lapse between registering and posting?

Loads of folk join to post about one issue - you don't know that that's all they'll end up posting about until you give them a bit of time. Tbh I think it would be a mistake to ask folk who eg needed immediate help with something like sleep, their relationship, or even dv to wait 24 hours.

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 07/03/2012 12:38

@NarkedPuffin

True. Maybe just the message then, without locking it.

Yes I think this is a good plan.

MNHQ

OliviaMumsnet · 08/03/2012 20:23

Evening
We'd just like to remind you all to post within our talk guidelines - ie no personal attacks and no potentially defamatory comments. In the face of legal threats, we will be removing posts that are potentially defamatory. We'll also be deleting personal attacks. If you're concerned by the deletion of any post (since yesterday) and would like to ask us why it has been deleted, we'd be happy to answer but we hope you'll understand that we may have to err on the side of caution in our decisions to delete.
Thanks
MNHQ

MNHQ

HelenMumsnet · 08/03/2012 20:40

@BeerTricksPott3r

Mumsnet.

Where you're not allowed to challenge questionable images and the motivations behind their dissemination.

You are free to challenge as much as you like, BeerTricksPott3r, as long as you stick within our Talk Guidlines.

MNHQ

HelenMumsnet · 08/03/2012 20:40

@FrothyDragon

I mean, Happy International Women's Day, Mumsnet Feminists! We're going to silence you for old times sake. Wine

We're not silencing anyone. We're just reminding you of our Guidelines.

MNHQ

HelenMumsnet · 08/03/2012 20:43

@TunipTheVegemal

Seriously Olivia, if you're going to set a precedent and start deleting all the personal attacks on people who aren't on Mumsnet isn't that going to make a lot of work for you? Because if this is going to be a site where anyone ELSE in the public eye is fair game (eg when we bitch about Jeremy Paxman on the University Challenge threads for his snideness and mispronunciations) but no criticism is allowed of Matt O'Connor and his delightful mates, that's a bit problematic, isn't it?

We're not setting any precedent, Tunip.

We will delete personal attacks made on Mumsnet members by other Mumsnet members - once we're made aware of them.

And we will also delete potentially defamatory comments - once we're made aware of them.

Both these policies are in our Talk Guidelines. Nothing has changed. We're just reminding you about them.

MNHQ

HelenMumsnet · 08/03/2012 20:46

@Nyac

I think there's a Matthew Wright thread that needs the censor's attention, too then. I think he got called a cunt.

Really? That post hasn't been reported to us as being potentially defamatory.

MNHQ

HelenMumsnet · 08/03/2012 20:56

@BeerTricksPott3r

It's such a fine line, isn't it?

If I say I think the images published by f4j are reminiscent of porn involving children and must surely be the product of some sort of disordered mind I may well be deleted.

It's a valid opinion, however and I'm not alone in holding it.

It's such a shame that MNHQ are on the other side of that line to me.

No reason to delete that one.

MNHQ

HelenMumsnet · 08/03/2012 20:57

@ThisIsExtremelyVeryNotGood

For example, if someone posts a link to a newspaper article about a person, and posters discuss the information in that article, is that defamatory?

No, not necessarily.

Watch this thread for updates

Tap "Watch" to get all the latest updates