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
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

Agenda, much?

999 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

OP posts:
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.

Nyac · 07/03/2012 11:36

It's not just about not "liking" women, these men want to make women's lives a misery in the real world. If you want to attack a woman, go through her children. It is classic behaviour for abusers.

F4J the last time round were known as a group that contained men who had committed DV and intimidated women. Most women were too scared to speak up agasint them. How do you think the women they've been attacking feel about being portrayed as vindictive bitches when in all likelihood they were trying to protect themeselves and their children?

I find it seriously worrying that Mumsent last night welcomed these people in and not only that gave into their requests about deleting any posts they didn't like. I just don't see how that can be a complete mistake rather than someone who thought they were acting on Mumsnet policy.

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.

NarkedPuffin · 07/03/2012 11:36

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

FrothyDragon · 07/03/2012 11:39

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

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...

FrothyDragon · 07/03/2012 11:41

Justine, it was planned trolling. It was planned. I've posted the status from their FB page. I may have even linked it. How much more obvious do the trolls have to be? I'm not sure I have any spare goats lying about to coax more evidence out...

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)

NarkedPuffin · 07/03/2012 11:41

I think that if you read up you'll find a lot of evidence on their site to support that belief Justine. The idea that it should be renamed, the comments about legal aid changes, even the comments on this thread about the American case (I don't know if you've deleted any.) I would never suggest that every individual member feels that way, merely that as a group 'I believe you' would not be their choice of slogan.

Nyac · 07/03/2012 11:41

"you can never really know about someone's prejudices"

Being a member of F4J is a pretty big giveaway.

It's like all the Leo Blair kidnap plans, handcuffing to Margaret Hodge, sitting on Harriet Harman's roof, spidermen stunts etc etc whilst all the time claiming how vindictive the mothers of their children were, never happened.

They made a public decision to troll this site. I don't think that can be ignored.

Of course women-haters are going to be attracted to this site, it's full of women they think they can have a go at.

FrothyDragon · 07/03/2012 11:42

Sorry, x-posted. Have all F4J members who joined to troll been dealt with accordingly? We're not going to see Spydii pop up again, are we? Or Smileysmile?

SDTGisAnEvilWolefGenius · 07/03/2012 11:43

I don't know of many big organisations who are willing to admit when they have got it wrong - and so MNHQ and Justine have my respect for this - and for the difficult job that they do.

FrothyDragon · 07/03/2012 11:43

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.

NarkedPuffin · 07/03/2012 11:52

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.

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.

NarkedPuffin · 07/03/2012 11:52

Not that we are patient Grin

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.

NarkedPuffin · 07/03/2012 11:57

It is worth pointing out that they targeted the MN Facebook page, which prompted Mal to start this thread. They then responded on this thread.

That's why this is in the FWR section.

It could have just as easily been in AIBU.

Nyac · 07/03/2012 11:58

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.

NarkedPuffin · 07/03/2012 11:58

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

FrothyDragon · 07/03/2012 12:00

They didn't come here to debate. They came here, because they knew they'd get a reaction.

NarkedPuffin · 07/03/2012 12:01

I have to admit, I am surprised that MN knew about the orchestrated trolling and decided to let it run.

NarkedPuffin · 07/03/2012 12:03

My point about how they came to be in this section was that, although I doubt they all have well thumbed copies of The Female Eunuch, it was Mumsnet they were targeting.

NarkedPuffin · 07/03/2012 12:04

There are goats Shock

SDTGisAnEvilWolefGenius · 07/03/2012 12:04

I think they had to - until actual troll-like behaviour was exhibited.

Swipe left for the next trending thread