Agenda, much?

[Malificence]

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. Looks more like how they would like to see their women to me.

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

Mumsnet's strength and identity as far as I can see lies in the fact that it is a predominately female space.

That is what makes this place special. It is the draw for many of us - it is what makes this place exceptional as far as internet human relations go.

Letting a group of people trample all over that by trolling us and insulting us with an adversarial and gendered agenda is beyond the pale.

MNHQ you have created this special predominately female space - are we just sitting ducks who should expect to be harassed and bullied by men because we have the temerity to occupy and exchange with each other in that space?

It would appear so from this thread and past events.

And yes I get that it is difficult to run a very large forum. MN is being attacked because most of its members are women - something that needs bearing in mind when it comes to the definition of policy and moderating IMO.

Norma - yes, it would have to be applied lightly and with a friendly pat at times, but then MNHQ are good at communicating like that, because it's how they operate anyway.
Just to be clear, I'm not talking about a massive new zero tolerance policy on anything and everything that might be construed as misogyny no matter what the context - that would just create work for MNHQ - but more about some new phrasing that expresses the way the site already is, ie non-misogyny being included in the overarching statement of what the site is about. A bit like the 'we're here to make parents' lives easier' phrase. Obv they don't go around deleting every post that doesn't help make parents' lives easier but it comes in handy and times and I think an antimisogyny statement would do the same.
Perhaps a policy on misogynistic speech in the same way as you have a policy on trolling?

sorry, typo, 'it comes in handy AT times'

A policy on misogynistic trolling would be a good starting point.

Is it worth starting a thread in site stuff?

well it has to be a policy on misogyny not misogynistic trolling, or given the MNHQ definition of trolling most of the problem material would fall outside the scope of the policy because it wouldn't count as trolling.

Thinking about it, it seems amazing that there isn't already a policy on misogyny - it's long overdue, I think. (Or perhaps there is one tucked away in a filing cabinet somewhere?)

I think Tunip speaks a lot of sense here. Mumsnet is such a valuable space on the web because of the fact that it has a predominantly female membership while still being open to all comers. Most other predominantly female sites have gone done the route of heavy moderation and strict membership rules. They do so precisely because a women-focused and women-user sites are often targets of choice for trolling such as we have just witnessed. I think Mumsnet is to be applauded for maintaining their commitment to openess and in general I think they do a good job as regards moderation.

However, I do think that the deletions policy and moderation in general would be greatly helped if it were recognized that statements and provocations which make sweeping and insulting generalizations about women "as a group" qualifies the same treatment as the same generalizations made about any race, or in fact fathers or even members of F4J. Such sweeping statements about "women who have children merely to live off state benefits" is actually quite a mild one compared to some I have seen ("women lie about rape all the time" is another one) but it is still as insulting as alleging that all members of F4J are wife beaters and child abusers.

I really think that insulting someone for reason of their sex is equivalent to insulting them for reasons of their race or religion and I think that Mumsnet could improve its moderation policy if that idea was accepted as valid.

'Twas sarcasm Tunip - for the very reason you state about MN's definition of trolling.

Sorry Beach!

Free speech in practice is not the same as free speech in theory. It's an illusion.

In practice, free speech is only that speech which does not break the rules. It's not free in the sense of "anything goes".

If posters break the Mumsnet posting rules, they should take the consequences for their actions.

Mumsnet has helped me so much since I started using it. I hope MNHQ can do something to avoid Mumsnet being seen by anti-feminist groups as a soft touch. Every successful trolling attack encourages the next troll.

Why does Mumsnet's policy appear to exclude sexism from its list of deletable offences? Is it to do with the difficulty of arriving at a satisfactory definition of sexism? What about other websites, both private and public sector, that seem able to include intolerance of sexism in their policies? They seem to manage it somehow, don't they?

Does UK government legislation oblige websites like Mumsnet to accept every applicant who wants to join?

Yes, some progress being made here, I think. MNHQ- please have a think about these points?

And meanwhile the deleting of posts that criticise a political group goes on. It's happened just now. Yet attacks on groups of feminists are not deleted on the basis that they're not 'personal' attacks.

The fact that a significant starting point for F4J's political agenda is that 'women lie about dv to prevent access for fathers' is directly opposed to MN's own 'we believe you' campaign against sexual violence. I am still aghast that MNHQ would bow down to this type of campaign group - particularly in view of the comments F4J have on their own website about 1. MNetters, 2. Mothers and 3. Women in general.

I know MN has apologised for getting it soooo wrong last night- but I'm not convinced they've put it right yet. They could start by re-instating the regular Mnetter's posts and deleting the invading troll posts imo. Some sort of anti-mysogyny rule to go alongside the other 'antis' would be most welcome.

Finally, I think that Justine's comment to NYAC re. Godwin's Law was unwarranted. The way I see it, Godwins Law is invoked when someone says 'this is exactly what happened in Nazi Germany!' or some such. What NYAC was doing was drawing a parallel between the holocaust deniers and the fact that they are invariably anti-semites, and F4J and misogynists. And she has a very good point.

Started a thread in site stuff:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/site_stuff/1422960-If-Fathers-for-Justice-invade-again

As a father, although in know connected with F4J, I've read this thread with interest.

My question, is two posters an invasion?

Alicehurled, had almost forgotten about that.
Feels a bit "one rule for those NAUGHTY feminists, and one rule for the poor, misunderstood MRA's..."

They were tweeting Mumsnet asking to have our posts deleted, to which Mumnset duly complied. They were also posting about it on their website, and posting on the Mumsnet Facebook group. There was a coordinated effort.

I know Mumsnet said it was a mistake what happened, but actually the upshot appears to be that the same thing could happen again quite easily.

Hopefully they're as expert as their marketing gurus that came up with the porny gagged woman advert. Who are shit at marketing. Am I allowed to say that?

SGB I'm glad I get to read and snort at your posts before they get deleted.

Tunip. Do you mind if I copy tour post onto the site stuff one?

Please do Norma.
I'm currently pondering what Nyac has said there.

the difference is f4j is a organised group with specified aims with official stances on a number of issues and methods. You have to deliberately join up, and pin your colours to the mast.

otoh women are just people born with vaginas.

So 'women lie' is deletable, whereas 'all f4j members subscribe to viewpoint x' is a statement of fact.

Tunip excellent post above, I do hope it's taken on board.