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

Olivia, in all fairness, we're aware of the Talk guidlines. They're tighter here for certain members than anywhere else, it seems.

Here's a small suggestion. Rather than deleting "controversial" posts, reinstate the posts made by F4J. Let the legal gurus see what we had to deal with. F4J has already taken screen dumps, if they're to be believed, and are gloating over us appearing to be in the wrong. Reinstate everything. Let people outside of Mumsnet see that we're not the villains here.

Or, you know. Just keep pandering too F4J's demands. Should we set up a F4J Appreciation Thread while you're busy silencing us? We're allowed to be angry when we come under fire, you know.

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?

Can we not put a disclaimer up?

"The views expressed in FWR are not representative of Mumsnet, and we accept no responsibility for them"

Could even add a bit about us being extremists, again... Not sure we've been attacked by MNHQ yet today

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

@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.

I like Frothy's idea of putting F4J's posts back up.

@FrothyDragon

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

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

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

I can't quite believe that MNHQ are being so hot on this with F4J. Yesterday there was a thread in chat slagging off Matthew Wright to high heaven and that was allowed to stand. He would have more of a case despite the fact it was all true for defamation than a bunch of dodgy blokes who came on here for the sole purpose of antagonising members, then went running to mummy because the uppity women were nasty to them.

Hah x-post with Nyac there!

It was funny when Garry (with two rs) the advertising man got all the haikus about him deleted.

This isn't so funny. This is sad and pretty sinister.

Oh come on. You are much more ready to silence us than any other section of MN (The dogs house may be the exception). We dare to step out of line, you don't look at why. We've been attacked on here. We've been misrepresented on FB, Twitter, and you can't bring yourselves to defend us?

@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.

If this carries on, I'll be off to NetHuns. Or are we not allowed to joke about them anymore?

Define "potentially defamatory"

@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.

"Really? That post hasn't been reported to us as being potentially defamatory." Well that's probably because most people agree with it

Maybe because Matthew Wright isn't so afraid of what might be said about him on the internet Helen.

Oh, and we've been called (as a group, so guess it doesn't count) pretty muc everything under the sun including child abusers. Can we sue now?

What constitutes "potentially defamatory"?

But the majority of F4J aren't members of Mumsnet.

So that's one strike out.

Secondly, everytime FWR comes under fire, we get some pathetic excuse about only personal attacks get deleted. It's OK for everyone to attack the Rad Fems, but the Rad Fems stand up for themselves in the same tone?

It's not acceptable! We weren't singling out members of F4J, who may I add were posting shit about us being man hating misandrists all over the board. Are you threatening F4J with legal action on our behalf? Oh wait. It's just the crazy extremist rad fems again.

Thirdly, how often have our requests for attacks, victim blaming posts and the likes to be deleted been ignored. An attack on Nyac not too long ago was ignored; Several members reported it twice. Are you really telling us you didn't see all those notifications?

I also had to argue with you about letting victim blaming stand on a recent thread about rape. It doesn't matter if the women get offended, though? As long as we don't piss off the patriarchy.

In that case will you start deleting posts that are potentially defamatory about the MN feminists, please?

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?

"may have to err on the side of caution" = the side of f4j scum