a question for the men here

[Mitchy1nge]

what makes you think you have anything of real value to bring to discussions about women's experiences and expectations?

obviously some men can make interesting contributions (although those sorts of men don't often announce themselves here) to some discussions but generally, on the whole, everything everywhere else is already pretty saturated in Male Voice so was just wondering where you got the idea from

What has happened to Hully? any news?

I read something today which said on the FWR board "they're so angry over there" or sth like that.

That's targeting a whole group.

I mean I'm angry now, about this, but that remark, that thing of "angry feminists", that sort of thing would definitely be allowed to stand.

It's the fucking inconsistency of it that has annoyed me.

Well, I am obviously much less clever with the advanced search, as nothing I reported was terribly juicy.

But, MNHQ, are you seriously saying people can't say 'men ...' and then refer to a group of men who take a certain course of action? But it is ok to generalize about women?

I don't want to bore you with more examples than I've already reported, but people say 'women do x' or 'men do y' all the time. If it's considered deletable, I don't see why that hasn't been made clear.

Hi everyone,

LRD, thanks for bringing this to our attention, and Fastidia, we're sorry our mail upset you.

We're in the process of consulting the MNHQ elder to see whether the mail we sent, and our reasons for deletion, were in fact a giant cock up.

We're hugely sorry for any upset caused. Please be patient, we'll try and get you some (better) answers soon.

Hi Kate.

Thank you very much, and for the prompt response. I'm really hoping it was a cock up, but glad to have an update so soon.

Seconding the "hope it was a cock up" theory

Thanks Kate.

It's very irritating because it makes it look as though MNHQ has an agenda to get rid of any feminists with a radical outlook by making it impossible for them to express pretty basic concepts.

The idea that if you stand by while someone does sth wrong, you validate their behaviour and give the impression that you're colluding/ agreeing with them, isn't a particularly controversial one. At least I didn't think it was.

I agree.

It is not possible to discuss feminism if we cannot talk about women and men as classes of people.

Thirding the 'cock up' theory, and also appreciating that MNHQ are responding quickly to this.

Fourthing the cock up theory.

Is Helen the MN elder who will be consulted I wonder? And will she appreciate being called and 'elder'

There are plenty of posts on this thread alone stating we are man-hating. But that's OK because we are feminists so it must be true. We have had this argument with MNHQ before.

Completely ignore the above post. I thought I'd posted it an hour ago. But no it appears not!

I know it might seem petty, but hey I am a 'radical' feminist apparently, so just to point the disparity out here (is this because one poster is male, another female?). I reported the comment below, because of it's disgusting content

'Men in the middle east abuse young boys because it's seen as consequence-free sex. In Iraq and Afghanistan, boys are often pimped by their own families for money. If you're a man arrested in an arab country (especially if you are beardless) you're likely to be sodomised as a means of domination. Talking about rape and abuse like it's something that only happens to women undermines ALL victims whose experiences have equal validity.'

This on the thread about starting a petition against online hate against women.

Was told by MNHQ, that they knew what I meant, but could take no action because it didn't break their terms and conditions, but they would 'keep an eye on him' ( sorry DadDancer, wherever you are in cyberspace, it was not you I reported, as I said earlier in another thread).

Again, I'm glad MN are looking at the removal of fastidiablueberry's post, but think, perhaps they have to think deeply about the kind of derailing they allow amongst obvious anti-feminists.

I wouldn't say sorry to DadDancer. He's a banned troll.

I did um and err about apologising, but the liberal, lefty woman in me won out, damn her!

It's got nothing to do with liberal values, though - the man is a troll. A misleader, a misrepresenter, a man lacking in honesty and integrity.

It's like trying to photograph a mirage. Pointless.

You're right, no more liberal/woman guilt.
I'm gonna take that liberal,lefty out back and give her a sound thrashing. (Ahh, Daddancer would have loved that last line, for perverted reasons obviously!)

Liberal is ok. Apologising to tossers is not ok.

I was just thinking about the reference to male rape. There are times when it is necessary to discuss the existence and prevalence of this, I think, and it's in the context of evolutionary theory about 'rape being an adaptive reproductive strategy.' The theory's such bollocks it's hard to know where to begin, but there are evolutionary psychologists who still peddle it in academic circles.

But I agree that in the context of a thread about the online hate on women, it was a tactic.

A couple of things have jumped out at me reading this thread:-

daddelion is proof that us men should not only listen more but actually pay attention. He's also proving that most men (not all, before I get shouted at) push their vision of feminism and expect women to agree. Which is a bit wrongheaded.

I read Fastidias posts and got whiplash from nodding in agreement. In particular at her post at 09.50 today.

Sorry to read about your friend chibi, that's horrible. LRD, I don't go around with the mindset that women view me as a rapist, although it's perfectly possible that they do.

As for speaking out against abusers, there used to be a man in my circle of friends who, we found out, beat his wife up badly. He was shunned by the whole group (all male) and made aware of the reason.

It's also incredibly racist, it seems that it is okay to generalise about men in the Middle East, but if we are talking about men in the west it is deemed to be man hating.
Also, let's not forget that this was a male poster, and look how much effort it took to get DD banned.
Anyway, got go, just my two pennies.

'daddelion is proof that us men should not only listen more but actually pay attention. He's also proving that most men (not all, before I get shouted at) push their vision of feminism and expect women to agree. Which is a bit wrongheaded.'

What does us men mean?
I don't like be lumped in with 50% of the population because I have the same chromosomes.

And how can me posting my views be representing most men?

I don't push anything on anyone, this is a thread about men posting on the feminist section.

Do you know most men and their views?

I suggest you look inward before throwing around wrongheaded comments.

"Also, let's not forget that this was a male poster, and look how much effort it took to get DD banned."

That's the thing isn't it, it seems that these MRA trolls can go on for months and months and months before MN ban them and yet long-standing posters like Hully get banned at the drop of a hat.

Though I don't think that is the case (I'm presuming that you have to have a certain number of posts reported before they ban you unless you do one Really Bad Thing) I think it's really bad that this is what it looks like to an onlooker.

On that Hully thread today someone said she got banned because some goady trollish type had reported her x thousand times and she'd never reported him/ her, so MN were totally unaware of the fact that this poster had done nothing but goad ever since they came to MN.

So the lesson I've drawn from that, is that when you see goady posters around who are clearly only here to shit-stir and not to discuss, you should report them so that MN has a record of what's going on. Because you can bet your life that the trolls are reporting us right left and centre.

Yes, you're right, one of my messages was removed the other day. It was just a joke, not a direct response but through Hully.

I know it was a bit rude, but it was mild in comparison to some of the rubbish the men were posting, and it was aimed at an obvious Troll who came on to goad the feminists. He left shortly after, presumably because he got a reaction out of me and could report it.
That, or because it was connected to Hully, again, they are pretty speedy when it comes to female posters.

N.B. I don't mind that they removed it, it was a bit naughty.
It just seems that the scales are balanced in the favour of trolls (SOME men), if they don't swear they can say anything, until one of us gets angry and does swear, then we get the blame.
I know I shouldn't have played into his hands, but god it gets tedious when you are trying to have a proper discussion to be constantly hounded by anti-feminists, claiming to be moderates.

Right, we've had a chance to confer now - and, as KateSMumsnet suspected in her earlier post, this was a bit of an MNHQ cock-up.

Fastidia's post was actually deleted because we read it as a thinly-veiled attack on Pan. Sorry that wires got crossed at our end, Fastidia, and that you were given the wrong explanation.

We've read it again now and can see it can be read another way and, as we can see that Pan himself didn't read it the way we first did, we'll hold our trigger-happy hands up. We'll reinstate the post shortly. Apols to all.