AIBU to think that if MN are willing to boycott certain groups on ethical grounds

[APartridgeAmongThePigeons]

they really should take a look at banning posters proclaiming themselves MRAs?

Sexist,

often racist,

frequently rape/ domestic violence deniers

I know that mumsnet want to keep a lively discussion going and not ban free speech but when they join a forum mainly used by women it's hard to believe it's not about being goady and spewing propaganda.

The result is that normal posters get angry..
engage...

And then get deleted or banned for "personal attack".

Using a nasty word for someone who has by just stating that they are an MRA has basically said you don't matter as a human seems the normal response.

Totally agree, Whenthered

Course you do treen

Sorry Sabrina, what do I agree with? Thanks for telling me!!

Look at the wording in when's post ( sorry for not referring directly to you when). No to a blanket ban. Yes to banning the extreme and people that breach guidelines. Not referring to there being on voice and mind set.
Generally get rid of the rule breakers

Yes, treen. You said Totally agree, Whenthered, and I said of course you do.

No need to be sorry though.

I do totally agree. Whenthered has head butted a nail. Total head hitting. Right on it

Good-o treen. So we agree I wasn't telling you what you agree to, but merely acknowledging your previous post where you had stated agreement.

Thanks for clarifying my agreement. You won't do that on every post I agree with? It'll be weird

Oh dear, treen.

I agree with you when, sorry for my on the spot interpretation. Would like like to see anti men posters banned too?

What is AF, anti-feminism? That can't be banned

Oh dear, again, treen

Is there anyway Sabrina that the review can be PM'd. Somedays I post a lot

Review, treen? I don't know what you mean? I'm not about to pm you anything I'm afraid - but I will answer anything I can on the forum.

That's cool smj. What is AF though?

Sorry. Not answering that - it would enter into the realms of gossip imo.

Red's answered you - thank you red.

'AF is a poster who was suspended and is an example of the complaint in the OP - a normal poster losing her temper after being goaded by someone, who also goaded the OP off her own thread'

But not by MRAs, as was clearly stated in MNHQ's statement. Important distinction to make given that almost every feminist on here claimed that it was.

I see when. It depends if you think goading is a legitimate reason for a law break. I suppose each case is individual.

I mean a stand alone anti-man post. I think you are saying there should be different standards. I can understand that with weight of history behind a slurr.

I agree some post will be worse. I feel there should be a line. If that is crossed then action should be taken. The victim will have a better grasp of its severity. But severity should be judged in the punishment.

I'm with you, breach the rules get deleted.

What do you class or define as goading?

The poster's position was very questionable though - she wasn't coming from the sisterhood imo.

'It depends if you think goading is a legitimate reason for a law break'

Well now, I don't think it is. Because everyone's criteria for goading is different, gentle ribbing or nasty prodding? It's very subjective isn't it.

Anyway, night.

Sabrina, do you think that should be a criteria to post on MN or this section?