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.

Sorry sig, I agree with you, that was a reply to Whenthered

Not necessarily no. But I don't think af should have been banned for what she posted - I saw what was said at the time and I couldn't believe that got her banned (albeit temporarily). Hence all the fuss on here about it, I suppose.

So if you don't need to be part of the sisterhood. Is the complaint AF's suspension. Was AF out of character and suspended or a frequent offender?

Why not look up the posts, treen? If you're interested, MNHQ issued a statement on it.

How do I find it? Which section/subsection? Sorry I've been away from the site a while

No you haven't.

I don't think anyone who posts anti feminist wondering should be banned. I am talking about people who join this site in a deliberate way to either incite hatred by being vile or to spread misinformation or be goady fuckers.

I have seen loads of anti feminism on MN from loads of normal average women. I call it it when I see it and I argue with it. I think that's normal debate. They happen to be posting on a thread and maybe they make a misogynistic comment whatever. They are not on MN with an agenda.

They post on every topic, maybe this time however they said "women should wear make up" or " men can't see dirt" or "you're more likely to be raped if you dress a certain way and go out after dark".

It just so happens they said something I don't agree with it and normal discourse continues and I call it bollocks.

Not the same as an MRA joining mumsnet to link to a site that "names and shames" women who supposedly "cried rape". I mean really, why join? If it isn't to be horrible and it isn't to spread propaganda..what's the real reason for being here on a forum mostly inhaited by women who would be harmed by your position?

I mean do you see goading and the reaction from it in the same light? Is one worse?

You were talking about misandry. I'm saying is a stand alone anti-man comment (no agenda behind it) worthy of a ban? And would you recognise it?

So are you saying the inequality allows one group to act differently? I'm not sure what you mean? Please explain,

The goading thing is hard to guarantee a correct accusation. A Christian may annoy an athiest with their views, they deliberately have those views, and the same atheists to christians

No, we're talking about deliberate mra trolls who come here to inflame or link to horrendous mra websites - which are always anti-women.

Do you think if someone linked to Movember, we'd call them mras? No. My dh and my BIL have done Movember. There's a difference.

I'm not sure what you mean, Sabrina, with the movember thing? If someone linked to a Liverpool fc website would you think they were Muslim?

I don't get the connection?

I think what you are suggesting is that if an MRA extremist only goes on gardening and gives advice on growing roses then you won't ban or report them

Well. movember deals with men's issues without being mra.

Liverpool fc? muslim? Ok. Off to bed.

Exactly no connection. I bet you movember is discussed on men's issue websites

Movember is colon cancer. Maybe a men issue or a people's issue

It's in aid of testicular and prostate cancer. Beardecember is colon cancer, I think.

I think you may be right. Sorry for the confusion