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.

That's drench derailing

Dench

To me, it doesn't make sense to ask a mass open-access site like Mumsnet to ban "MRA" posters. Partly because I think the term has been so debased and over-used on MN. And partly because the pressure to ban seems to be based on a misperception of mn as being divided into distinct groups of posters -- the disruptive, the vulnerable/uninformed, and the "right," with the posters who are "right" taking upon themselves the task of guarding the vulnerable/uninformed against the disruptive.

Of course there is a small but significant number of posters who are genuinely disruptive. "Troll" is a good name for them. We don't need the further label "MRA." But it is also true to say that most of us combine the three statuses that seems to be so rigidly separated in some posters minds -- we are all capable of being disruptive, right, and vulnerable/ill-informed. I am really very fed up with posters who seem to place themselves in the category of the enlightened and to represent other posters as being either the enemy or in need of protection from the enemy.

I do firmly believe in preserving a women's space, with predominantly female perspectives and with a low-to-zero tolerance of misogyny. But I think that objective is pretty well achieved at the moment as is evidenced by the numbers of posters at the moment saying "what is MRA?" I might be wrong but I think that the recent postings from a self-proclaimed MRA were provoked by someone asking what MRA meant a reasonable question in reaction to the obsession that a few posters on MN have with a fairly minimal problem on the site. It isn't really surprising that an MRA poster would come on in response to that obsession.

It's all become a bit "I saw Goody Osburn with the Devil!" The anti-MRA preoccupation with MRA is far more troublesome than the MRA themselves, and only encourages them to pay attention to MN.

good grief! talk about taking the worst of mankind and generalising them to be the whole!

everyone is different. everyone's opinions will be on a scale

But seriously , I'd like to ask you both Suelford and Treen44444 - in which areas of life do men experience a significant, structural disadvantage currently, in your opinion? And if you can identify these issues, can you tell us what the MRM / MRAs are constructively doing to tackle these inequalities in a way which doesn't disadvantage women and girls?

Earth, that's not my place to answer. I'm sure you can find one and ask them.
My concerns here are that it's wrong to ban someone for belonging to a particular group, wrong to assume that the extreme of a group is the norm, how do you identify them on here, etc.

There are guidelines for a reason, why can't people be happy with that.

You'll never get a straight answer to that question, Earth - many have tried...

So you don't really understand what the MRM / MRAs are about Treen, but you'll defend them nevertheless?

And on your second point, I think you'll find that the problem many posters have regarding your concerns is that the guidelines seem to be applied inconsistently in some areas.

If both movements lie about what each other represent, then you'll get nowhere. Both may get more members but it's not healthy.

Earth, what areas?

God loves a trier, Sabrina

Treen, that's not my place to answer :)

Sorry, I thought you weren't happy with the consistency of the guideline application. My bad.

Many people are unhappy about the consistency with which the guidelines are applied, yes

No you personally

if you feel a post breaks the rules report it.

I suspect where you feel there are inconsistency it's either due to it not being reported or it actually not being a personal attack and therefore not actually breaking the rules.

problem is you have got to look objectively at that post, not whether or not the opinion matches yours but whether it actually breaks the rules. that can be really hard when you yourself feel strongly about something

Why don't you personally answer Earth's question treen? You could have a stab at it surely, seeing as you're defending the MRM?

Treen, how do you personally feel about the guidelines and the consistency with which they are applied?

Paperlantern - I do.

I'm not sure she is. I think treen is saying that the worsy of a sector of the population does not necessarily represent the whole.

a bit like saying the whole of mumsnet is unsupportive after looking at AIBU

Homelessness, suicide, violence, rape, dangerous working conditions, lower educational achievement, higher criminal punishment, institutional sexism in DV cases, social expectation to be providers/brutes/disposable, draft (American), etc etc.

As for what they're doing about it, I've heard about a couple of male homeless shelters, efforts to get men's centres on campuses, some petitions, that sort of thing. I imagine it's not so easy to get traction or funding for men's issues, when some people don't believe that there even could be "men's problems", or deny it's possible to be sexist against men.

Just for balance, from the Urban Dictionary.

1. radical feminist

when women believe that all men are jerks, morons, that men are dumber than women, etc. they believe that they are superior to men, and they get away with it. they go above and beyond what feminists, and try to make all men look bad. they treat all men the same, because they are morons. Ex.: radical feminist: "all men are dirty, filthy pigs and should be tamed. they should follow our rules, and if they dare defy us, we get to hurt them"

I did. I'm not exactly sure, I wouldn't want to misrepresent. You wouldn't ask an extreme MRA to explain feminism, and likewise the other way round.
I'm sure it ranges from extreme MRAs to moderate MRAs.

I could guess prostate cancer

So, how does attacking feminism further those causes, Sueford?

me too. as much as I wish some of the stuff could be deleted I do actually agree with mumsnet when do and don't. from what I have seen it's pretty consistent, always I can see why they have and haven't deleted. but I'm new to the feminist area....

1. radical feminism

A hate-speech movement which aims to eliminate the rights of men and non-feminist women and deny people the freedom of speech. Adherents of the movement use the actions of men and an imaginary "patriarchy" as an excuse for why there lives are so pathetic and unfulfilled.
Grace belives in radical feminism and therefore blames the "patriarchy" for the sad state of affairs that is her life.

All from the Urban Dictionary. Not really very accurate is it?