Why a lot of women don't come on the feminism threads...

[Scarletohello]

So I posted this question earlier, why don't more women come on these threads ( considering how many women are on MN)

The replies saddened me. Are we doing something wrong? I remember a thread some time ago asking how many women lurk on the feminism threads but never post. I was shocked by how many women read these threads but didn't feel able to join in. I don't think feminism has to be particularly intellectual and I would like to be able to educate more women about feminism, how it affects women in many different areas of their lives, offer support and talk about what we as women can do about it.

Please have a read of this thread and tell me what your thoughts are. I want us to be as inclusive as possible as it affects us all...

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/2222959-To-be-a-bit-dismayed-if-4-million-women-visit-this-site-why-are-there-so-few-posts-on-the-feminism-threads

Another tedious troll and this one has cartoons...

Yawn.

Pleeeeease can I bring out my whips? Please? Just for baldpussyslam, I'll play really nasty, I promise.

Yes, my eyes have been opened once again to the necessity of feminism dammit.

But can legitimate anger from the frollicks of trolls be a sufficient excuse/reason for trampling quite so hard on other posters? Who are NOT trolls but who are trying to live authentic lives with men they love?

I can really see how it might be very upsetting to be told that the way you and your husband lives is actually providing him with 'absolute' licence to abuse you. And there is no way you can draw a nice line between that 'general' comment and the personal history offered by a poster.

I am not advocating mimsying about and prefacing everything with 'in my very humble opinion' etc, etc. But perhaps not going quite so hard and fast to one's point could be helpful.

For e.g. on that sex and disabled thread, there was a possibility of engaging me in useful debate. But I can't debate with people who just flat out told me I was part of a network of human trafficking because I argued that SOME women had made an informed choice to be involved in a contract about sex.

Hakluyt, I agreed with your comment - and you were kind enough to apologise to Zing when you realised that she had read into it that you were saying that her husband must be abusive. Of course a set up where one adult is considered in charge of a family unit is open to abuse.

Spero you have said quite a few times over the last few days that FWR regulars told you you were part of a human trafficking network. Was that on the thread about the article on men in care homes being provided with prostitutes as a solution to them sexually assaulting care workers? Could you link to thread? Just I'm really really shocked that regular MN posters would say something like that and I would like to read it - you have intrigued me because you have mentioned it more than once now.

I think it is this one, but I note quite a few comments have been deleted.
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/a1730197-Guardian-article-on-sex-workers-and-disabled-people

I think I also need to read it again - as the perception I have of it is a very strongly negative one, but I do accept there is a risk we 'reinvent' horrible things that happened to us, to make them more horrible on the re-telling.

But I do recall a number of posters apologised to me on the thread and via PM for some of the things that were said, so it must have got pretty nasty at one stage.

Its also interesting its April 2013 it started - I would have sworn it was 2012 or even earlier.... just goes to show our recollections are not always reliable!

Ok, I have read the first page again and am already spiralling into rage cycle. I will have to save this for later.

THIS was typical comment that set me going

the idea that disabled people are eminently unfuckable is also rampantly patriarchal

I found it profoundly disconcerting to have my life experiences as a disabled person dismissed in (what I perceived to be) this sweeping and arrogant way. I think I pointed out numerous times that I was the ONLY disabled person that the majority of my friends and family ever socialised with and NO abled bodied friend of mine had ever chosen to have sex with someone with a physical disability.

So sorry to burst your bubble but the idea that disabled people are unfuckable is rather more than an 'idea' and has very little to do with the 'patriarchy'.

In fact, it was probably more this dismissive refusal to engage with my experiences that was more upsetting then the human trafficking stuff.

Spero, you appear to be the only person on FWR policing tone at the moment. The very fact that I am married (and have taken part in a patriarchal tradition) and took the risk of being a stay at home parent has been discussed (personally) on FWR. Whole threads have been about the financial abuse a woman who chooses to be a sahp risks. I'm a grown woman who can withstand these things, if I disagree I tell people so. Hak apologized, it is up to zing to decide if that's good enough or how she feels about it.

I have started to read that thread. I gave up at the "gimp" comment, because, yet again, it perpetuates the myth that women who are dominant must be getting paid.

FOG, I can see why Zing reacted how she did and so can Yack - it's not just Spero.

I like both Hak and Zing as posters and I know Hak didn't mean her comment to be "at" Zing. I hope they both keep posting.

Frau, I don't think that comment was in the dom context.

Frau, that's not what that meant.

Yonic, I think Mitchy made a good point about the implied feelings about homosexual relationships in zing's comments. She is not being pulled up in anyway like Hak has been.

Ok - point taken - I will go back and re read.

Yup and I will carry on policing tone in any way shape or form that I see fit.

Because its important.

Thank you for your reply Spero.

I remember that thread quite well. I think your accusation against the posters on it saying that you were part of a trafficking network is unfair to say the least.

Nobody said that or anything close to it.

Yup and I will carry on policing tone in any way shape or form that I see fit.

Right. So you and you alone have the ability to decide what is correct tone? Just so I am clear as from the beginning that seemed to be your issue with FWR.

FOG, I think that's because Zing responded personally to Hak!

Wrt homosexuality, the traditional Christian view of this isn't favourable, so it's not surprising that this other traditional Christian doctrine under discussion wouldn't be extendable to same sex relationships. Zing said, politely, that she wasn't going to answer Mitchy's first post to her and Mitchy's second post came after Zing said she wouldn't post again.

If it were changed to:

"the fact that disabled people are deemed eminently unfuckable is also rampantly patriarchal"

Does that make a difference?

Does the tone policing include disapproving of people saying things that are not actually true/did not happen?