MNHQ closing this board *MNHQ edited to say OH NO WE AREN'T!*

[Binglebong]

A few months ago we saw loads of posts about how this board could close and there was an attack on advertisers to boycott mumsnet. It occurs to me that I've not seen that in a while. Any idea why?

Way to give people a heart attack with the headline here.

Somehow, the group of narcissistic individuals who believe they can make every corporation and publisher bend to their whims, against all objective reality, had a reach that exceeded their grasp when it came to "forcing" MNHQ to do anything.

It was all bollocks really,

Much of what I’d on he internet simply isn’t real.

Yes, people posted as if it was a real issue, but no it never was. And with hindsight it never was.

Same phenomenon, but on a much smaller scale, ad Momo

Nah. MN is too big and we're all too ugly.

And that,my friends, is how you do 'clickbait'.

Perfection, OP.

I'm not surprised that it didn't gain traction. MN is too pro woman to be bullied into stopping women talk about women's rights.

And advertisers know that women exist and make the vast majority of household purchases. Pretending that 'woman' isn't a thing won't win new female customers or retain existing ones.

CaptainMarvelBunting

And so the wave function collapses...

Sorry, wasnt intended to be clickbait or heartattack inducing. Was intended as a genuine question.

The only thing I can come up with is when mnhq revealed how much traffic the board brings to the site, was that the decision maker? The possibility of closing certainly seemed real at the time - there were a lot of comments about this being the only place certain discussions could be had and if we didn't all behave nicely the board and/or discussions would no longer be allowed.

I thought some time back a mner shared stats showing that this was one of the highest traffic areas on the site...no way MN is going to cut off its own nose...

Binglebong, it was because it was the stated aim of people who had already managed to bully or wheedle compliance out of many other platforms and media.

I am quite sure that MNHQ have been dealing with lots of behind the scenes stuff they have not made public, and the guidelines, though irksome, were their concession to neutrality and keeping this board open. They certainly deserve some credit for that.

As it happens, rather a lot of the lid has been blowing off the AWA/trans juggernaut, precisely because of the tenacious women who have been speaking here, and on other social media, on the streets and elsewhere. It didn't happen by chance, and they would have done a lot more to shut it down if they could have got away with it.

Be encouraged. We're not done yet by a long chalk, but this isn't going back in the box now.

"Somehow, the group of narcissistic individuals who believe they can make every corporation and publisher bend to their whims, against all objective reality, had a reach that exceeded their grasp when it came to "forcing" MNHQ to do anything."

This all day long.

Apart from the stats, wasn't there some attempt by TRAs to get Birds Eye to boycott MN ... which got them nowhere, but lead to pleasant discussion of frozen food products on these boards.... advertisers know who their buyers are.

They thought they could pressure Birds Eye into stopping advertising fish fingers to mums.....

Morons

Honestly. It's like us trying to pressure the manufacturers of blue hair to stop advertising to them.

Look at what happened to Ocado...

There's your answer.

What did happen to ocado? I know there was a boycott but did they feel it re profit or share price? Or negative publicity outside these boards? I haven't heard anything about it since.

It's in the name:
MUMSnet.
Mums are Women (always).
Women buy stuff.
Mums buy stuff.
Mums care about women stuff.
Advertisers know this.
Men/transwomen tend to underestimate the undercover power of mums/women.
We are here.

being fairly new to this forum, I missed the Birdseye kerfuffle and so I looked it up (being awake at 3 am and unable to sleep. Good entertainment and a chuckle or two so here's a thread for other newcomers: www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3363404-TRAs-going-after-MN-sponsors-BirdsEye?pg=1

Nah. MN is too big and we're all too ugly.

It is posts like this that make me love MN.

Mumsnet closes it's feminism board?

not a good look. They'd have banned regular posters instead. Which in fact MNHQ did. Check out the missing in action thread.

if MNHQ close the board we'd all just go and make a nuisance of ourselves elsewhere on the site with our feminist views. At least this way we're where everyone can see us. I imagine that's part of the reasoning.

Oh god can you imagine the uproar if we started posting in chat all the time. The number of tedious “how do I hide threads?” posts would go through the roof.

We need women’s rights from birth to death, regardless of whether we become mothers, are childless, or choosing to live childfree.

The feminist board here attracts posters from all over the English speaking world and attracts traffic 24 hours a day.

I’m sure its contribution to business model makes it well worth the extra modding costs (demanded by the silent, volunteer Mumsnet Watchers - not the actual community users, of course. Under Zes Eye).

"I thought some time back a mner shared stats showing that this was one of the highest traffic areas on the site"

I don't doubt it but suspect a lot of the traffic is twanz people and their sympathisers keeping a watchful eye on us all.

Under his eye

Apart from the stats, there was a thread in which MNHQ asked people to say why they used MN, what they read .... I'm not sure they were expecting any particular response but it was overwhelmingly FWR, many posts from lurkers who aren't otherwise visible. Some people coming here specifically because they'd picked up that MN is a place where women can still discuss women's rights, a lot 'came for parenting, stayed for FWR'.

Was intended as a genuine question.

The question mark is your friend, my friend.

On top of the above reasons, I'd add that a) it would look terrible (I'm sure at this stage it would hit the press significantly, and would draw even more attention to the GC arguments, so I don't think anyone but the most deluded activists would really want that now), b) the points made here are increasingly - and more visibly - being proved right, for example with the reporting on Karen White, Martina, the Tavistock report etc, and c) although they don't/can't say much, and despite the tightening of the guidelines (which I do think was done in an attempt to avoid worse, even if it sometimes seemed excessive), I would put money on at least some of MNHQ sharing our concerns and wanting to keep the discussion open, even if it means taking a lot of flak