Why does Mumsnet listen to outsiders, rather than just Mumsnet users?

[loveyouradvice]

The fact that the reporting on this board is openly led by 'members' who never post, never participate on MN, merely stalk the boards to police women talking here because of some self appointed sense of superiority and then brag about this on Twitter is in itself extremely creepy. On what other MN board are men permitted to stalk and police women?

Having read this on another board, I realise how much this worries me... why would Mumsnet listen to "anonymous" sources, rather than reports from their users? I am sure the Mumsnet community is very powerful at calling out the unacceptable... why Mumsnet do you listen to strangers?

I do think one of the most oppressive things for me is worrying about strikes for pointing out absurdity

Sometimes piss taking is well and truly justified

There's something about Mumsnet that drives a lot of men/men's rights activists/transactivists crazy. It's probably all those unsupervised women's opinions.

Yeah, MRAs have always been attracted to MN and especially to FWR. Have something 'progressive' to hide behind these days, but basically still just bog standard MRAs.

I am glad the twitter reporting period has stopped, that was ridiculous.

The three strikes rule is extremely unfair too, as if he only bigotry thats important is transphobia. It should surely go for everything, racism, sexism, hmophobia, ableism, etc, rather than favouring trans people in the way that it does. Also, definition of ;transphobia; is a bit dodgy as some think it means hatred of trans people (would be my definition) however, others seem to see saying noone can change sex, or saying female people need female only spaces as transphobic.

I do often wonder quite how many reports from the twitter monitors MN have to deal with daily though..its a balancing act really.

It's highly likely there is a strong crossover between these groups. The former haven't vanished - just rebranded.

I'm absolutely convinced this is the case Ova and Bernard it is refreshing to be allowed to address the misogyny and sexism when an MRA goes old skool

Which is why it’s all the more frustrating that MNHQ allow robust dealings with group 1 who believe in lady brain, while insisting we tie ourselves in knots to make group 2 who believe in lady brain feel welcome

No one ever went out of their way to make me feel welcome here, least of all MNHQ frankly

ZebrasAreBras, I understand your point but I respectfully disagree with it. The general guidelines cover mention many forms of discrimination, the statement is merely clarification with some specifics. I don't believe this affording specific, additional protection to transgendered or gender critical individuals but rather clarifying what it entails. I believe this is necessary since it's more contentious and divisive than, for example, racism or ableism (which a general consensus on where the boundaries lie could more readily be achieved).

I believe that, ultimately, the way forwards would be clarification from MNHQ and possibly a transparent system that lists deleted messages and reasons for bans since it seems that there is a multitude of interpretations on the intention of the current guidelines.

Not in the spirit...forgot that one as well

Its very vague

I respectfully disagree with your points too, gronky.

"Four legs good, two legs better" and "we are all equal but some of us are more equal than others" comes to mind when I read your posts. So we'll leave it at that.

ZebrasAreBras, if I had to pick a quote which describes your posts, it would be: "But one also finds in the human heart a depraved taste for equality which impels the weak to want to bring the strong down to their level and which reduces men to preferring equality in servitude to inequality in freedom" -de Tocqueville

Apologies, a quote which describes my thoughts when reading your posts.

a multitude of interpretations on the intention of the current guidelines

My interpretation of MNHQ's intentions with the extra restrictions on FWR (because as much as you waffle, that's what they are): censor the women enough so that the extremist genderists stop making our lives a living hell but not so much that they all bugger off.

It's one of those exercises that is doomed to failure because it satisfies neither side. An endless hiding to nothing and, I imagine, has made life no easier for the mods whatsoever.

Sorry, MNHQ, but that's how I see it!

My interpretation of MNHQ's intentions with the extra restrictions on FWR (because as much as you waffle, that's what they are)

Working on the assumption that they are extra restrictions, might I suggest that, rather than being specifically imposed on FWR, they are instead highlighted here because this is where they are most pertinent (they are, of course, also linked from within the general talk guidelines)? Much as the warning regarding a lack of verified qualifications and the inability of even doctors to diagnose purely over the Internet on General Health applies throughout the site but is most pertinent to that section due to the majority of discussions to which the warning applies taking place there. It would be rather unnecessary to feature either in, for example, Geeky Stuff.

Oh for christs sake

So ‘why does mumsnet listen to outsiders’

Anyone?

If it looks like a duck
Walks like a duck and quacks like a duck

Its a fucking duck

It is a fucking DUCK rufus You cannot WORD SALAD away the DUCK into anything else.

Why does Mumsnet listen to outsiders? Because they threaten to sue, aggressively go after their advertisers, call MN a "hate site, report them to the Police (the reporter was most miffed that no action was taken "no crime had been committed" - but who knows if there have been others), because they're probably e-mailing MNHQ all fucking day with reports, publish Justine's home address - probably it's something to do with that.

I also imagine that disability rights campaigners don't behave like that - so no special rules for ableism.

I also imagine that disability rights campaigners don't behave like that - so no special rules for ableism.

Well its fucking obvious when you put it like that

Rufus, I have to say, you earned those shades with your "it;s a fucking duck" post on that other thread

Thank you zebra 😎

If I see a group meeting in a public park and they are using what I perceive as hate speech, aren't I entitled to inform the proper authorities?

You are confusing your perception with absolute reality. If we all allied that at everything we disagreed with nobody would be allowed to say anything.

applied ( correction)

Holy crap I just posted on the wrong thread again. Ignore me.

It is coercive control because they’re controlling our speech and words we use to describe ourselves and our experiences

Come off it. People are perfectly free to speak and describe themselves how they like, MN can't stop them anywhere other than on their website. That's seriously offensive to people who are genuine victims of coercive control.

Sorry isatis - no feminist here would wish wish to belittle inter-personal relationship coercive control. But there is also a state-sanctioned coercive control where states, regulatory bodies, social media platforms etc also exercise coercive control over the language and speech people are allowed to use. The latter is what is happening here. On a minor scale, but 1984 style all the same.

Women describing their own oppression, and defending their hard-won rights is being defined as transphobia and hate speech - on here and many other platforms, and in many universities, in police forces, corporations and government departments. That level of control on people's (women's) speech and language is coercive control.