Civility, reasonableness, and those rules

[TheProdigalKittensReturn]

So, since I'm most likely on my way out anyway, why not start a conversation about this? I just received a warning/threat for posting a Widow Twanky joke (not directed at any specific person) in a thread. Not sure which one, because the very keen to enforce deference upon women person who sent it forgot to include a link to the thread they were complaining about, maybe Munroe Bergdorf and the silly FB ad? Anyway, apparently this breaks the guidelines, which does rather raise the point of whether those guidelines are in any way fit for purpose. You're trying to ban jokes? On this site? On any British site? You are aware that our pointed humor is somewhat of a national trait and something we're often admired for in other parts of the world?

I think that this is neither reasonable nor constructive, and I do not agree that it in any way helps to facilitate debate. I also do not think it's reasonable or constructive to have moderation that enables the targeting and therefore harassment of specific users with the aim of preventing them from participating in the debate. Numerous longtime commenters have been picked off this way, the most recent one being Lass (a person who I often disagreed with but respected, and who deserved the right to speak). This space is less interesting and less useful as a result of their being removed at the behest of angry TRAs and/or regular old blokes who don't like women critiquing the sex industry (which I assume is what happened to Lass).

Apparently MNHQ recently had a big internal conversation about this (or at least they said they were going to), and what has emerged is a continuance of the special rules that only apply to feminists being applied in a way that censors women's opinions and stifles debate in order to avoid upsetting male people with delicate egos. Do we think this is reasonable?

(If I vanish you know why - suspended for insubordination. If I can peak a few more people on the way out then I'm absolutely fine with that. I am still Spartacus.)

[Ineedacupofteadesperately]

I agree with everything everyone has said on this thread. I can't be more articulate because am feeling too tired after dealing with a lot of stuff in real life today to walk on eggshells and what I want to say will be deleted so I'll keep it brief.....

The mods should do the freedom programme.

It's obvious the more articulate posters are being picked off and targeted. It's bullying.

The modding on FWR is clearly different to the rest of the site

[littlbrowndog]

I see all sort of dreadful stuff on AIBU. Slagging of singers , soap stars etc

Yet how do the special men get protected on here.

Why do they get protected.?

[littlbrowndog]

And protected from what. The truth. ?

[LangCleg]

Datun - I'll bet a pound to a penny that, as usual, (straight) answer came there none. Because everyone already knows it's not fair.

[littlbrowndog]

The truth is not a hate crime

[RufusthebewiIderedreindeer]

It's obvious the more articulate posters are being picked off and targeted. It's bullying

Yep

Forgot that one

[TheProdigalKittensReturn]

It's kind of ironic that it's a Widow Twanky joke that's prompted me to go "nope, fuck that, not having this, ban me if you like" but really, it's just so stupid and petty and illustrates the absurdity of the special rules so well.

[TheProdigalKittensReturn]

I see all sort of dreadful stuff on AIBU. Slagging of singers , soap stars etc

I've seen all sorts of nasty stuff about Megan Markle and she's royalty, technically. So apparently in the current British heirarchy of who you really don't dare offend trans people outrank the royals. And isn't that interesting?

[littlbrowndog]

Special rules for special men 🤷‍♀️🤷‍♀️🤷‍♀️

[CharlieParley]

Why do we have to be mindful of the hurt feelings of men claiming womanhood but our hurt feelings at men having the audacity to claim womanhood are not to be considered at all?

Especially given that their claim is to a womanhood which most of us have long since rejected and many have fought against - one that is based entirely on superficial, outdated sex stereotypes.

This is a double insult to women:

• men claiming womanhood

and

• men claiming womanhood by embracing the very same sex stereotypes that the male sex class has used to oppress the female sex class for centuries

And yet we are expected to acquiesce to these insults and to meekly turn the other cheek for even more insults arising from this in the name of "constructive discussion", "civility" and "reasonableness". Or leave. Or be banned if we stay and do not comply.

In my view, it's unreasonable, incivil and not the least bit constructive to force us to accept this.

I am sticking to the rules, because it's MN's space and like all members on membership sites under someone else's control, I am here only on condition of following the rules. Just wanted to say though that my compliance doesn't mean I think these rules are fair, civil or reasonable for women.

[BigotedWoman]

Lass is banned?! What did I miss?

[littlbrowndog]

No she left

[TheProdigalKittensReturn]

I heard about Lass secondhand so don't quote me since I wasn't here at the time, I guess her adamant opposition to the sex industry plus the ability of randoms to report commenters was what finally did it.

[TheProdigalKittensReturn]

And yes, the idea that a simpering smile and some lippy is what makes a woman is grossly insulting to women as a group. Why doesn't our resentment matter?

[FlaviaAlbia]

Lass is gone? That's a loss. I enjoyed the arguments even when I didn't agree with her.

That's bad form from MNHQ. I wonder what went on but there's definitely a lack of consistency in the moderation sometimes and some seem to be more trigger happy than others.

[Milanimilani]

I’m intrigued now. Apart from pointing out how ridiculous the man playing widow twanky looks, what could you have done wrong? ( I didn’t see the original post).

[OhHolyJesus]

The truth is not a hate crime

Oh yes it is

Oh no it isn't

He's behind you

Oh no he isn't

Oh yes he bloody well is

If we all get the chop for this do look me up on Spinster, I'm Lexicon.

[littlbrowndog]

Yeah kittens it is really offensive to me when they claim womenhood
That was excatly how I felt tonight.

Fucking offended

[TheProdigalKittensReturn]

The monitors are on Spinster too and the thought of how much it must frustrate them not to be able to control what women can say fills my Grinchy little heart with glee!

[Mamello]

I really don't understand the bit about being constructive. In all my lurking I've never seen anyone come to these boards in support of the trans position on self ID and want constructive debate. Everything I have seen so far has either been to deconstruct women or be destructive of women (as the class of adult human females) and often children. So what is meant by "constructive' debate?

[Ineedacupofteadesperately]

Great post Charlie

Completely agree with this
Why do we have to be mindful of the hurt feelings of men claiming womanhood but our hurt feelings at men having the audacity to claim womanhood are not to be considered at all?

I think the double standards backfire though. Every time a regular is deleted or banned for something totally ridiculous like making a joke about Widow Twanky then it makes me more determined to give no ground and assert my boundaries and those of my daughters in real life. To conserve all my energies and resources to fight for women and girls only.

[LangCleg]

Lass is banned?! What did I miss?

She left because she got a similarly passive aggressive, gaslighty warning as Kitten did over Widow Twanky joking but about her devilish SWERFish tendencies instead.

[TheProdigalKittensReturn]

Every time a regular is deleted or banned for something totally ridiculous like making a joke about Widow Twanky then it makes me more determined to give no ground and assert my boundaries and those of my daughters in real life.

And that's why I made the thread. The fact that this is happening should make women absolutely bloody furious. Get angry, and then use that anger constructively.

(Note that sitting there meekly while someone pisses all over your boundaries and nitpicks everything you say is not constructive. This should not have to be noted, but apparently it does.)