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.)

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.

Ah, so she jumped before she was pushed? Join me, Lass, in pointing out how bloody ridiculous it all is!

Telling women off for being against the exploitation of women on a feminist forum on a parenting site. Do you even hear yourselves, MNHQ?

Note that sitting there meekly while someone pisses all over your boundaries and nitpicks everything you say is not constructive.

I'd really like to know how this is possibly seen as constructive.

Constructive is not a synonym for compliant.

I really missed Lass on the recent thread about strip clubs.

Of the deleted posts of hers I read before deletion, none of them seemed particularly problematic - have seen far, far worse on AIBU.

Think what happened was unfair, plus there are always complaints that we all agree too much and are an 'echo chamber' and I do wonder if they picked off Lass as the poster who most clearly gave the lie to that particular bullshit.

And that person on the telly programme has said publicly that the person tried to strangle the persons wife because the person was under stress living a lie

The persons kids bursting into the bedroom stopped the strangling

Jeez

Imagine being the child who's now expected to call the person who tried to strangle your mum "mum".

The ugly sisters didn’t stop Cinderella going to the ball.

Though, to paraphrase a recent radio trailer for The Testements, they came for the intelligent women first.

Everytime there is an attempt to stop us having a debate, I become more determined to speak out.

Is that not what’s called male violence against women and girls ?

Also I will note that the last time I saw that particular person on telly that person was sexually harassing someone (a boxer) who I believe they used to manage. The person doing the harassing was white and the person being harassed was black. Nope, no power dynamics being leveraged by people claiming to be the most vulnerable group in society to see here!

I'm as usual agreeing with those who have posted before me. I think things is a useful place for people to get to grips with so many feminist issues but the arbitrary and unclear rules are the definition of unfairness.

BigotedWoman, I was on holiday so missed it, but I think Lass jumped before she was pushed. I also miss her posts.

I guess the requirement to be constructive is yet another secret rule that only applies on FWR.

We asked for more transparency a while back. Still waiting for a definitive reply. Although I have stopped waiting and now post where my contribution is welcome, rather than tolerated for the click count.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/site_stuff/3674784-Deleted-posts-Suspension-warnings-FWR?

Not even bothering to link the offending thread because filling in the template that you use to threaten users is too much work is a particularly striking display of contempt, imo. And we should keep calling them out on it (or the rest of you should once I get my inevitable "how very dare you talk back to us?" go well in the morning).

kittens, I do genuinely think they sometimes have knee-jerk reactions to things. Probably due to the number of reports, as effective posters like you get massively targeted.

And sometimes, after reflection, they see it. Fingers crossed.

The thing is, I'm not going to pretend that I think those rules are reasonable. They're not reasonable, and they're also impossible to apply consistently or effectively. This current incident is just one in a long line of the mods allowing commenters to be picked off one by one, and the fact that they expect us to grovel and beg to still be allowed to comment when they do something like this is completely unreasonable.

If they suspend or ban me, fine, whatever, what I want people to look at is the pattern here. I want everyone to understand what it means, and I would particularly like MNHQ to grasp the fact that forcing their users to tell lies and walk on eggshells is not in any way civil or kind. It's controlling, coercive behavior and any site that's promoting the Freedom Program at the same time as doing it should be ashamed of itself.

I hardly ever post on FWR threads but read / lurk a lot and this has really caught my attention. There is definitely one set of rules and implementation here and another for the rest of Talk. It’s very obvious even to an amateur like me.

Exactly. My point here is that "feminists be very careful what you say, everyone else as you were" is not a good look for a site with the word "mum" in its name, and is particularly unfortunate when your founder is giving interviews about how you support women and freedom of speech.

It may be that all the moderation team are from relatively more comfortable backgrounds, and have never known someone who has (e.g.) been homeless or incarcerated etc?

Thus, they do not appreciate how predatory males can so easily take advantage of trans policies to access women and children.

Separate homeless shelters would help keep everyone safe, but we can hardly even discuss that without being deleted.

Under "inclusive" policies if you are a transwidow whose ex used to hit you and you flee to a shelter, not only can your ex follow you right in, if you complain the official policy of at least some organizations would be to ask you to leave.

Morning mods will be on soon so we'll see what lovely new warnings are coming my way.

Yes I’m aware of a women having to leave shelters in this context.

Don’t get banned Kitten!

Not even bothering to link the offending thread because filling in the template that you use to threaten users is too much work is a particularly striking display of contempt, imo.

@MNHQ - seriously?! That's on a par with the "how dare you be uncivil when a transactivist posts dancing on grave gifs when an influential young feminist dies" deletion message!

Come on now.

You know the status quo is not working here. If you're going to continue to impose it, don't you think basic standards of courtesy and civility also apply to staffers?

@donquixotedelamancha

I want to be respectful of the rules, I think there is some advantage to rules which limit the obvious transphobe trolls (real or not). But I think it's really wrong insisting women miss-sex predators who are clearly driven by a hatred of women; like Yaniv, White or Hayden. I wish they'd operate a little more judgement.

I find it really wrong that women are forced to mis-sex anyone. Compelling us to deny our own reality, compelling us to pretend that men are women, is the greatest mind-fuck ever, the ultimate annihilation of women, putting us back in our box, showing that they can 'woman' better than we can. In their heads, anyway.

I will never do it. Never.

A conclusion I'm increasingly coming to is that many of the men adhering to this ideology are autogyneaphiles - they are acting out a fetish. The transwidows thread is very eye opening in that respect

Attempting to compel women to use female pronouns for these men, and to go out of our way to 'make them welcome' in spaces like MN, predominantly used by women, is compelling women to stoke these men's fetishes. I don't consider that to be reasonable or civil to women

As discussed on a thread earlier this week, how on earth do you deal with someone who is trying to make you participate in their fetish against your will?

If a person has made themselves look objectively ridiculous in public (I'm thinking of say, adult babies or puppy play types here too, not just AGP males), or is behaving ridiculously (ditto) with the intention of roping bystanders into their fetish, ridicule is an appropriate defence.

It might upset men to be ridiculed MNHQ, but since when was championing the rights of men to be unchallenged when behaving ridiculously part of your ethos?

I'm also unsure why being nice means that we should be forced to miss-sex someone. I see a lot of people taking that sort of well it's OK to call the nasty ones men approach and I don't understand how they think that's a workable way of doing things or if it's just a misguided attempt at rewarding some people for not being shitheads.

Chasers too, Bernard, in terms of the supporters who're not identifying as trans themselves. But then the theory goes that the chasers are mostly AGP themselves so you're back in the fetish infinity loop.