Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Civility, reasonableness, and those rules

260 replies

TheProdigalKittensReturn · 23/09/2019 20:35

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.)

OP posts:
testing987654321 · 24/09/2019 18:51

I want the truth to be sayable again.

This. Many times over.

On a side note Barracker - Posie Parker wanted to get in touch with you, in case the message hadn't already been passed to you.

Barracker · 24/09/2019 19:29

Sorted, thanks 51testing987654321

FleetsumNJetsum · 24/09/2019 20:47

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

LordRandallXV · 24/09/2019 20:56

Having not read the original post I can't get the full picture, but I can see how some would see comparisons of trans people to Widow Twanky almost being offensive in a gollywog type of way.

Fallingirl · 24/09/2019 21:20

Just popping in to say I initially misread LangClegs post, bottom of page 2, about devilish SWERFish as a type of fish.

I will now cook myself SWERFish and TERFish on a regular basis. It’s my new favourite food, in spite of MNHQs random rules.

Ineedacupofteadesperately · 24/09/2019 21:21

Having not read the original post I can't get the full picture, but I can see how some would see comparisons of trans people to Widow Twanky almost being offensive in a gollywog type of way.

So a man impersonating a woman is offensive to who? Women surely?

Appropriating / apeing / caricaturing womanhood and appropriating / apeing / caricaturing race. Yes, there is a lot to compare there. Obviously both are very bad.

LangCleg · 24/09/2019 21:26

Having not read the original post I can't get the full picture, but I can see how some would see comparisons of trans people to Widow Twanky almost being offensive in a gollywog type of way.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Own goal alert!

powershowerforanhour · 24/09/2019 22:03

Oh, Lass is gone? I disagreed with her on about 70% of stuff but she had the nerve and moral compass to speak her mind. Pity she jumped/ was pushed/same thing.

I'm not familiar with exactly what is allowed under the posting rules- are they the same rules as Mornington Crescent?

Why does every post have to be "constructive"? One must first deconstruct the patriarchy before one builds something new in its place. Or is this board not meant to be for that kind of feminism?

I can mock the Prime Minister on this website. I can call him selfserving, a cheat, a liar and a misogynist. I can call him arrogant, disrespectful and controlling. I can mock the fact that he changed the name he was known by to suit his own manufactured brand and selfserving ends and downplays the names on his birth cert that don't suit his agenda. On the Feminist and Women's Rights board (or NonMeninist Nonthreatening Chinwag board or whatever they want it to be now) am I allowed to do the same to a horrible male who has indicated his glee at the death of a feminist?

Since I'm probably going to get banned at some stage anyway, as I really cannot be arsed to keep up with the latest iteration of the Mornington Crescent rules:

Going by his recent internet activity, that man Rhys McKinnon really is a nasty misogynist piece of work, isn't he?

testing987654321 · 24/09/2019 22:18

Oh good, I am not allowed to talk about what I said that got another message deleted! I am really interested to know who is reporting me, no names were mentioned and I suggested possible robust replies they could have made.

testing987654321 · 24/09/2019 22:20

Tell me to fuck off if you want to, explain to me why I am wrong. Don't just go running to HQ to get me deleted.

LangCleg · 24/09/2019 22:30

I'm not familiar with exactly what is allowed under the posting rules- are they the same rules as Mornington Crescent?

Genius! We can play Mornington Crescent!

My first move is to Stonewall, and I'm invoking the Brian Paddick Clueless Ally reverse manoeuvre. I think you'll find that's acceptable if we're playing the FWR variation.

LangCleg · 24/09/2019 22:31

We should probably rename it Wokeington Crescent?

OccasionalKite · 24/09/2019 22:39

Aha!
But we are reliably informed that you were not wearing a hat when you declared your move!

You are summarily disqualified.

Your move is removed.

LangCleg · 24/09/2019 22:52

Oxford Pride by way of the Layla Moran constituency exception.

Ali1cedowntherabbithole · 24/09/2019 23:10

Invokes the Wilding Davison play to avoid Piccadilly Circus. Heads up to Seven Resisters instead.

LangCleg · 24/09/2019 23:19

Seven Resisters

I'm stealing that! Bed but back with all rule books in the morning!

littlbrowndog · 24/09/2019 23:25

Deleted. Oh ffs

Truth is not wrong or hate. It’s truth

littlbrowndog · 24/09/2019 23:27

But I never got a email of mumsnet to say why 🤦‍♀️🤷‍♀️👿👿👿👿

TheProdigalKittensReturn · 24/09/2019 23:30

At the moment the rules of Mornington Crescent are even more obscure to me than the rules being applied to these deleted comments. Someone want to splain? If we're playing Wokeington Crescent instead then presumably you get extra points for splaining.

OP posts:
LangCleg · 24/09/2019 23:37

You just have to state a destination (with the eventual end destination being Wokeington Crescent - then you win) and cite some non-existent obscure rules. It's just an excuse for puns and jokes. In the original it's tube stations. This one's woke-themed.

3mks · 24/09/2019 23:56

I think the rules are to be to moderate your chat like you would if you were talking in real life to a group of people that includes a trans person. However that stifles debate as there are certain things that cannot be discussed without upsetting some people who are trans especially if it is at all controversial.

However it would be nice if they told us this.

3mks · 25/09/2019 00:01

Also why does that rule not apply to the rest of Mumsnet unless it because most people are not insecure enough to have posts deleted they don't like/agree with.

GrinitchSpinach · 25/09/2019 00:08

On the topic of ‘splaining, I was looking for a Ricky Ricardo gif and this one seemed even more appropriate than the one I sought:

giphy.com/gifs/i-love-lucy-lucille-ball-desi-arnaz-ss99RjaP6lfH2

ermwhatda · 25/09/2019 01:25

I reckon the men's rights activists have infiltrated the mumsnet mods.

perhaps the woke folx want all those nasty terf types to run away to spinster, and then 'mumsnet' can be filled with all those lovely glittery brave broads we used to call 'drag queens'.

nah.

nobody banned me for referring to the royal family as 'parasites', and nobody banned me for suggesting we hang paedophiles. Interesting it is. very interesting.

down with big brother
down with big brother
down with big brother

Creepster · 25/09/2019 02:07

We don’t allow posts which are derogatory or aggressive towards trans people. We believe there are ways to express both opinion and facts without crossing this line.

This is a challenging issue to moderate, and in order to keep hosting it, we ask users to abide by basic principles of civil and constructive debate. Posts comparing trans people to pantomime dames don't help that cause, to be honest.

Mumsnet isn't hosting a debate. That is the problem. They are hosting a discussion board.
MN allows posts that are derogatory or aggressive toward women and Feminists but not towards "trans people" either in general or specific.
Nowhere else on this forum are women treated by MNHQ in the aggressive and derogatory way they are treated on Feminism & Women's Rights.