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.)

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

OH MY DAYS.

MN allows posts that are derogatory or aggressive toward women and Feminists but not towards "trans people" either in general or specific.

Thereby creating special people that we cannot talk about.

DON'T MENTION THE SPECIAL PEOPLE, THE ONES WE ARE CENTERING IN FEMINISM BOARDS, THE ONES WITH THE PENISES...

Surely, Pantomime Dames are a parody of women, not Transwomen?

It is a parody of natal women, but it's men dressing up as women so maybe it's a bit too close to home.

Parodying women has been a staple of light entertainment for decades.

It's funny looking back: I used to cringe at Kenny Everett (Cupid Stunt) but laugh at Les Dawson & Roy Barraclough (Cissie & Ada), probably because the first was a lazy mocking visual stereotype, whereas the latter pair (& Dame Edna) were character driven with great acerbic scripts.

Has anyone watched the RuPaul drag race that's due over here soon? I can't help feeling that that's going to be more Kenny than Les.

Yes I agree, panto dames are specifically mocking women... and if Kitten had referenced women (not TW) in her now-deleted comment, then presumably it would have been okay?

But if twaw, as per moderation policy, then shouldn’t TW and women be treated the same? Seems all a bit transphobic to me. The deference shown to TW means they are not being treated like women as all.

but laugh at Les Dawson & Roy Barraclough (Cissie & Ada), probably because the first was a lazy mocking visual stereotype, whereas the latter pair (& Dame Edna) were character driven with great acerbic scripts.

Yes, it can be quite difficult to articulate why some characters are enjoyable (like Cissie & Ada, or Lily Savage) while others are insulting, and just an opportunity to be nasty about women.

Yes, it can be quite difficult to articulate why some characters are enjoyable (like Cissie & Ada, or Lily Savage) while others are insulting, and just an opportunity to be nasty about women.

Comedy skills. That's my theory.

The Two Ronnies too. I wonder if it's because the non-cringeworthy ones were clearly just very funny non-threatening men, whereas some of the others perhaps took the dressing up to a different level. Knowing what I now know about AGP, I'm starting to look back with a whole new perspective.

Do you watch Upstart Crow? Thinking about it, the character who always insists on being the woman had my cringiness meter on full alert. Ben Elton being oh-so-subtly subversive

were clearly just very funny non-threatening men

While Paul O'Grady is a non-threatening man, I wouldn't like to meet Lily Savage in a dark alley 😂😂😂 I'm sad that he gave up doing the character, but I suspect he started to see it as being too much like drag - even though it isn't.

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.

I remember there being something of that nature if there was a trans person actually participating on a thread, or ( eg Paris lees speaking at an MN event a couple of years ago) the person had some direct relationship with MN so should be treated as a guest.

What it seems more like now is moderating your talk as if there were eavesdroppers who'd report you to the authorities. Or newspapers being censored. Big Brother indeed.

But I never got a email of mumsnet to say why

That seems a common theme with FWR deletions, either you get no email, or you get an email with the mod name and reason missing.

Just adding my voice to say that this is shit.
I rarely post because of the ever changing secret rules.
I won't be silenced though, so this just means that I have more time to be a nuisance elsewhere.
This thread has prompted me to write another letter to my MP re Brighton.
See, volunteer moderators - you crush us down, we just pop up again in a different place.
Mumsnet has a choice about how it is remembered when this all comes out in the wash.

I got deleted just once, AFAIK, which isn't that terrible if it hadn't been for something that broke no rules at all. I had merely confirmed another poster's story of issues arising in the women's sector (specifically services for survivors of male violence) by adding what a service local to me had told me (without giving away specific information that could have identified anyone). I still wasn't generalising or deragotory. No deletion message, nothing at all.

I think you only get a message if the mod team is working their way up to suspending you. Which is lovely.

There was a stage when our Twitter monitors started following us around the boards trying to find stuff to get us deleted for.

I got deleted for an allegedly racist post. I'd made a self-deprecating joke about the British being renowned for their bad cookery. I am British! It got reinstated when I queried it, with an apology.

But it shows the lengths these people will go to. It also means I now name change relatively frequently which is a bit of a bummer when you feel like you've "got to know" posters under one name then of course they don't recognize you under your new name.

I think the AGP version of Mornington Crescent would always end at Cockfosters.

I think the AGP version of Mornington Crescent would always end at Cockfosters.

Whereas Trudeau has misstepped from Canada Watered down women's rights to Moorgate.

Nowhere else on this forum are women treated by MNHQ in the aggressive and derogatory way they are treated on Feminism & Women's Rights.

This, in the end, is the crux of it.

MNHQ - I genuinely believe this to be true. I can't believe it isn't a matter of shame for you and I can't understand why you're always promising Special Office Discussions yet substantive responses to the posts made on threads like these, which are becoming more and more common, are never forthcoming. You know what that looks like, don't you? It looks like you know everything we say is true.

Bravo Errol

Nowhere else on this forum are women treated by MNHQ in the aggressive and derogatory way they are treated on Feminism & Women's Rights

True and very telling

Society always dislikes feminists (a.k.a. Bloody difficult women), it’s sad to see a site run primarily by and for women falling into this groove

Thanks Errol that is an better explanation.

I wonder how many posts on other parts of the forum are reported and if there is a higher percentage on this. AIBU is very offensive sometimes, but if no one reports they won't be removed.

Eavesdropping is an accurate description. It aligns in my mind with creepiness.

So much better to debate.

I can’t remember who suggested it, but referring to TW by their surnames gets around a lot of pronoun issues.

Shut up and be compliant, you rude bolshy upstart women. The modding rules are perfectly consistent:

We have always been at war with Eastasia.

We have always been at war with Eastasia.

We have always been at war with Eurasia.

It seems our courts are doing a good job this week.

And know what a woman is.

www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/TT-and-YY-APPROVED-Substantive-Judgment-McF-23.9.19.pdf