mumsnet listed as a source of trolling in survey of women charity CEOs

[stumbledin]

“Multiple tweets, emails, mumsnet and Facebook posts calling me names such as child abuser and paedophile.”

www.socialceos.org/our-survey-on-trolling-in-the-charity-sector-with-acevo/

Taking your child to Thailand to have them castrated in a procedure illegal in the UK - and now illegal in Thailand = not abuse.

Mentioning that this happened = abuse.

It's weird that they use the word trolling to describe both targeted harrassment and mean posts on Facebook and Mumsnet.

Going on to someone's website, forum, or social media page and repeatedly sending/posting messages designed to infuriate or hurt that person is trolling. Complaining about that same person elsewhere, without interacting with them directly, is not. It might be hurtful, but it isn't harrassment.

"I had to report one person to the police"

Maybe add:
"Because she spoke the truth, and starting a witch hunt deflected from my guilt."

Yeah we all remember the police investigation of Posie Parker, which in part made PP notorious and has since given rise to many more outspoken gender critical feminists.
Nice own goal there, Suzie.

(AFAIK no one has actually accused her of being a paedophile, surely? A child abuser maybe, but not one of the sex-abuse variety. So that's just more hyperbole and spin).

I remember a post of mine on Mumsnet got deleted for suggesting that maybe SG might have a type of mental illness starting with M. So "trolling" is really overstretching.

MN are pretty heavy handed in deleting any incriminating posts about SG, because she monitors so closely.

Also, as PP said, if you're not directly engaging with the person it isn't trolling them.

What's trolling, is calling the police over a Tweet you made, revealing the names of your children to all your followers, following every account you set up online and reporting you repeatedly over every post, aiming to get you banned from all social media by crying 'phobia where there is none, bothering social media HQ to the extent they just ban you to avoid the work load.

In my view if one doesn't wish random strangers to discuss their controversial choices it is best not to plaster those choices all over the media.

"Pay attention to me!!"

"Wait, not like that."

'negative' responses/comments does not = abuse.

If you are in the public eye and share a public video laughing about your teenage child's body, then it will be discussed in the public arena.

Share a video publicly..

I don’t think it’s necessarily sensible to drag everything back to TRAs. We don’t know who made the remark that mentions MN. There are lots of charities that get slated on here. NSPCC, Greenpeace, that Christmas Box one, Salvation Army, etc.

There’s also a lot of positive stuff about charities on here too, but Mumsnet is generally a place where people come to talk about the things that don’t work more than the things that do.

There is going to be a higher percentage of women running charities than have leadership positions in other organizations. We should perhaps also be talking about the problems for them - like the comment in the report about the mail volunteer harassing the CEO after being let go.

I don’t think it’s necessarily sensible to drag everything back to TRAs. We don’t know who made the remark that mentions MN.

It is very obviously Susie Green. There is no one else it could be.

That one comment (in OP) was 100% DG, but the other comments in the article it's not clear who it could be. Many of the other comments are quite disturbing, including misogynistic abuse.

But, then we have Oxfam and other charity "Aid workers" raping children in the Dominican republic, Northern Africa, Eastern Asia, and probably everywhere else, so my sympathies aren't exactly with those being called out for abusing children.

I'd say if you are complicit in child abuse you deserve to be insulted.

^DG
meant SG

Having been approached by a number of female charity CEOs who had experienced trolling, Social CEOs and ACEVO decided to undertake a joint survey to obtain initial findings into the experience of these women...

Beep beep beep - so the CEOs approached them to say they had suffered trolling. I wonder if any admitted their own actions or trollery?

Self recommendation is no basis for a survey, therefore it is irrelevant.

AFAIK no one has actually accused her of being a paedophile, surely?

I think she might mean that time a couple of years ago when Mermaids had a stall at a Sparkle event and were enticing children with puppies and sweeties.

IIRC some people creatively pointed out the fucking shocking optics of this approach, but no, nobody called her a paedophile.

Why would they when there are enough actual paedophiles riding the coat tails of the trans rights movement?

It is possible she was called a paedophile on Facebook or some other site. This isn't just about Mumsnet and the way she is spoken of here is incredibly mild compared to what people call her in the real world.

Just to say I didn't post this to make it a thread about SG, but more an alert that whatever we think about being on mumsent, good, bad, indifferent, and the "rules" that by and large comments about mumsnet in the media are nearly always negative.

For all we know the comment above wasn't said by anyone on mumsnet but the person who was commenting just lumps mumsnet in being a source of ill informed prejudice.

Not suggesting mumsnet gets a PR firm in(!!) but it is very obvious, as with anything women focused, that it is nearly always referred to in a disparaging way.

What I did illustrates that adopting a tabloid editoring approach, ie I titled the article with the most eye catching comment, leads to obscuring the details of an article.

The worry is so many people get their "news" via screaming headlines and nothing else.

”The survey ran from 20 August-17 September 2019. We had 27 in depth responses. We recognise that this is a small non-representative sample with limited diversity.”

In the following pie chart it states 48% said they had experienced trolling, so 13 people are the detailed respondents here. Tiny, tiny figures from the thousands of Charity Directors across the UK...

Sounds like a really meaningful survey...

This is interesting

Inappropriate behaviour
• “Lots of requests to ‘follow’ from men on linked in and twitter. These might be algorithms- not sure but it is unpleasant.”
• Specific DMs from men on twitter…..with photos or sleazy introductions of themselves.”

Personal, targeted attacks
• “On Twitter, when I use the hashtag feminism, or when I talk about why it is important to empower women, I get random tweets attacking me and my ideological position. There have been quite a few and I have just chosen to ignore.
• “In one specific case however, I had a male volunteer who had questionable behaviour, and I dismissed him (I had consulted a lawyer and we dismissed him within reasonable grounds). He kept messaging me on Facebook and even though I blocked him, he found other ways to contact me e.g. email, WhatsApp, etc. It was causing me a lot of stress and I worried that he would know my location and keep track of me in person. It fizzled out after a week but it caused me a great deal of stress and anxiety. From then on I was also more cautious of establishing one to one contact with male volunteers.”

Specific mentions of men basically using the public charity profile it as a way of harassing women and the inevitable Twitter pile-on attacking a Feminist for her views. Would love to listen to SG at the roundtable event with some of the other CEO respondents discussing the pros and cons of social media.

I've been mulling this over, and am concerned now that in fact the survey write up should be challenged on the basis that women expressing opinions on mumsnet are not trolling.

And it really is irrelevant whether that remark was from SG, the point is that they have publised something which is one person's opinion as though it were fact.

As we know if anyone directly accused someone by name of a crime on mumsnet it would get deleted.

So not sure whether to email the writer of the article (listed at the end) or contact MNHQ to say they should challenge it.

And as someone up thread has said their definition of trolling is very strange.

re number of female CEO. In fact it has been a problem in the voluntary and charity sector that although staff and volunteers are predominantly women, needless to say CEOs and Board Members are more likely to be male.

I reckon you should report this thread to MNHQ and let them decide what, if anything, they want to do about it.

I'm not in the least senior in my job but as more of my friends reach a senior level in our 50s, I am truly shocked at the amount of direct and indirect sexist harassment that many of them experience. Including straightforwardly criminal acts in many cases (ie not a flood of tweets).

I disagree so deeply with SG on this issue that you cant see my head from me shaking it backwards and forwards, but I'll bet she has had some horrible harassment.

stumbledin - I've been mulling this over, and am concerned now that in fact the survey write up should be challenged on the basis that women expressing opinions on mumsnet are not trolling.

The thread title is: mumsnet listed as a source of trolling in survey of women charity CEOs

I was not challenging the survey - I have absolutely zero doubt that female CEOs suffer intense abuse, including SG. I was responding to the title you chose for this thread.

I condemn things like doxxing, threats, etc, but when you are a public figure your actions are going to be discussed online. That is not trolling, however unpleasant it may be.

CEOs and Board Members are more likely to be male. yes, but there are still a higher percentage of female charity leaders than female leaders of businesses.

There’s plenty of stuff in that report that ought to concern feminists for the sake of the female CEOs that are in the non-profit sector. Dissing it because there is one quite that says they slagged off in posts on MN (as well as facebook and twitter) is playground style stomp footed mardiness. It’s not as though people don’t get slagged off on MN. They do. Even if it’s truthful stuff that’s posted it can still be done in a way that can be considered pretty awful - here and on other Internet sites. It was a preliminary survey looking at something that CEOs of charities were concerned about and they’ve now got some stuff to look at. Maybe we should be directing their attention to the sexual harassment that some of their female CEOs are experiencing instead of getting up in arms (again) over something that we have already flogged to death on here.