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/

*one quote that says they were slagged off in posts

BoomBoomCousin - 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.

The original poster said this:

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

If the op had wanted us to discuss the study as a whole, and the abuse that female CEOs (and, really, most prominent women) face online, then the thread title would have been very different. If you start a thread specifically about mumsnet being mentioned in a study about trolling, you're going to get replies which address that, rather than the study as a whole.

If you start a thread specifically about mumsnet being mentioned in a study about trolling, you're going to get replies which address that, rather than the study as a whole.

But the comments aren't, for the most part, about that.

The OP was highlighting the way MN is portrayed in the media in a negative light. I think there can be some truth to that but I'm not sure how much of a concern it is. I would also note that it is portrayed as a powerful platform - on a par with Facebook and Twitter, both hugely influential despite also being subject to significant criticism. That's not something that generally happens to female-dominated platforms or media.

Frankly I think Mumsnet gets the rep it does because of its association with 1) mums and 2) GC feminism (aka the bad, meaniepants kind of feminism). Mumsnet also wields some degree of power, so is scrutinized in a way that other forums like Lipstick Alley and Data Lounge are not. I have seen a lot of shit on LA and DL that would absolutely be deleted if posted here.

There's just not a whole lot you can do about those negative associations without shutting up about motherhood and feminism altogether, so I don't worry about it too much. Hell, sometimes it's a good thing. Constantly banging on about how awful Mumsnet is ensures that new people are constantly coming over to rubberneck. The more overblown the hyperbole, the more jarring it is when you see for yourself what women are actually saying.

I know lots of posters here, myself included, originally visited this site in order to witness for themselves the unspeakable horrors of the House on Mumsnet Hill, only to find a group of people making mostly reasonable arguments about women's rights.

And I know not everything revolves around trans issues and people get sick of talking about it, but in this case it is undoubtably a major factor in influencing how Mumsnet is perceived and reported upon.

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.

We can and should do both.

There was also Julie Bentley formerly of Girl Guiding UK and Ruth Hunt of Stonewall (both left those roles now) who introduced specific policies which got criticised on MN and elsewhere because of fears of very negative impacts on women and children arising from those policies. There was the usual very heavy moderation in MN around those discussions and reporting of posts so it’s not credible that anything genuinely abusive would have been left to stand, if it was ever there. Most MNers want discussion threads to stand, but the forum is open to anyone to post on.

I can well believe women CEOs in charities disproportionately attract abuse and threats online because of their sex and it’s really good the issue is being looked at.

But I don’t think the survey questions that are being reported on here cover everything that would be relevant in unpicking the difference between fair comment and unfair comment or abuse, which is necessary context.

It’s also never (or shouldn’t be) just the CEO acting alone in a charity that sets the policy, the Trustees do that and the CEO carries them out. So there should be formal and informal solidarity and trustee support for CEOs leading on new or controversial policy directions. But that key relationship wasn’t mentioned in the report.

I didn’t spot any definition of ‘trolling’ either so it’s hard to know if this label also includes fair criticism of policies that undermine safeguarding, for example. Hopefully, the planned follow up event that they mention will produce more reports that are a bit more in depth so they can be read properly in context.

Charities are not un touchable - they are not above the law or criticism or questioning.

Of course no one should be attacked (and I’ve seen some coming from charities themselves). But questions are bit attacked. Disagreement is not attacks. Facts are not attacks.

Mermaids is a lobbying organisation as well as a charity, and which adopts quite a controversial por-affirmation stance. SG appears to regularly use her own family experience as part of the rationale: the better than a dead child thing, including being the basis of a major TV drama.

We can, and should, question the suicide stats that are trotted out. We equally should be able to question other factors behind the Mermaids policy approach. SG put her family in the public domain.

Which does not condone any nastiness. However we should be able question why SG is seemingly so opposed to the watchful waiting approach that is more natural for many parents.

I haven't done anything further.

My main concern was that someone had used an anonymous responde on a survey to smear mumsnet as a source of trolling.

It is unprofessional of the survey organisers to not get some validation of comments made. It undermines what they are trying to do.

But I think it is a fairly minor news source, so maybe not worth bothering about.

Although I bit in years to come this comment will be used as a reference point to "validate" the contrived perception that mumsnet is just full of rabid stay at home mums who aren't in touch with real life.