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

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

LangCleg

1000 replies

dragongirlx · 21/01/2020 16:37

I am a long time lurker but infrequent poster here but I needed to bring this to everyone's attention.
I have found out that Mumsnet HQ have banned the fabulous LangCleg simply for repeatedly pointing out the repeated times coercive control has been used by the moderators to stop women talking.
I understand it started with a conversation when a post was deleted because she allegedly used a sweeping generalisation but they couldn't or wouldn't confirm the generalisation and when she challenged them they decided to ban her on the basis of previous comments.

So it now seems pointing out coercive control is now grounds for being banned, thus proving that coercive control is being used.

I for one would like @MumsnetHQ to provide an explanation here as this is really not on

(also taking bets on how long before the thread is deleted)

OP posts:
Thread gallery
16
janeskettle · 21/01/2020 21:03

So a man got a woman banned from a parenting website.

A man got a woman with an ability to speak clearly about child safeguarding banned from a parenting website.

A man got a woman with an ability to recognise and explain coercive control banned from a parenting website.

And the parenting website sided with the man, not the woman.

What kind of man seeks to silence women with safeguarding expertise and an understanding of coercive control ?

What kind of website stands with this kind of man ?

RedToothBrush · 21/01/2020 21:03

The thing is, MN wants to have influence with politicians, as its part of its power.

So they can have successful campaigns and profile.

It's falling foul of the same problem lots if journalists are having with the shift to authoritarianism.

The politicians say "we will only give you access / a tip / a story if you play by our rules".

(think Trump and CNN, but this is happening in British politics with all parties).

It sees having politicians coming on to speak to people as important. Except they don't come on to talk to the public, they come on to talk at the public. Because its all about PR not actual engagement.

The trouble is that the media is supposed to serve the public at a grass roots level or it ceases to have its own purpose over time. And its supposed to hold power to account, not serve power.

And its about advertising revenue. What's going on with that? Have some big boots been saying something to MN?

So who is MN trying to please? Who is it trying to appease? And what is its purpose?

Something tells me it's having a crisis of confidence and has forgotten.

There is also the issue of the current government talking about much more control over social media content generally with regard to 'abuse' etc, and tbh I suspect MN are as twitchy as hell over this...

pombear · 21/01/2020 21:04

Hiroo I understand that Hiroo killed people due to his misconstrued beliefs that the war was not over.

I'm not sure that's a great namesake to align to, but you do you.

You use the phrase ''Our cause'. I haven't seen you much around these fields, not that that's an issue, as I'm loving seeing new posters here tonight. There's no single 'our cause', but I'm interested in what that definition means to you.

Tell me, what elements of Lang's discussion that you agreed with?

Agrona · 21/01/2020 21:05

Lang is level headed, a thoughtful poster who identifies salient points and is hated by a certain group because she does not buy their ideology.

This is not a good decision.

Datun · 21/01/2020 21:05

That said, if we cannot continue such debate within certain boundaries then our arguments are delegitimised and this doesn’t do a great deal to further our cause.

Said no safeguarding expert ever.

BuzzShitbagBobbly · 21/01/2020 21:06

a scalp the Monitors and other stirrers were keen to claim.

I have noticed a theme running through the various missives I've had from MNHQ recently - that they are deluged/overwhelmed by reports.

Imagine having such a pointless existence that you spend your days silently refreshing threads on here with the sole goal of reporting. It's really tragic. Come on you lurking monitors - join in, share your facts and reasoning! Convince us with literate argument and evidence.

BabyItsAWildWorld · 21/01/2020 21:07

I'm alternating between depressed and outraged.

How can this be happening.

Journalists please get the story from Langcleg, or better still let her write it.

The Spectator has been doing some great journalism on this issue, I'd love to see an article in there about Mumsnet, FWR and GRA, written by a mumsnetter. Or an ex one.

Spectator journos, please let Langcleg tell the story of MN and coercive control. She'd be amazing and it needs telling.

We will not be silenced.

SophocIestheFox · 21/01/2020 21:08

I’m going nowhere, I’m staying here, and I’m glueing myself to the place with a paste made from Weetabix Horror in homage to Lang.

Now, let’s ponder again what sort of a person thinks talking about safeguarding is undesirable...

donkey86 · 21/01/2020 21:11

Just another (mostly) lurker popping up to add my name to the list of users very disappointed about this. Come on MNHQ. Don’t give in to the twitter bullies.

pombear · 21/01/2020 21:12

Sadly they can't Buzz.

Because each time they visit, their 'facts and reasoning' fall down against some 'mums and others' debate them in a space that can't be 'blocked/dismissed/ignored/deleted'.

Most of the time.

Occasionally they find an achilles heel, such as tonight, where they're able to delete one of the articulate, reasoned, calm and exceptional posters, due to Mumsnet's capitulation, and then they run off to gloat, like 5 year-olds, that they 'won'.

'Literate argument' and 'evidence' is anathema to them. Because they have none.

AllTheLittleAngelsRiseUp · 21/01/2020 21:13

Thanks - to the guy who got LangCleg banned. It's made so many of us step up and delurk.

I'm not the best at carrying the debate - unlike Lang's insightful and incisive posts - but I'll try harder to do my bit to spread the word now!

Thanks LangCleg - articulate, informed, courageous.

ScrimshawTheSecond · 21/01/2020 21:13

Come on you lurking monitors - join in, share your facts and reasoning! Convince us with literate argument and evidence.

I would genuinely welcome this. Good faith discussion. We'll have to come to an agreement at some point, and to do so sooner is in the interests of everyone.

lydiamajora · 21/01/2020 21:14

There's little to say that hasn't already been said, but pour out a drink for LangCleg and all the other excellent posters who have been chucked for BS reasons. MNHQ, your opacity in these matters is tremendously unflattering, as is your willingness to bow to the targeted harrassment aimed at the women here.

I am so very tired of people who believe that being a doormat "nice" is more important than anything else, up to and including their own integrity.

Fuck that. Being nice at the expense of being honest has gotten us where we are today. No more. You can't ban all of us.

Voice0fReason · 21/01/2020 21:14

A poor decision made for the wrong reasons.
Very disappointing that MNHQ aren't prioritising the voices of knowledgable women making clear and compelling arguments.

RedToothBrush · 21/01/2020 21:14

www.bmmagazine.co.uk/news/tech-bosses-could-face-criminal-proceedings-if-they-fail-to-protect-users/?amp
Tech bosses could face criminal proceedings if they fail to protect users

Under the plans, Ofcom will draw up legally enforceable codes of practice that spell out what tech companies need to do to protect users from harmful content. They will cover terrorism, child abuse, illegal drug or weapon sales, cyberbullying, self-harm, harassment, disinformation, violence and pornography. Fines for those that breach the codes could be linked to annual turnover or the volume of illegal material online.

Theresa May’s government held a consultation in the summer on proposals to regulate social media companies. Her weak political position and the lack of parliamentary time because of Brexit meant that legislation was never drawn up.

Boris Johnson put forward new duty-of-care laws in the Conservative manifesto. “We will legislate to make the UK the safest place in the world to be online — protecting children from online abuse and harms, protecting the most vulnerable from accessing harmful content, and ensuring there is no safe space for terrorists to hide online,” the document said.

In the Queen’s Speech this month the government pledged to “develop” legislation in response to the consultation, to which there were more than 2,000 submissions. Voluntary codes of practice will be published before the legislation, in an attempt to curb the use of the internet by terrorists and paedophiles. “This will ensure companies take action now to tackle content that threatens our national security and the physical safety of children,” ministers said.

When the consultation on regulating social media companies was published in the summer there were concerns that it could lead to regulation of the press by the back door. The Tories then made a manifesto commitment to “defending freedom of expression and in particular recognising and defending the invaluable role of the free press”.

Nicky Morgan, who stood down as an MP at the election, was reappointed as culture secretary after being given a peerage by the prime minister. She has backed the principle of a duty of care and said at the Tory conference that she would support a regulatory regime like that imposed on the financial sector.

I would suggest that MN users should consider this, in the context of people like Lang getting banned, and pester Nicky Morgan about how women in particular can be protected and how MN can manage the implications this involves since they don't have the mega revenues that Facebook and Twitter can generate...

ButterisbestLangClegisbetter · 21/01/2020 21:15

Hiroo
I'm absolutely convinced that your cause is not mine. I've no idea why I'm so sure but I am.
As Pombear says, what elements of Lang's discussion did you agree with?

Dolorabelle · 21/01/2020 21:15

Oh no!

LangCleg was a great poster - calm, knowledgeable, patient & kind to new posters in FWR. Always ready to explain things carefully & in detail.

ClocheEncounter · 21/01/2020 21:16

Has HQ confirmed if it’s temporary or permanent yet?

RedToothBrush · 21/01/2020 21:18

I have noticed a theme running through the various missives I've had from MNHQ recently - that they are deluged/overwhelmed by reports.

Imagine having such a pointless existence that you spend your days silently refreshing threads on here with the sole goal of reporting. It's really tragic. Come on you lurking monitors - join in, share your facts and reasoning! Convince us with literate argument and evidence.

I've known of people setting up hundreds of Facebook accounts just to cheat at a Facebook game, merely to 'win'.

If this has been 'gamified' into a bingo sheet of people to ban, then it will have become an obsession and yes it will have got to those kind of levels.

You have to see it to believe it. Nothing would surprise me in terms of how far some people will take it.

pombear · 21/01/2020 21:20

AllTheLittleAngelsRiseUp

You've got this. Whether you do it on here or elsewhere. Don't be worried that you're 'not the best at carrying the debate'.

That's our collective imposter syndrome - many women here know what's going on. We can see it. Whether we're as articulate as Lang or just manage to have a brief conversation with our friends and family, or write to our MP, or write to our local pub who thought Stonewall's directive was legal.

We're carrying each other together, playing to individual strengths, whether that's Maya going to tribunal, Joanna speaking out as an MSP, or an anonymous woman having a conversation with her friends.

Every word counts. It's all important.

As this thread shows. There are some very angry people who don't like women talking about this. Your words, wherever they are, are important.

WireBrushAndDettolMaam · 21/01/2020 21:21

You simply cannot make the Internet a safer place if you keep removing the people who advocate for safeguarding practice. It’s impossible. Each Langcleg that you remove makes the space a little less safe for its other users.

MNHQ really shouldn’t need that pointed out.

The removal of Lang is really not in the spirit of what the site purports to be.

FleetsumNLangCleg · 21/01/2020 21:22

I realised that whatever I thought even if I thought I was alone I never was, because far more people were measured and level headed and just generally pissed off with the gobby dickhead on the Internet. The point was always to be the voice of reason rather than emotive and personal.

The lurkers were always as important as the ones who stuck their heads out against it. And the lurkers were always far more numerous than you realised

Exactly what is happening tonight

AccioWine · 21/01/2020 21:23

Another mainly lurker here signing in to register my non surprise of langcleg being picked off. Far too articulate and knowledgeable to be allowed to stay.

NeurotrashWarrior · 21/01/2020 21:24

Not read full thread but nooooooooooooo!

Stupid decision. Angry

ButterisbestLangClegisbetter · 21/01/2020 21:25

@ClocheEncounter
There's a thread in site stuff and this seems to be a permanent ban

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.