LangCleg

[dragongirlx]

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)

I’m not liking the absence of a Lang.

Lang has said time and time again that her priority is safeguarding children. This is really bad optics for MUMSNET of all places.

Its deeply concerning.
Safeguarding children & women's rights has always been Lang's priorities. This is the feminism & women's rights board on a parenting website.

This is the feminism & women's rights board on a parenting website.

Where of course our priority should be...men! Anyone with a penis, really. Or who used to have a penis. Y chromosomes rule, etc.

Jesus Christ. This is Orwellian.

Lang is one of the most measured voices on here. Why are users getting banned when they have not breached the guidelines?

HQ is banning people who do not ascribe to their belief system (and will not pretend to).

You are closing down discussions on child safeguarding.

The “Authoritarian Left” today is the Catholic Church of yesterday. Concerned mothers were silenced by the Church too.

Every woman on here talks to at least 10 women offline, who talk to more women...

Worth remembering.

Australia stands in solidarity with LangCleg.

From one of the thousands of women that lurk on FWR and agree with every word Lang’s written, this is shockingly disrespectful after all she’s contributed to the site.

What the fuck is that @DancelikeEmmaGoldman ?!?!?! 🤣

Vegemite on Weetabix is the cruelest thing imaginable.

Lurker alert.

I am new. I would previously (until the JK Rowling tweet caught my attention) have been a ‘live and let live’ kinda girl. I had not considered the danger to women and children. But now I know.

Women argue. But the one thing we will almost exclusively agree on is protecting each other from predatory men. I’ve never met a woman who thinks otherwise.

I can’t help but think this targeted deletion of Lang only emboldens women. I wouldn’t even be here if it wasn’t for the attempted cancellation of JK. All this does is highlights a growing concern. I’d like to think MN’s decision only strengthens voices as powerful as Lang.

Thank you all for the work you’ve already done. I’ll be here, every day. Reading. Learning. Lurking.

Australia has officially won today's culinary abomination award. Sorry, Lang, you just can't compete with that. Salty Weetabix??!

@MNHQ please bring back Lang. If it's true that you're banning women on the instructions of TRAs that's appalling. Can someone tell me how Spinster works?

This is bullshit

Welcome back R0.

And welcome Butterflies.

I hope MNHQ are going to come back & clarify that they’re really not allowing a previously banned poster to tell them what to do.

Extraordinary timing the 70th anniversary of George Orwell's death. I was listening to R4's 'Orwell in Five Words' earlier & can recommend it. Today's episode was 'Truth'
www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000dfqv

Thank you for posting this R0wantrees Who would have imagined that on the anniversary of his death, freedom of speech would be facing an existential threat in the allegedly liberal West? I wonder when the Harry Miller verdict will arrive?

That's not on: she's a brilliant poster.

What? Lang is one of the most reasonable posters on FWR. She has contributed so much to this site and to understanding of safeguarding. Why would you even consider banning her?

@MNHQ you got this very wrong. Please reinstate Lang immediately. This is an obviously disproportionate response to a disagreement with a valued and long standing poster.

Sometimes when women get banned I disagree but can at least see the mods' logic. Even if there were warnings behind the scenes, this particular ban is incomprehensible to your readership and reflects so badly on @MNHQ.

Poor show mumsnet.

DancesLikeEmmaGoldman YOU'RE A MONSTER!

(just kidding, going to the store to pick up some shredded wheat in solidarity. Hey, I'm American, it's the closest I can get without some truly ridiculous shipping prices! The vegemite is definitely an Aussie touch; I wonder if I can turn shredded wheat cereal into a horrible abomination of a hamburger. MURRICUH.)

Why does this already exist?!? I despair.

www.cooks.com/recipe/pk79o87j/shredded-wheat-patties.html

I know that Lang was partial to breakfast abominations but I think that the breakfast cereal stuff on this thread distracts from highlighting what has happened.

Sorry. I do usually enjoy a breakfast thread.

Ready to go, do you suppose breakfast references will be deleted again?
It's really nice to see R0 back

No debate

Good point Mossyrock.

Just adding my voice to say how disappointed I am in this.

The ban wasn't for talking about safeguarding, it was for being critical of the mod team. I mean, I'm sure plenty of the monitors report her safeguarding posts, because god forbid anyone point out the ways in which their "movement" threatens to dismantle vital safeguarding regulations, but that's not what the ban was for. It was for disagreeing with mods, pointing out areas where Lang thinks their decision making is flawed, and then talking back rather than meekly accepting the scolding she was being given.

I sometimes wonder if MNHQ forget that we, the users, are not their children and should not be spoken to as if we were.