Lang Cleg 2

[TiredofthisBSbutIstandwithLang]

New thread as we got to 1000.

One of the ways you can tell whether it's control, is the effect, and the effect is booting out a safeguarding proponent from a massively public parenting website

Working backwards doesn't necessarily lead to the correct starting point. Some times results are just the unintended consquences of a series of actions. Sometimes they're the desired outcome but by luck rather than planning.

Telling MNHQ over and over again that their moderators are victims could well be seen by MNHQ to be gaslighting. Maybe both are true but it's equally possible neither are.

I have it in my power to get myself banned from MN, I don't have it in my power to get anyone else banned. I simply don't believe that TRAs are any different or hold any additional power. What MNHQ do have to balance is the needs of any employees who hold gender critical views with those who believe TWAW. That is an employer's duty first and foremost to their employees and I think we may be seeing that duty being reflected in how they moderate. I honestly don't believe what we are seeing is policy and guidelines driven by coercive control but rather being influenced by a duty to ensure a respectful working environment which requires balance. And that has to carry over on screen.

And yes, MN are walking a tightrope but they very much handed control to FWR over whether they fell off. As I recall the discussion was that they were happy to host the debate and would stand fast against those who wanted it shut down but that in return, they needed us to be essentially respectful, considerate and mindful. They asked us to help them do their job. Is that what happened ?

If you think they’re not treating you the way you wish to be treated you’re free to go.

It would be interesting to see the effect on Mumsnet if it happened. I think it would be minimal. Some people here forget that they're actually a tiny - often avoided by other members - section of the site.

Interesting Bernard. I haven’t said anything on the topic, but way to go with the mind-reading inventiveness.

In fact, I’m sticking up for some women upholding their boundaries in the face of being treated unreasonably by someone.

They’ve been very polite for a long time, and now they’ve chosen to go no contact and ban the person who was making them feel awful from their place.

Lots of posters are telling them they’ve actually only done this because of some other people manipulating them, and that they should let the person who was making them feel crappy on a regular basis back in, because the rest of you who are still on the inside having fun want to carry on with your buddy, even though she’s been making the hosts feel really awful for a long time.

MNHQ have stood up for their own boundaries. They do not consent to be subject to poor treatment by a guest in their place. They’re done with asking politely, have said no and asked Lang to leave.

I genuinely don’t see how it is a rude, or a hurtful accusation - I really don’t, I’m not being deliberately antagonistic. Can you walk us through why you feel it is?

I think being told regularly and insistently that you are "abusing and harassing women" in the course of your job is something that any decent person would find deeply distressing.

It also of course implies that moderators are too foolish or stupid to realise that they are being manipulated, unlike the incredibly wise poster. It's very patronising.

We talk a lot on this board about centreing women. MNHQ are quite right to centre their staff.

Bold statement to make Snowblight. Are you sure about that? Can you tell me how much traffic this tiny, insignificant board gets you can Year?

It seems fair enough that they aren’t willing to continue to host people who continue, (after being listened to, and reassured that that’s not what’s happening, and asked nicely to stop, and given lots of chances) to tell them regularly and insistently that they are being abusive and controlling and are themselves victims of control

LangCleg wrote Thu 21-Feb-19

"How did the scandal of TV entertainers grooming and exploiting children get so bad before anything was done?

How did the scandal of Catholic priests grooming and exploiting children get so bad before anything was done?

How did the scandal of on-street gangs grooming and exploiting children get so bad before anything was done?

Because if you create a sacred caste of any group and silence anyone asking questions about individuals on behalf of the sacred caste, abusers will see, infiltrate, and groom and exploit children. That''s how."

How many people raise Safeguarding concerns, whistle blow risks, identify abuse & "after being listened to, and reassured that that’s not what’s happening, and asked nicely to stop and given lots of chances" are silenced/dismissed/smeared etc?

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3512177-Julia-Long-asking-Munro-Bergdorf-about-child-exploitation?pg=12

an FB friend has confirmed that they have been given a permanent ban
no warning no nothing
for their comments on the first of these threads

they had been on MN for over ten years

R0, that’s lovely copying and pasting, but what’s your actual point?

The twitter screenshots are really creepy

How many people raise Safeguarding concerns, whistle blow risks, identify abuse & "after being listened to, and reassured that that’s not what’s happening, and asked nicely to stop and given lots of chances" are silenced/dismissed/smeared etc?
Precisely.
And there we have why certain people like 'No debate'.
Otherwise - we'd all be free to talk. Right?

It also of course implies that moderators are too foolish or stupid to realise that they are being manipulated, unlike the incredibly wise poster. It's very patronising

People are not manipulated or become victims of abuse /coercive control because they are "foolish" or "stupid"
To suggest that demonstrates a woeful lack of respect & understanding.

Some people here forget that they're actually a tiny - often avoided by other members - section of the site.

Where do you get the idea FWR is tiny Snowblight? I hate to dissapoint but the traffic to this board is consistently huge (hint it's not eleven )

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3606948-traffic-to-the-fwr-board

Seriously though, JPs focus on Lang has crossed the line, it seems personal to me

So what's the solution then ?

LangCleg gets unbanned. That's only a small part of it. How do posters see this playing out long term ? How do MNHQ moderate in a way that allows everyone to have their say ? Because it's not their role to take sides.

I must say though, great to see so many de lurkers, and especially wonderful to see R0 back.

And we’re off with the “we see you” and “interesting accounts springing up” and “silencing women” and “telling women to STFU”

Troll hunting, undermining, discrediting. Every. Single. Time.

I can take on board comments about treating moderators with courtesy.
But when posters try and make out that this is a tiny, insignifcant board then you really have to laugh.
TRA Twitter is obsessed with this board. Obsessed. Now why would that be if it were really so insignificant?

No. I'm not going anywhere either.
I will not be bullied out of a place I've felt safe for 9 years. And I will not be told that men can infiltrate my personal space. That is not trans phobic. It's securing the safety of myself and my 8 year old daughter against persons who may have fetishes who then may exploit 'loopholes' eg M&S flagrant disregard for female only spaces and being told how to feel
I could go on. I could go on all night. Most of it is falling way short of anyone who gives a hoot about safeguarding.
And this is why I've also left the Girl Guides.

Retrofitted

Did you miss the points, they're very important so will gladly repost:

*LangCleg's point: "if you create a sacred caste of any group and silence anyone asking questions about individuals on behalf of the sacred caste, abusers will see, infiltrate, and groom and exploit children. That''s how."

my point: How many people raise Safeguarding concerns, whistle blow risks, identify abuse & "after being listened to, and reassured that that’s not what’s happening, and asked nicely to stop and given lots of chances" are silenced/dismissed/smeared etc?

Retrofitted. Hmm - this is what I said:
When just telling women to 'shut up' didn't work they used other methods. Some sneaky, like they're doing here. Some more overt - getting talks shut down, getting people fired, threatening violence, banging on windows, Pissing on doorways, being actually violent...
Are you saying that it's not true?

I stand to be corrected, but I understood from another thread somewhere that when women see or hear something of which they disapprove, we are advised to tut, look away and remove ourselves from the problem.