Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Lang Cleg 2

999 replies

TiredofthisBSbutIstandwithLang · 22/01/2020 12:17

New thread as we got to 1000.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
11
NewYearsHumberElla · 22/01/2020 19:41

actually a tiny - often avoided by other members - section of the site

Good to see you here boosting our numbers then snowblight

(Again)

BernardBlackMissesLangCleg · 22/01/2020 19:42

How do MNHQ moderate in a way that allows everyone to have their say?

they allow women to use male pronouns for males

they allow women to notice and discuss when males are exhibiting typically male patterns of controlling and abusive behaviour

they allow people who want to use female pronouns for males to do so

they allow people who want to put counter arguments to do so

Thinkingabout1t · 22/01/2020 19:43

Dear Justine, thanks for responding personally. I've noted your reasons for banning LangCleg and I completely agree that you should not tolerate rudeness towards your team.

I'm wondering, though, was LangCleg actually being rude, or are you mistaking disagreement for aggression? (I know it's irritating when someone keeps disagreeing with you. And of course you can point out that you set Mumsnet up, and if anyone doesn't like the rules they don't have to use Mumsnet.)

But this is a special case. Child safeguarding and women's rights are under an extraordinary attack at present. The extraordinary aspect is not only the relentlessness of the attack, but the immediate surrender of the entire establishment! Mumsnet is one of the few large forums where women can openly discuss their concerns and reactions to what's being done at such bewildering speed.

We need people like LangCleg and all those posters sharing their knowledge, expertise, analysis and other skills.

It's not a trivial matter, or a question of differing views.
Children are being encouraged into crushing their breasts, taking drugs that haven't been tested for this use, eventually having unnecessary surgery.
Girls whose social-media role models are porn stars are dreading their future as women, and see 'changing gender' as an escape route.
Gay and autistic children are misled into thinking they're in 'the wrong body'.

Justine, if women such as LangCleg are refusing to stop disagreeing with you, will you not consider that they may be right? that you should allow this information and debate to be posted even if it angers TRAs and their supporters?

I know Mumsnet too is under attack, as the TRAs can frighten off advertisers. But with children at so much risk, can you bear to end up feeling you should have done more and allowed others to do more to protect them?

ChristmassySpice · 22/01/2020 19:45

What @Thinkingabout1t said.
x 1000

LANGsteinsArousedCLEGagesHCB · 22/01/2020 19:49

Bloody hell, both threads moved quickly and I've not had chance to fully catch up yet, but....

the distinction doesn't feel very important when you're on the receiving end of it.

What the fuckity fuck? Of course distinction is important. For one, it puts a stop to leaving things open to interpretation. Reducing the risk of a misunderstanding and leaving a person open to false accusations and character assassinations.

If I committed a serious crime, the distinction between my actions and behaviour would be extremely important at establishing if I committed the crime with intent or not.

Distinction is fucking important!

Rant aside, as a FWR lurker; one day I hope to grow up to become an intelligent, articulate, informed poster. Like LangCleg, for example.

Retrofitted · 22/01/2020 19:50

Lang has not been silenced for talking about safeguarding. She’s been hoofed off a forum for persistently refusing to stay inside the guidelines for acceptable use and for making the hosts feel awful.

They listened to her, heard her out, looked into it, concluded that she was mistaken, and asked her to stop making them feel awful.

They’re not silencing her by telling her she isn’t welcome in their forum any more. They’re setting their boundaries on behaviours that harm their staff team.

People who talk about safeguarding concerns are not a sacred caste. They are not excused or given immunity to do as they please because they happen to also talk about safeguarding.

CousinKrispy · 22/01/2020 19:51

I object very strongly to the suggestion that it's automatically patronising or belittling to be told that you MAY be the target of coercive control.

As I stated before, there is nothing to be ashamed of in that. Having been the target of control and manipulation does NOT mean you are stupid or weak.

None of us know all of the messages the mods have received, from Lang or from anyone else. Any more than anyone on the Relationships board knows the entire context of a poster's relationship. So we don't know for certain who is in the right (or if it's even as simple as that).

However, many women still receive valuable, life-changing advice on Relationships, because posters with useful insight, training, or life experience are willing to offer the best advice they can based on what information they do have. MumsnetHQ should be tremendously proud of this.

Why is this type of advice suddenly to be viewed as patronising and insulting and aggressive?

Cwenthryth · 22/01/2020 19:52

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.

  1. I think this is bit of a strawman as I don’t think this is what has happened, although there may be misunderstanding on MNHQ/the moderators part.
  2. Actually, no, if I thought the ‘accusation was bullshit I’d find it annoying, inconvenient, but not ‘deeply distressing’ because I wouldn’t believe it was true. Especially in a work context. Resilience is an important quality to build when dealing with the public in a professional context.

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.
I don’t think it implies anything of the kind tbh, of course victims of coercive control are not all foolish and stupid, quit victim blaming.

MsMcWibble · 22/01/2020 19:54

Retrofitted True - there's only one 'sacred caste' here...
Also - You didn't answer my question.

R0wantrees · 22/01/2020 19:54

As I stated before, there is nothing to be ashamed of in that. Having been the target of control and manipulation does NOT mean you are stupid or weak.

Absolutely & its incomprehensible that this should need saying on FWR board.
Flowers

DuLANGMondeFOREVER · 22/01/2020 19:56

What Thinkingabout1t said.
x 1000

Seconded!

NotTheLangCleg · 22/01/2020 19:58

The person who has made a moderator feel awful is over on Twitter, crowing about their lies about her. It’s not LangCleg who did that, or who is cheering it on.

To protect MN staff there must be an urgent end to reports being accepted about Mumsnet threads on Twitter. It demonstrably harms both MNers and MN staff, and leaves MN open to lies and with no recourse.

CousinKrispy · 22/01/2020 19:59

@Retrofitted, apologies if I sound like I'm having a go at you, but you sound knowledgeable about this. You say that the moderators listened to LangCleg, heard her out, etc. It sounds as though you have detailed knowledge of the moderation procedure. Could you elaborate on this?

As I stated to the mods before, I'm very concerned that those of us who are blunt due to cultural background or brain wiring could accidentally fall foul by appearing too robust (when we actually bear no I'll will towards mods). It would help a lot to understand the procedure by which Lang, or other banned posters, have their cases heard out and a decision made. Thanks.

Retrofitted · 22/01/2020 19:59

“It’s just a misunderstanding mnhq, you need to toughen up, Lang is lovely and you should let her back in”

Does this remind anyone else of a flying monkeys?

On another note, saying that MNHQ are not likely to have taken kindly to being told they are coercively controlled repeatedly is not in any way equivalent to an individual woman who may not take kindly to being told the same thing, but for very different reasons.

MNHQ are a really big team of professionals running a business and doing a job. Not the same thing at all. They’re telling you clearly that they are not being controlled. Why is it so very hard for posters here to listen to and accept their findings?

ChristmassySpice · 22/01/2020 20:00

It would be interesting if some of the examples here by some posters related to racism. The dismissal is unreal.
And again, I watch with interest. And wonder if 'they' are shitting themselves and thinking of pulling this thread.
But they can't. Because there would be an uproar. Which really clearly shows the truth.

OnlyTheTitOfTheLangBerg · 22/01/2020 20:01

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Floisme · 22/01/2020 20:03

If moderators are at the end of their tether - which is the impression I'm getting - then why is that?
Is it really all down to abuse from posters?
How many reports do they get a week about this board? How many a day?
How many were about Lang? How many about Tinsel? How many about Datun?

Datun · 22/01/2020 20:03

I honestly don't believe what we are seeing is policy and guidelines driven by coercive control

I understand where you're coming from blistory, and I appreciate the other point of you.

The thing is threats to advertisers has changed the board. Justine has been interviewed about it. It's there in black and white.

Are you saying it's also because some of the moderators just disagree with the fundamental issue on the boards? Is that a hunch, or do you know something?

Because I thought it was just that they didn't like to be thought of as being used. Is there something else?

T0tallyFuckedUpFamily · 22/01/2020 20:04

Isn’t it funny how certain posters insist that FWR is a tiny corner off Mumsnet/has a tiny number posters, don’t come here or have actively blocked FWR because it’s is an echo chamber, are too frightened of being jumped on, etc etc. Yet, when one of the regulars is banned, here they are, talking up a storm, in the place they never visit. Funny that. 🤷‍♀️ I’m looking forward to the same posters robustly arguing the points, on the rest of FWR or are they suddenly going to step back into the shadows?

WrathoLangKIop · 22/01/2020 20:05

I name changed as a homage to the Langster and found myself logged out and unable to get back in.
MNHQ emailed me today and apparently it was a glitch.

I get a bit paranoid.

Glad you're back R0.

TinseLANGel · 22/01/2020 20:06

How many about Tinsel?

Who the what now?? Shock

DuLANGMondeFOREVER · 22/01/2020 20:07

Just making a guess that you might be one of the posters who the TRAs would like to see silenced, Tinsel!

TheDeep · 22/01/2020 20:10

I think MNHQ have made a huge mistake but they're not going to admit it.

youllhavehadyourtea · 22/01/2020 20:11

ListeningQuietly 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

Oh no! Sad

R0wantrees · 22/01/2020 20:11

a really big team of professionals running a business and doing a job. Not the same thing at all.They’re telling you clearly that they are not being controlled. Why is it so very hard for posters here to listen to and accept their findings?

Retro I dont want to repost the whole quote by LangCleg again so soon, but I presume you'll be aware that many 'professionals' in the BBC, FA, NHS, Social Services, Police Catholic & Anglican churches ignored or denied the possibility that they might as both individuals & organisations by manipulated by abusers to be unwittingly complicit?

Also to say that just as the reasons people who are manipulated or victims of coercive control have nothing to do with them being 'stupid' or 'foolish', nor is it because they are not professionals.