Lang Cleg 2

[TiredofthisBSbutIstandwithLang]

New thread as we got to 1000.

Just so we don't forget...
Language matters

I agree there are two kinds of posters. I see a version of the old trope; those who discuss ideas and those who discuss people.

I'll converse with posters who discuss ideas all day long and debate robustly where we disagree. Some of the threads about sex work illustrate this beautifully. Passionate posters debating ideas and theories.

Then there are the posters who want to discuss people. Except they don't really, they just want to tell women they are doing feminism or woman ing wrong. Now why would anyone come to a feminism board to do that?

I won't debate with the latter group, because I'm not interested in what they have to say.

Another one delurking to express disbelief at the banning of such an articulate and informed poster.

"It's been repeatedly asserted that we were both abusers and proxies for abuse at various times - and the distinction doesn't feel very important when you're on the receiving end of it."

Oh dear! That seems to be the nub of it! Lang trying to explain how the coercive control from outside sources affects the behaviour of the Mods and the Mods taking it to mean that they themselves were the root cause. That distinction was key... Mods are human they felt Lang was accusing them. Lang is human and was repeatedly trying to explain what she saw happening.

Same language, different interpretation.

I hope @JustineMumsnet and the whole Mod team @MNHQ can see that there has been a misunderstanding. That hard as it must have been to hear Lang had a point, the very openness of MN, Justine's willingness to have the FWR boards seen to be moderated, to be 'safe spaces' has allowed some very artful twisting to occur.

We can see it. Many TRAs are explaining it clearly... they think they are being ultra clever, they are being very transparent. We really can see it - because it is not happening to us, in our inboxes.

Sadly I can only see this being doubled down on. FWR is no longer a safe space to openly discuss womens issues. We, posters, are now seen as The Enemy, The Ones Who Hurt.

I doubt there will be any coming back from that. Every negative, critical post will bolster that opinion. Every decision on every topic, post, poster wil be seen through that lens. The more we posters decry it the more entrenched it will become.

Think carefully Mods and Posters alike.

I agree NewYearsHumberElla, no one should be kind at the expense of their own safety. Asking women for kindness in these circumstances is grooming - and yes, coercive controlling.

I can't stop pondering this situation. As it appears those who have followed Lang's posts over many months/years do not think there was any abuse intended, and certainly I never saw any, perhaps the fault lies with the moderators' training. Being older, we were taught "sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me" which by today's standards appears completely outdated.

That being said, some of us are better at dealing with members of the general public than others. It is a skill which is partly learned but also requires an appreciation of nuance and recognition of various parts of speech, such as irony. As an unrelated example, I believe I am an excellent driver, but could never drive a bus or lorry as that would be beyond my pay-grade.

So rather than banning such robust contributors as Lang, why not appoint a moderator with vast experience to oversee controversial threads? Then no current moderators need be concerned they are being targeted unfairly, when what is really going on is vigorous and open debate.

Also interested to know what MNHQ intend to do about the lies about Hebe on Twitter. That makes for a hostile work environment doesn’t it? Or is it just women’s truthful words that do harm?

I hope not, Curious.

I do feel for mods - it isn't always easy to try to be making peace where there are strong differences of opinion. And nobody should be feeling under attack at that kind of work.

Every deletion and ban only proves, to me, how much pressure is being exerted on women's speech, women's ability to whistleblow and warn others when they see safeguarding under threat.

Mods, don't know if you'll see this or not, but do you not think there is a chance Lang was trying to warn you, rather than attack you?

They have seen it Scrimshaw I have been told they are still discussing the situation amongst themselves and will keep on discussing it with us...

I almost hope this is the start of something different. A watershed rather than a moment of crap! At least then we can designate That Day the Day Lang Was Martyred

I am in the process of getting yet another dbs check for a new role. I have gone through another round of safeguarding, Prevent, diversity etc training.

Safeguarding is everyone’s responsibility so at no point do I resent this or does it make me feel like I am under attack or being accused of being a bad person or ignorant of the issues.

Getting training in something doesn't make me look bad. Hopefully it just enables me to do a better, safer job and helps me support others to the best of my ability.

So what I genuinely don't understand is - why is mumsnet so resistant to the idea of getting some training in the dynamics of coercive control for its moderators from, say, the Freedom Programme? Why the pushback?

The only time I would push back against any training would be if I thought it was utterly irrelevant to the role...

And it can't be that, can it?

Being older, we were taught "sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me" which by today's standards appears completely outdated.

That really does show times have changed, doesn’t it?

From that to ‘literal violence’.

A side note - I have no idea when words became ‘literal violence’. But do you think it could have been when some idiot confused the words ‘literal’ ‘literary’?

‘Literal’ and ‘Literary’.

I hate typing on my phone. Never mind letters, I miss out entire words!

Being older, we were taught "sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me" which by today's standards appears completely outdated.

Yes that is completely outdated and rightly so. Defending verbally abusing members of staff on the grounds of feminism shows how far removed from reasonable behaviour some posters have become.

FYI, I don't need to see the CV of a medical professional or a nuclear physicist I disagree with to be able recognize their expertise. It is unfortunate that you are unable to do so.

Yes. This.

It's easy to find out whether someone knows what they're talking about - particularly if you go off and do your own research to test their conclusions.

I've found that absolutely everything Lang said about safeguarding stands up to scrutiny and research and concurs with best practice. That's my research.

No one can provide certificates for expertise on a chat forum anyway since it's anonymous. Bowlofbabelfish - who I miss - was clearly an expert biologist (not sure of her speciality - I think genetics?). Sometimes actions and demonstrated knowledge speak louder than qualifications. There will have been people in professional organisations with professional qualifications in safeguarding in Manchester who failed those girls again and again and again.

There will have been people in professional organisations with professional qualifications in safeguarding in Manchester who failed those girls again and again and again.

Absolutely this ^^

For some it will be because they dont understand Safeguarding (despite the qualifications), for others it will be because they do not respect the absolute requirement of Safeguarding responsibilities & for an ever present percentage of people it will be because they are predatory abusers of children & vulnerable adults.

On a different note - I commend Justine for wanting to endure her staff are happy and enjoy their work. If moderating FWR is a miserable experience, that is a valid point to address.

I wonder if it would be feasible at all for mods to opt out of FWR and just do the other boards - AIBU / relationships/ Brexit / royals. Probably not, since they just react to reports made on any board.

Who has “verbally abused members of staff”?

What on earth is going on?

I didn’t know people could even ring MN.. isn’t it just email? In my few emails with MN, I’ve been very polite and apologetic. I truly have not seen anything I would characterise as “abusive” either by or to staff.

For some it will be because they dont understand Safeguarding (despite the qualifications), for others it will be because they do not respect the absolute requirement of Safeguarding responsibilities & for an ever present percentage of people it will be because they are predatory abusers of children & vulnerable adults.

I am always amazed at how so many people seem complicit in denying the reality - the proven reality (Rotherham, Manchester, Savile, Challenor etc etc) - of that last point. It's like a lot of people want to pretend paedophiles don't exist. It's chilling.

Of course the world would be a nicer place if they didn't exist but to just pretend they don't? That's what makes it easier for them to abuse.

That is why, when I am viewed suspiciously and asked for a DBS etc whenever I volunteer at one of my children's schools I am DELIGHTED. Because they need to scrutinise everyone and be suspicious of everyone - that's how safeguarding works. If they're checking me, that means my kids are safer. I know I have nothing to hide, so why would I be offended? I am PLEASED they take it so seriously and are taking steps to protect my children and all children.

Why is MN offended when Lang points out that their modding is experienced by some women as coercive? Surely the reasonable response is 'surely not, thanks for pointing that out, let's look into that and make ABSOLUTELY SURE it can't be the case'. Multiple women have spoken of how the modding makes them feel. Why are their feelings, their lived experience worth nothing? We're expected to prioritise the feelings of men who wish to use female pronouns above our own feelings all the time and 'be nice'. Double standards.

The reason FWR moderation isn't fun for the moderators is the rules themselves, which don't stand up to scrutiny and are profoundly anti-women and lack logic.

On a different note - I commend Justine for wanting to endure her staff are happy and enjoy their work.

What will emerge with greater knowledge of the dynamics of coercive control is recognition & understanding of the nature of narcisstic abuse. The two go hand in hand. Narcissitic abuse is an emerging field of study but its devastating impact is felt in workplaces as well as online & in personal relationships.

If moderating FWR is a miserable experience, that is a valid point to address

But is moderating FWR a more miserable experience than moderating AIBU? And if that is the case, what is the difference between the two? The extra rules. Which bring extra complications, extra reports, single words being targeted in posts a la Cardinal Richelieu, and thus extra pressure on the mods. As has been pointed out by Kittens you can say what you like about Royal children in AIBU but you can’t call certain Canadians out without fear someone will report you.

It’s all very well for MNHQ to say we need to be nice to the mods, but I don’t think having an extra layer of complexity of rules they need to apply in order to satisfy those who might otherwise take offence via Twitter and withdraw their advertising is a particularly healthy workplace environment HQ is creating. As I’ve said before, I think the mods are stuck in the middle of it all.

Lang has commented on Spinster now for those who haven't seen:

"Morning to all and especially all my new followers and friends hereabouts who have joined to keep in touch!

Regarding my recent High Crimes of Safeguarding Speech on Mumsnet and subsequent banning - I could respond to Justine's and Michael's ahem.... spinning of what passed between us, or I could publish the full, excruciating, chain of communications involved.

But I probably won't. What would be the point?

You lot would say: See? Lang, vindicated!

The other lot would say: See? Hateful, far-right, fundie TERF bigot.*

(*or whatever is the insult du jour. I haven't been to Twitter to look.)

And the whole dismal wankfest would simply chunter on for another couple of days. Nobody's mind would change.

For my own part: I make no apology for speaking about the principles of child safeguarding and the dynamics of coercive control in PLAIN ENGLISH. Nor will I ever.

I would never recommend that a woman stay in a place that she is no longer happy - but other than that, please do not leave Mumsnet on my account. I am perfectly fine and dandy.

Stay. And post about safeguarding. Every. Single. Day."

X post with Langbannedforsafeguardingkids

Who has “verbally abused members of staff”?

In case you missed, the mods themselves have said as much and who on this thread

Just want to say, so glad you're back R0, you were missed.