Lang Cleg 2

[TiredofthisBSbutIstandwithLang]

New thread as we got to 1000.

BickerinBrattle excellent post

Great post bicker. Its really got me thinking.

Having now read Michael's posts it is clear that Lang was banned for criticising moderation decisions and trying to explain how the people who watch this forum are attempting to use coercive control.

Lang's "aggressiveness" and "abuse" seems to be that she consistently pointed out the techniques in use and that the moderation here is failing to recognise that this occurring.

She regularly suggested that mods should have training to recognise the techniques.

Unfortunately as stated by Michael this has been interpreted by the mod(s) as Lang accusing the mods of being abusive and acting as proxies.

This is a fundamental misreading of Lang's arguments. Explaining how someone is falling victim to controlling techniques or not recognising is NOT the same as calling that individual an abuser or proxy.

Interestingly, to my mind, the defensive response and interpretation of attempts to explain as a personal attack or criticism is actually really common amongst victims of coercion.

I was always a bit sceptical that the mods needed training but having read @JustineMumsnet response and the clarification by @MichaelMumsnet I have completely changed my mind.

I'm actually quite shocked that Lang's arguments have been interpreted that way.

Feminists understand best what feminists mean when they speak. And even the best of men do not necessarily.

So it's not only men that you have a problem with as moderators then is it? It's anyone who isn't a feminist?

Hi again, I want to just address this coercive control question because the overriding impression on this thread and the previous one seems to be that MNHQ has been played, that lots of external folks with a specific agenda are reporting maliciously, and that regular MN users are getting strikes/being banned as a result.

I'm confident we've been doing this for long enough to know if someone's maliciously abusing the system and rest assured we do and would ban anyone we considered to be vexatiously reporting in this way.

Furthermore, we’ve looked at the data and LangCleg was reported by 53 different users. Of those, 51 were regular posters (as in they had an established posting history before they reported her); one reported her before posting anything on Mumsnet but went on to become a regular poster. But frankly even if all 53 of those reporters had been lurkers - or even people who aren’t registered MN users - it wouldn’t make many odds; posts either break our guidelines or they don’t and LangCleg not only frequently broke them with her posts but from our correspondence about them with her, clearly found the rules impossible to accept.

Also I want to make it clear that in our opinion this was a case of genuine and continuing disparagement of and rudeness to our mod team - persistent accusations that Mumsnet mods are proxies, behaving coercively and/or abusively, which as I’ve said previously is incredibly demotivating as well as deeply unfair (and against our stated terms of use). It had got to the point that our team were reluctant to engage with LC because they found her obvious contempt upsetting. Obviously different people have different tolerances for this sort of thing, but as said before we have a duty of care to the people who work here and at a certain point - and after plenty of really clear warnings - we really have to draw the line.

One last thing: Mumsnet is a site for debate and often robust disagreement, a principle for which we have risked a great deal throughout our 20-year history and even more so over the past couple of years. As such it’s really not on for one group of users to declare that their position/ argument is the only one that is acceptable and to deliberately make it difficult for those who disagree, to post. (Those of you who’ve been with us over the long haul will remember this happening on other boards before - the one that springs to mind is The Dog House - where we’ve felt compelled to act to diffuse what had become an aggressive orthodoxy.) We’ve made some deletions on this thread where we feel users holding minority viewpoints have come under attack simply for posting, rather than for their opinions, and I’d respectfully ask you all to please be sure in future you’re playing the ball and not the poster so we can continue to host this important debate.

Many thanks.

I think trying to draw that distinction is pretty disingenuous in circumstances where there is, as far as we know, only one male moderator and he's posted on this thread. It's perfectly apparent who is being referred to.

And questioning whether he is capable of doing his job simply because of his sex is both rude and probably discriminatory.

If the issue is that men, apparently, can't be feminists then surely you should be asking MNHQ to guarantee that all of the female mods are feminists too?

Exactly.

Well said Justine.

LangCleg’s position/argument is that safeguarding children is a higher priority than any adult’s feelings, Justine. What you’re seeing here is that the vast majority of parents agree with that. I wouldn’t want people arguing the opposite anywhere near my business or my employees, but hey, you do you.

in our opinion this was a case of genuine and continuing disparagement of and rudeness to our mod team - persistent accusations that Mumsnet mods are proxies, behaving coercively and/or abusively, which as I’ve said previously is incredibly demotivating as well as deeply unfair (and against our stated terms of use). It had got to the point that our team were reluctant to engage with LC because they found her obvious contempt upsetting.

I don't really know what has to be said beyond that. For all people think they "know" LangCleg, we have no idea of the content of the messages in question. This is Mumsnet's site, and they have a duty of care to their staff who deserve a respectful work environment.

There are a great many ways to discuss important issues without treating moderators contemptuously.

Thank you for posting, Justine.

I still am not clear what warrants a temporary suspension and what is an outright ban, and how that is arrived at.

I do appreciate your clarity on the reports detail, thank you for that.

Thank you for continuing to engage and for recognising the importance of debate.

I would still like the decision on LangCleg reversed, though I am a realist.

Yes, so far over 100 MNers an hour are signing their support to LangCleg www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3803368--JustineMumsnet-please-consider-reinstating-LangCleg-after-a-temporary-suspension-It-would-help-so-many-of-us-Mumsnetters-please-sign?msgid=93361074#93361074. This thread and it’s predecessor explain why - it’s not a personality cult, or a popularity clique. No one knows much about her, aside from her disgusting breakfast preference. It’s because she understands and writes about CHILD SAFEGUARDING. Which parents in this society want and need. And they do want to grey rock/ignore/report posters who come along saying other things are more important than safeguarding, because nothing is more important to good parents than protecting their children.

I think Justine's made her position perfectly clear though, even with a protest petition - she posted just before you.
Whoever said it reminded them of flying monkeys upthread I'm tending to agree!
All this "she didn't mean it like that" "forgive her, bring her back"
If it's like the mods have said, why should they bring her back, it's their decision and they clearly do feel like they're being harassed.
Why dismiss it?

As such it’s really not on for one group of users to declare that their position/ argument is the only one that is acceptable and to deliberately make it difficult for those who disagree, to post

Woah, that's a pretty sweeping generalisation isn't it - where has that happened? I've never seen that. I've seen agreement and disagreement between a number of intelligent women all of whom think independently and some of whom have concluded the same thing from the evidence. Like, for example the FACT that safeguarding in this country is being shattered because certain groups are elevated to the point where they are seen as beyond scrutiny. We've seen this happen again, and again, and again (Savile, priests, recent scandals) and parents would very much like to be able to talk about it in plain english.

Just popping on again to say thanks to Justine for your comment. I accept what you say, and I totally respect your judgement, however I do wonder how many posts in support LangCleg had. It is entirely possible that something could have been whipped up via social media (for example) to report her.
That said. Again, i respect your decision. But you must be wholly aware of the knife edge you now sit on. I wouldn't like to be in your shoes. It can't be easy. And I'm under no illusion that you are in a difficult position.

But for the majority of women, I do feel very strongly that we are moving very much in the wrong direction.

@JustineMumsnet would you be kind enough to comment on what, if anything, is being done about the false allegation spread on Twitter by a PBP that they were in discussion with Hebe about working in concert to get certain posters banned, in light of the importance of ensuring an enjoyable work environment for your mod team?

And also would you be able to clarify Hebe’s own comment about “keeping an eye on posters” if they are brought to your attention by the likes of said PBP (who in this case has a clear anti-GC-woman/MN agenda) - this comment seems at odds with your assertion that you ignore vexatious reports. What exactly does this “keeping an eye on” entail and under what circumstances would these reports by the likes of PBPs be taken seriously/given weight?

It's very interesting to see which posters write sycophantic posts in response to Justine. Very interesting indeed.

While some people see the whole concept of grey rock as a protection, when you're on the other end of it, it feels like being sent to Coventry. That can be isolating and hurtful.

Justine

Could I ask how many MNHQ moderators have undertaken the Freedom programme?

You sound very confident that they would all instantly recognise any attempt at coercive control, but as is acknowledged generally in the wider world, many many people - from all walks of life, across all levels of education - are taken in by many different types of abusers and controllers.

I really don’t understand how you can be so utterly convinced that your entire team could so easily detect and resist something that is known to fly under the radar until it’s taken hold. And, quite frankly, your insistence that this is possible (in the absence of evidence of specific training and understanding) smacks of ‘well, of course we wouldn’t be so easily taken in like all those poor gullible fools^ ‘ (please note, I do not actually think that anyone who has been abused or coercively controlled are gullible, fools, should be ashamed, etc)

It's very interesting to see which posters write sycophantic posts in response to Justine. Very interesting indeed

Not sycophantic, just no reason to disbelieve people when they say they feel attacked. It's shit when it happens, if someone else says they've had the same treatment I tend to believe them.

Tsk, ‘until it has taken hold’. Apologies - was dealing with the after effects of my child speaking to my former abuser, so somewhat distracted.

While some people see the whole concept of grey rock as a protection, when you're on the other end of it, it feels like being sent to Coventry. That can be isolating and hurtful.

Was that in reply to me? If so, the context was grey rocking people who argue that child safe guarding is less important than adult’s feelings. The people saying that are enabling harm to children - it’s how Jimmy Saville, and so many other men (and a few women) were free to destroy so many lives. So frankly I don’t give a shit whether such people feel hurt and isolated by being grey rocked.

And if your point about grey rock is more general, why do you think that anyone is owed anything on a chat forum? Plenty of posts are ignored on every single thread on Mumsnet, because the point made is boring or repetitive or unpopular or poorly communicated. It’s only on FWR that some posters insist on making it over and over, seeking acknowledgment. Odd that.

While some people see the whole concept of grey rock as a protection, when you're on the other end of it, it feels like being sent to Coventry. That can be isolating and hurtful.

No one owes any other poster a response.

If you don’t agree with another poster and you have reason to think they may not be posting in good faith (whether that reason is correct or not; it’s an opinion anyone is entitled to come to) the options are to post in disagreement or to ignore. And no one is required to post in disagreement - or indeed, at all - especially if they know that to do so only ends up upsetting themselves in some way.

If anyone can’t cope with not receiving responses to their posts, then I suggest message boards may not be for them.

The Freedom Programme, I have no doubt, is helpful to many women but this repeated push for it jars. It's not a tool that everyone is going to agree with or find helpful and the notion that you can only have your eyes opened by completing it is one I find problematic.

LangCleg’s position/argument is that safeguarding children is a higher priority than any adult’s feelings

A really important point. It stands apart from the discussion about whether or not Lang should have been banned. I'd hope that others agreed with this point, even if they agree with the decision to ban Lang.

The reason I appreciated Lang was because she was so clear on stuff like this.

I care about this stuff is because I am a parent and I work with kids. Because of stuff that happened to me as a teen that I want to make sure does not happen to my (or any) kids. Stuff that could have been prevented with better safeguarding and if I had been taught about boundaries and to listen to my own discomfort rather than try and keep an adult happy. I say this to remind people why there is so much passion and assertion behind some of the posts here.