Statement on safeguarding to be added to sticky ?

[janeskettle]

In the most recent LangCleg thread, I asked if the idea of asking Mumsnet to add a statement of safeguarding support to the FWR sticky had any merit.

What do feminists on the FWR board think ?

I had in mind something like 'Mumsnet acknowledges that safeguarding of children and vulnerable persons is a valuable and acceptable topic of discussion on FWR'.

But if you mention the fact that it's men whom children and vulnerable people need safeguarding from you get deleted.

Justine's statement made it clear they want to hear from people who oppose safeguarding as much as they want to hear from those in favor of it.
The statement clarified why they welcome anti Feminist opinion on their Feminist board.

"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread." Anatole France

Safeguarding threads should have their own prominent section on the Mumsnet site.
A subject that is very current and necessary to parenting should be easier to locate.

"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread." Anatole France

I have learned so many great quotes from Mumsnet these past couple of days. This is one.

This is another: "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him." -- Cardinal Richelieu

And JanesKettle yes, I totally agree with you, that would be a valuable sticky to add to the board, and as Justine has previously said words to this effect in the media, I don't see why it should be a problem.

Recent decisions and posts make me seriously question if MN are interested in acknowledging anything of the sort.

How can we discuss safeguarding, if we cannot mention risk categories? How can such a discussion be acknowledged as valuable, if the rules deem obfuscation is more important?

See also: portraying discussion of safeguarding as oppressors/gatekeepers/meanies.

Yah, I guess there's no point to a statement that is just lip service.

Optimistically, I though having it explicitly stated in the 'rules' might enable some accountability when it's discussed here ?

I am still in shock over being required to respect the opinions of people who oppose safeguarding children.
I can't.

I'm still reeling from Justine likening pro-safeguarding FWR to an aggressive orthodoxy...

I suppose that the person who appeared to state that 'people who oppose child safeguarding are welcome here' would deny that interpretation, and say that they were referring to allowing genderists to make their pro-gender arguments, and did not specifically refer to safeguarding.

I'm still reeling from Justine likening pro-safeguarding FWR to an aggressive orthodoxy...

Well, that's just so wrong it made no impact on me.

I know well where the orthodoxy lies, and it isn't here.

So the vibe is 'yes, we should have an explicit statement re safeguarding' but 'no, we won't get it because MN doesn't protect safeguarding discussions, and that's a deliberate strategy' ?

Yep, but after everything, a real kick in the teeth.

a real kick in the teeth

Yes. I think I'm numb to it, but yes.

My vibe is: depressed that it needs to be explicitly stated, pessimistic that there'll be any response more than just lip service.

I don't know that I'd say deliberate strategy on the part of MN. If I'm being real honest- and probably will be deleted- I think MN mods are tired and tied in knots by the constant reporting and be nice stuff, that becomes their normal lens. Every forthright post from an effective poster is reported by Twitter monitors stirring up trouble, viewed in isolation by mods and deemed 'hmm, could have been said nicer, best delete'

makes sense, Vitriol

Safeguarding is important enough that we should be talking about it every damn day.

If it is on a sticky, I worry that people will consider that enough and not take it as seriously as I think it should be. Speaking personally, I frequently disregard stickys as the information is out of date. I have only recently realised that the sticky at the top of this thread has name changed in response to poster requests about the language used. When did that happen?

So, Janeskettle, I think threads like these (calling for a sticky) are actually more useful than having a sticky in highlighting the need for safeguarding.

Maybe safeguarding (of children, and vulnerable adults) should have its' own forum in Feminism but out-with the general FWR mod'ing rules so as not to conflate the need to safeguard with trans people which is what seems to happen.

Feminists are generally referring to men, some of whom may use current popular ideologies to hide their true intent to access their victim pool, and this often seems to get confused with transwomen in particular.

It has only been a few weeks ago that MN agreed that framing the sticky as a trans rights issue was prejudicial and changed it to gender.

If it is on a sticky, I worry that people will consider that enough and not take it as seriously as I think it should be

Makes sense.

out-with the general FWR mod'ing rule

I didn't think anywhere was outwith, just that FWR is more closely monitored.

It's just frustrating.

In the end, it's clear to most people, including some trans people themselves, that claiming a trans identity does not mean your behaviour, if problematic, should be given a pass.

And that belief in transideology does likewise not confer a sort of saintliness that puts organisations off limits.

Why would you think safeguarding is just a FWR issue? This is a parenting website. It isn’t just relevant to this board.

Also it’s an anonymous Internet forum. No one here is a ‘safeguarding expert’ any more than they are a five legged sea badger.
And if you’re taking real world safeguarding advice from an anonymous forum then you really are going to have problems.

I'll put you down as a 'no' then, while noting nobody said it was an FWR only issue.

In the end, it's clear to most people, including some trans people themselves, that claiming a trans identity does not mean your behaviour, if problematic, should be given a pass.

This! A million times this!