MNHQ want money from us

[JellySlice]

Perhaps now is the time to tell MNHQ what we want from them.

eg
Relaxation of the anti-women censorship rules.
Reinstating banned respected posters like LangCleg.

Oops hadn’t reloaded .. that was in response to vitreous

Name biological sex. Hmm, I'm a bi- trans - lesbian FYI

It was not MNHQ's choice. It was the only option if they were to avoid losing a significant percentage of the total revenue across the whole site.

In the end, it didn't work and they did lose that percentage.

Sadly within abusive/bullying dynamics partial capitulation to demands is rarely sufficient.

What makes you think HQ would read this.. Surely they only read posts that are reported to them.

This issue has absorbed a huge chunk of resource/created huge risk for several years. They will absolutely be reading.

Sadly within abusive/bullying dynamics partial capitulation to demands is rarely sufficient

I know you think it sounds rousing and powerful, but in fact you do nothing but reveal your naivety when you map the dynamics of controlling relationships onto the completely different and much, much more nuanced commercial relationships between a large number of parties (multiple advertisers, MNHQ, MN users generally, FWR users).

If the precarious financial state of MN is due to FWR causing advertisers to flee the site... why wouldn’t Justine say so?

You are saying Mods read every post, on every FWR thread, in real time? Then surely when people were offering $$, someone would have says “we’ll discuss and get back to you”? Often such things are just ignored completely, I assumed because mods are bust in other boards

You are saying Mods read every post, on every FWR thread, in real time?

No.

vitreous do you have some association with MN? It’s perfectly fine (of course) but if so, i think it should be disclosed for transparency

I’m a random nobody, fyi

I don’t think it will ever stop hitting me what a fucked up situation this is.

It’s 2020. Women are still worried about exposing themselves to a very real risk of job loss and violence for daring to say such radical things as “I don’t think a person who has been imprisoned for raping women should be allowed access to more vulnerable women to continue to rape”.

And women are being berated for not bowing and scraping in gratitude for being allowed to talk with only semi-censorship on a public anonymous forum. Note that women have expressed appreciation and a willingness to donate to reflect said appreciation; but this is apparently not grateful enough. Any expression of frustration about said censorship is apparently being ungrateful (dare I say it, unkind to our corporate hosts?)

Ok, then calling it “absolutely galling for HQ to read right now” seems a touch hyperbolic I must say. I’m off now, nite all.

Vitreous you missed off a significant group there.

^ I meant when you said 'commercial relationships between a large number of parties (multiple advertisers, MNHQ, MN users generally, FWR users).'

No worries Moles

You really are determined to see MN as the aggressor rather than a victim of the same circumstances we all find ourselves in.

Who is? Where has anyone suggested MN was 'the aggressor'?
There's always a danger in reductionary statements. It is known that the decision had been made to significantly expand the MN business a few years ago & also that MN was intending to launch a tiered subscription based model prior to the CV19 crisis.

These are separate to women's growing awareness of the risks to children's Safeguarding & sex-based rights.

That TRA 'thought police' have attempted to silence/smear/restrict/punish MNHQ in many of the same ways that individual women and women's groups are bullied/coerced is (IMO) widely understood.

NewStatesman article by Glosswitch
10 MAY 2018
'The demonisation of Mumsnet is just the latest incarnation of witch-hunting
Naturally, it frightens people to think of what a group of mothers might actually demand.'
(extract)

"The deliberate withdrawal of women from men has almost always been seen as a potentially dangerous or hostile act, a conspiracy, a subversion, a needless and grotesque thing.” Thus wrote Adrienne Rich in 1976’s Of Woman Born, her seminal exploration of the politics of motherhood. From the workers gossiping in the spinning circle to old wives passing down knowledge of contraception and abortion, women gathered in isolation have long been considered untrustworthy. What might they be saying? What could they be plotting? And how, above all, might they be controlled?

It’s a problem that’s never gone away, though the context has changed. Anxiety over women’s speech – fuelling violent backlash in the form of witch trials and scold’s bridles – arose at a time when, to quote Marina Warner, “women dominated the webs of information and power; the neighbourhood, the village, the well, the washing place, the shops, the stalls, the street were their arena of influence, not only the household” (continues)

But what, I hear you ask, of Mumsnet’s dark heart? Yes, previous gatherings of women may have erroneously been held up as evil, but isn’t this particular one properly so? So says every rebranded witch-finder general since the dawn of time.

I’d absolutely agree that Mumsnet isn’t all penis jokes and Fruit Shoot reviews. Much of it – most of it, in fact – is deeply political. Both #webelieveyou and Let Toys Be Toys have their roots in Mumsnet activism. That many Mumsnet users take issue with contemporary gender identity politics – particularly in relation to the language used to talk about reproductive biology – shouldn’t surprise anyone.

While one cannot account for the motivations of each and every Mumsnet user who posts on this issue – or defend each and every approach – I would suggest that here, as elsewhere, the Mumsnet mummy comes up against the familiar assumption that she doesn’t quite grasp the implications of her own words. Mummies, it is felt, are just too thick to have read Judith Butler or Julia Serano. When someone who’s up to her arms in nappies decides to question a decontexutalised concept of gender, devoid of social interdependencies, she must just be doing it to be mean.

And yet, mean or otherwise, unless one takes into account the historical fear and demonisation of women communicating without supervision, it is frankly bizarre to see activists appointing themselves monitors of Mumsnet conversations on the relationship between sex and gender. It is both disproportionate and a distraction from meaningful work to dismantle stereotypes" (continues)

www.newstatesman.com/politics/feminism/2018/05/demonisation-mumsnet-just-latest-incarnation-witch-hunting

AIBU response to Justine going public about the TRA 'thought police':
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/3222471-AIBU-to-be-extremely-proud-of-Justine-Roberts-Mumsnet-right-now

I know you think it sounds rousing and powerful

No Vitreous you dont know that as its not the case.

Popehilarious I did, sorry - TRAs should have been in that list. And also, the new users that MN needs constantly to attract, of which only a tiny proportion care one way or t'other about this issue. In fact, the younger mothers which MN needs to counteract churn are generally very pro- the trans narrative. It's as much a marker of progressiveness for them as it is for others.

True. Until they understand it and then there’s no turning back. As I’ve said before - no one ever learns about autogynephilia and continues with the TWAW chanting. No one goes back into rainbows and unicorns land once they’ve seen and understood.

Also newer users are here to call on existing users’ experience and knowledge. Of prams. Weaning. Teenagers. Relationships. Feminist thinking. That’s the whole point. That’s where the value is - honesty, experience, sharing knowledge.

In fact, the younger mothers which MN needs to counteract churn are generally very pro- the trans narrative. It's as much a marker of progressiveness for them as it is for others.

This is interesting. How would you describe these younger mothers, the type that MN needs to attract?

I was a young mother once. I dipped into MN several times over a year or two. Each time I was put off by a large number of posters who were - I'll be candid - thick as shit. Probably on AIBU mainly. It was ages until I realised in the sub-boards (not just FWR) there was intelligent discussion and advice to be had!

I was also pro-trans-rights-without-debate my whole life, until I heard about Tara Hudson and heard for the first time the reality of what SOME (NOT ALL) people who were or were claiming to be trans were actually manipulating people to do. That wasn't on here.

Who do you regard as “young mothers,” under 30 or under 25? Because the ones I know in those brackets do care about female spaces and sports

They don’t care is something thinks they’re “progressive” or not... sheesh

(and Again , if anyone is posting Other than as just a random poster , it should be disclosed. IMO)

Am I allowed to repeat my observation that advertisers like to be able to reach women who are educated and employed with disposable income?

IIRC Justine took out the loan to buy Carrie out. Just Imagine if Carrie were to be on this thread.

Is there a back story .. why, what would Carrie hypothetically say... or are we not allowed to ask ?

surely not all major companies are vulnerable to TRA tactics? Although admittedly it’s not my area of expertise

I assumed VH meant by "the younger mothers that mn needs to attract" (excuse paraphrasing) was a specific subset(s) of younger mothers. Yes I would've assumed educated and/or with higher levels of disposable income but I don't like to assume and it's interesting if there are more specific demographics.

No they are not. And they are also sensitive to the overplaying of the TRA agenda. I know of a major sponsor who pulled out of a relationship with our favourite lgbT organisation because of their ludicrous overreaching behaviour.

What gets said on here is very mild and accords with the views of the wider public when they know and understand the facts (ie are not labouring under the delusion that most TWs have had surgery and hormone treatment, know the facts about AGP etc).

I have had a look at the new, alternative forum Mner2000 and after less than 5 mins I know for sure that I will be giving it a miss.

I don't want to get into huge debates about it because the only concern I have about Mumsnet is the lack of clarity about privacy and data security and I have covered that in a different thread.

I also have serious privacy and data security concerns about the new forum that has been set up.

The "Admin" person's lack of professionalism and staggering lack of attention to Privacy issues is just . . . mind-boggling! Admin's identity is secret and I am soooo tempted to refer to her/him/them as "DK":
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

First sentence of "Welcome Message"

"Mums.chat has been setup as an antidote to a very poorly run parenting site that makes millions a year, is using the current pandemic to charge users £49.99 for a "premium" service that is anything but and is a shadow of its former self."

Later on . . .

"Only one person has access to private data (myself) and the site uses secure tried and tested software. In over 20 years of operating website's I've not had a breach. Of course no site can say it will never happen but I've taken all sensible steps to reduce this - like how the admin side of the site can only be accessed with 2-step verification."

Admin's signature:

"This site is created by me, someone that has experience of running message boards for many years, doesn't want people to waste £50 and has no desire to be a public figure or attend media events."

That all speaks for itself - no comment!

1) Complete lack of transparency about who set up and is running the site (the "Admin" account).

I see members asking for information and their questions have gone unanswered. (Other questions have been answered so I am assuming that that these questions are being deliberately ignored.)

No doubt the usual suspects will see it as a challenge to reveal the identity of "Admin", particularly as she (I am assuming) has boasted about never having had a site hacked in the last 20 years.

2) Similar lack of transparency about Moderators.

Obviously, these individuals are trusted by "Admin". One can only hope that that trust is not misplaced!

3) Two-step verification to log in

Good.

4) No ability to change User Name

"Admin" saying that this might be done by "Admin" if someone requests it. However, lots of people arguing that the ability to change User Names is responsible for trolling and do not accept that it can be a necessary protection for some users.

5) Stalker's Paradise - Lacks Standard Privacy Features

You do not need to be registered to:

• view all content
• search all content
• click-through a User Name to view their profile and everything they have posted

6. Appearance, Accessibility, Usability, Features

A lot of this is personal choice so not much point my going in to details. So just to say: there are some things that I like, more that I think are redundant or a distraction and there are some very useful features of Mumsnet that seem to be missing, eg. I alway set to see 100 posts per page.

Overall impression:
a slap-dash "vanity project" run by anonymous, unprofessional, amateur-enthusiasts whose main interest seems to be to troll Mumsnet from a safe distance (I had a quick look at some of the discussions).

If I was looking for an alternative to Mumsnet, which I am not, then even if that was the only alternative on the whole bloody internet I would rather go without than give it the time of day.

I'm not signing up to a site that's brand new until I have some way of knowing that it won't turn out to be either founded for dodgy purposes or vulnerable to infiltration by people whose motives are dodgy. Not given the core issue, which is TRAs and the range of lovely tactics they deploy in the attempt to silence and control women. If (as I hope) the new site was set up with the best of intentions I hope they have some people who're good at tech and experienced in assessing security risks involve - time will tell.

Vitreous you're taking all the discussion here very personally (which is why people are assuming you used to work for MNHQ) and I'm not convinced that your interventions are helping to achieve your goal so far.