Dear MNHQ:

[PerfectPretender]

It's become perfectly clear now that pointing out safeguarding failures over recent years has not been unreasonable, or mean-spirited, or unkind, but actually completely reasonable and expected of educational guidelines and safeguarding procedures.

It's time for you to accept that our concerns were, shall we say, valid.

And every single time you deleted one of us for pointing out these blindingly obvious safeguarding failures? Wrong side of history. You.

You owe a lot of women an apology.

And I just had a thread pulled. I agree with you OP, but they won’t change. MN think they’re doing us a big favour and treat us with very little respect a lot of the time. That’s why I tend not to stay. I’m sick of it.

@FloralBunting

I would like to expend my thanks to the women who provide the content here, for free. Their knowledge, tenacity, courage and compassion in the face of utterly hideous woman-hatred and behaviour that would test anyone's mental health, all while living their own difficult lives to boot, has achieved amazing things. They have truly spoken truth to power, and moved mountains.

You, women of FWR, all have my undying respect.

Here here!

@invisibleoldwoman

I started reading this thread after reading an article about how the Spectator dealt with a recent threat by the Co-op to withdraw advertising. The Co-op had been targeted by Stop Funding Hate.

www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-spectator-the-co-op-and-cancel-culture-a-cautionary-tale

"The theory behind Stop Funding Hate is that publications get most of their money from advertisers, not readers – so pressure exerted via advertisers can work. And that the financial managers of a publication are the weak link. If you threaten the revenue, the money will clip journalists’ wings. This theory doesn’t quite work at The Spectator where advertising revenue is dwarfed by support from readers (we now outsell the weekday Guardian and the FT) and the company is run by one Andrew Neil. When the Co-op tweeted that they’d binned us, he reacted in a way that I doubt they expected - and immediately announced that they were banned as an advertiser. ......The story went viral, but it soon translated into a flood of new subscriptions to The Spectator. People, it seems, have had their fill of cancel culture and were pleased to see a publication standing up to it. We ended up with over 1,000 subs: our own Co-op dividend. Then it all started to backfire on the Co-op, with all kinds of people threatening not to shop there. "

So I was thinking about Mumsnet's recent efforts to encourage direct financial support and while at first I felt slightly cynical about this I think I've changed my mind. If Mumsnet is less dependent on its advertisers it is in a stronger position not to be blackmailed by them. There might still be legal and other issues to navigate but that can happen in a better environment if the financial pressures are reduced.

So I am going to start supporting Mumsnet financially and hope this will contribute to the continuation of FWR as a place where uncomfortable truths can be spoken to power and given the oxygen of publicity.

agree monetary support goes a long way. After all the Guardian isn't going to see a penny from me after their appauling 'journalism'.

I'd support MN financially if we could do it anonymously.

I agree with svhJess.

Yes they’ve let us talk. But grudgingly. And there isn’t much respect for us. We are hidden away and controlled in a way that others are not. And yet we have achieved something huge this week with a huge impact for women and children. The very purpose of this site. MNHQ should be platforming us, not wishing we would go away.

And although Twitter is vile the posts about surrogacy and a particular individual all stayed up. Here they were deleted on his say so. Twitter hates women and yet we get deleted....

I won’t pay an organisation that wishes I would go away. Bans me for truthful posts. Tells me off and patronises me.

I suspect there is method behind MN guidelines, and this may relate to press standards.

The Mail published a story last week about a trans woman being sent to a man’s prison, and religiously used preferred pronouns throughout. The Mail has much deeper pockets that MN. We also know about the rash of law suits and threatened legal action: Miranda, Kate, Caro, Linda/Venice/Glinner/Harry.

Be careful in order to stay open is the path MN seem to have taken. And though some decisions were questionable, and they can be criticised for caving when some of the more effective posters were targeted, they stayed open. They did not have to.

Then they’d have lost what stops them being netmums. It’s the patronising tone and the policing on webchats that pisses me off the most. These people want to be our rulers - their job is to find out what we think. Their ears won’t fall off if we tell them.

I’m embarrassed at MNHQs lack of confidence in their own user base. If they think we are too much how can they sell us to advertisers ?

Although they have provided one of the only spaces on the internet for such discussion to take place without the interjection of threats, and unless you choose to pay its a free platform to use. I think all things considered, actually they have done a great job.

@R0wantrees

LangCleg wrote Thu 21-Feb-19

"How did the scandal of TV entertainers grooming and exploiting children get so bad before anything was done?

How did the scandal of Catholic priests grooming and exploiting children get so bad before anything was done?

How did the scandal of on-street gangs grooming and exploiting children get so bad before anything was done?

Because if you create a sacred caste of any group and silence anyone asking questions about individuals on behalf of the sacred caste, abusers will see, infiltrate, and groom and exploit children. That''s how."

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3512177-Julia-Long-asking-Munro-Bergdorf-about-child-exploitation?pg=12

& huge gratitude to the many women who make the difference.

It is very apparent how many people do not understand the core principles of Safeguarding.

Until that changes, children & Vulnerable Adults are at uneccessary risk.

This cannot be reproduced enough.

Thank you for digging it out ROwantrees

These people want to be our rulers

Nah. There are other forums. All they are saying is that if you want to be on their forum, you need to follow their rules.

I mean the MPs who go on webchats want to be our rulers. Not Justine

It’s MNHQ making sure the MPs don’t get too overwhelmed by our words.

Good to see you back, R0wanTrees! There's a lot of work for feminist archivists at the moment, both retrieval and storage, isn't there?

HappyDappy "I would happily support Mumsnet financially IF they allow us to name men, as men. The whole jumping through hoops to try & get a point across whilst not using certain phrases is at best tedious and at worst compelled speech. It is not hatred to identify a man as a man & the myth that it is, needs to be refuted every time."

I agree. I would financially support Mumsnet if I could be frank. Not rude to or about trasnwomen, but just factually correct.

I'd pay cold hard cash for that.

I would also consider paying if I could be frank and honest with the truth AND only those who are also paid members could report.

It would make the sad little club of Monitors who stalk these threads looking to be offended by facts think twice about their orchestrated little gang if they had to pay for the privilege of shutting us up with their vexation reporting.

And the second I had a thread pulled because a man complained on Twitter, I would cancel my paid membership.

@SophocIestheFox

Well, yes and no, z0rro, because as well as being the consumers here, we’re also the content. No users, no content. Advertisers pay for access to users here. So I think it’s Ok to ask to have our thoughts taken into account - It’s a poor company that doesn’t want to know what its users think. Of course MNHQ have the final say.

^ this. I've been on many, many forums since forums were invented, and I do wish MN would adopt some features that are almost universal, been in place in every forum I've been on (iirc).

One is that only members should be able to report posts. This seems pretty basic to me. Why should any random man, who has no interest in parenting or in women's rights, be able to rock up and report a post he doesn't like? Crazy.

Most forums let you earn reputation points. This is a good thing. You can only start a thread, for instance, if you've earned several rep points. You can also be banned if enough regular posters give you enough minus points. A person with a good reputation should not be banned.

I love MN and will be staying no matter what, but some of the random removal of posts and banning of truly reputable posters because of complaints from outside really irritates.

Yes, I agree with you Malahaha. At the very least only members should be allowed to report a post.

This is the only mainstream place that platforms this conversation. The only one. And if you don't think it causes Mumsnet's brand to have been harmed over the past few years, seeing this site linked to the fact that British women are alone, internationally, in having fought a successful rearguard action in defending our rights, then I don't understand why people are so worried their mumsnet name might be linked to their real life one, if they subscribe.

Mumsnet have refused to back down, and it's clearly cost them, in advertising and in moderation costs. I also imagine that they rely on their reputation when it comes to recruitment, and that working for Mumsnet now may not carry the cachet it did. Yet still they allow this conversation, and they're alone in doing so.

Do I like all the rules? No. Do I always understand the bannings, or why which threads go, and when? No. Do I recognise that this site has been key in the victories this week, and is why I know what is happening at all? Absolutely.

We now have an army of women who are appalled, informed, and fighting back. Many real life friends, on finding I'm on board, have told me of other mutual friends who are... and usually, it's because they are either on Mumsnet, or married to someone who is. And while I'm not notable, as a graduate of a good university I know others who are. I know we have women with our views sprinkled through the higher echelons of every industry and every branch of government, quietly doing what they can - because Mumsnet is a site that has been their online home, all through their life as a parent, and so they were willing to come and read up on it now, on this issue - and the facts are strong enough that they became convinced. Mumsnet has done that, and it keeps on doing that. India Willoughby stated that JK Rowling's views are from membership of this site. Do you really think we'd have got where we are today, without her on board?

The women who own Mumsnet will have had personal repercussions, in terms of their own friendship groups and professional ties, over this. There will have been people who were cold to them, friendships that have petered out. They're not anonymous. They're anything but. Yet still they persisted in allowing free speech to women (and I don't even know if we can assume that they share our views, because through the 15 years I've been on here, I've seen them stand strong on freedom of speech many times, including paying for a barrister for one poster when a famous childcare expert threatened libel). And I'm grateful. It's a damn sight more than anyone else dared to do, and without this place, we'd be where Canada, or the US, or Ireland or Australia are right now. And we're not. We're the only country in the world which appears to have acknowledged that the definition and categorisation of 'woman' should have input from women themselves. And news outlets all over the world have pointed the finger at Mumsnet. So yes, I'm grateful. And I subscribe.

Paying is fine, but it silences those who cannot afford it as a monthly outgoing and they have things of value to say as well. I agree with everything in @wellbehavedwomens post

@wellbehavedwomen

So I was thinking about Mumsnet's recent efforts to encourage direct financial support and while at first I felt slightly cynical about this I think I've changed my mind. If Mumsnet is less dependent on its advertisers it is in a stronger position not to be blackmailed by them. There might still be legal and other issues to navigate but that can happen in a better environment if the financial pressures are reduced.
This would convince me to subscribe, but I am worried about data breaches.

then I don't understand why people are so worried their mumsnet name might be linked to their real life one, if they subscribe.
In my case, because I have a trans person in my family (who I love) and I fear my views would cause a massive rift. Even if subscribers were to get rights that non-subscribers didn't, I would still be very, very cautious. The odds of exposure are tiny, but in this instance I'm not prepared to risk it.

If I could do a one-off anonymous donation of £50, I would.

I wish Mumsnet had a simple 'Donate' button, too. A lot of websites do these days, as well as subscription offers.

@GrumpyMiddleAgedWoman I do completely understand why people don't want to subscribe and have a risk of a data breach. My point was only that some people claim that MN haven't taken a risk in platforming this discussion, then turn around and say they can't risk anyone knowing that they're part of it. The two positions contradict. The two women who founded and own Mumsnet have taken the sort of brand reputation risk nobody would ever do, unless founded on principle. They're not anonymous, even without a data breach. They could have shut us down early on and moved on. They didn't, and they still don't, and we are where we are today because Mumsnet exists for GC discussion. It exists because they're feminists, who think that women have a right to speak and be heard. And I think they deserve credit for that.

Many people really can't afford to donate. It would be wrong for rights on MN to attach to payments made, yep.

I'm not grateful to Mumsnet for allowing us (sometimes) to debate this issue.

They would have lost all credibility if they didn't allow women to discuss and debate what womanhood actually is and the impact of legislation that will affect us.

They haven't done it from the kindness of their hearts or because they want to be fair, they've done it as a commercial decision to protect their brand.

As we keep on being deleted and threatened with a ban for not using the language of TRA's to describe womanhood and the deletions are arbitrary and inexplicable (when I asked what would be a more acceptable phrase to use I was told "we moderate each report in context - so we can't really give a list of acceptable terms" even though they confirmed that the term I'd used implied something (which it didn't), I find that MN are reaping the benefits of being seen to support free speech, while not actually supporting free speech.

Yes we may be able to discuss it, but it's walking on eggshells to try and anticipate which phrase or word a moderator might bafflingly decide means something it doesn't.

I've lost a lot of respect for Mumsnet over this issue. They've let women down.

It's easier to discuss this freely on Facebook and Twitter, both of which sites are run by raging misogynists.

It's been shameful.

I don’t agree that Mumsnet HQ have let women down. Quite the opposite.

Go back even a couple of years and this was one of the only mainstream sm sites that allowed women to discuss this issue using anything resembling appropriate language. Twitter etc have been playgrounds for abuse by TRAs throughout. And Reddit removed entire sub boards!

I know it has been rocky at times but if it wasn’t for this site I would not have had my eyes opened >five years ago to the identity nightmare unfolding before us.

Or, what wellbehavedwomen said more eloquently :-)