So Mumsnet ignored our request to have something to do with 'feminism' or 'women' in the name of the 'naughty step' subtopic

[StrawberryLipstickStateOfMind]

So we now have

Feminist Chat (which was our space anyway)

Sex and gender debate

If they had to go ahead with this spineless nonsense plan, many of us on the preferred names thread suggested it was essential to include feminism in the naughty step topic. You cannot take the debate on sex/gender away from feminism.

I think my suggestion was:

Feminism: Women's Sex Based Rights

LibFem

So not only are they ignoring us and forging ahead with this crap, they've removed any relationship to feminism and women from the subtopic name.

Absolutely disgusted. This feels so reminiscent of the erasure of the word 'women' in so many contexts. To take the word feminist out of this subtopic- @MNHQ can you explain this? Because it's awful.

Quick question.

Has anyone else noticed that (from my POV) there are really weird posts coming up on the threads here.

Extreme views, views about sex that seem very old fashioned. That sort of thing.

I took it for granted that this new topic would be targeted but if that's what it is, it's not how I expected.

Could be just me feeling like this of course.

I'll just post here for everything feminism related. My feminism is sex based

I think things will settle but NiceGerbil it may be worth us reporting threads that are 'not in the spirit' instead of being our open and welcoming selves, ready for debate. Lets start stamping our feet

So mumsnet is artificially creating a division that doesn't exist

100% agree.

@NiceGerbil

Quick question.

Has anyone else noticed that (from my POV) there are really weird posts coming up on the threads here.

Extreme views, views about sex that seem very old fashioned. That sort of thing.

I took it for granted that this new topic would be targeted but if that's what it is, it's not how I expected.

Could be just me feeling like this of course.

I've noticed the same. It's quite peculiar.

I noticed this from MN

Hi all. We've had to delete a fair number of posts from this thread so far. Please can we stick to the principles of civil debate from this point
We may have to take the thread down if we have to remove many more posts

I'm not commenting on the mods reply specifically (they have enough headaches) but the word "debate" again.

I think it shows there is culture where we are not allowed to have strong emotions around things like consent/rape in case a male external monitor would be offended and go wild bothering the mods with reports. This leads to silencing women making important points on cotton ceiling/rape/abuse.

Do we have to say "I respectfully disagree with my learned friend" ?

MN need to say "debate" less and "Potato Waffles" more.

@wonderin is that a comment on this thread?

[quote Ninkanink]@wonderin is that a comment on this thread?[/quote]
Not on this thread.

Was just yet another example of "debate" being used.

But I posted in the genuine spirit of debate

Here is another example of "debate" being used by a particular goady F.

Mumnset present the feminist board on a platter to those anti-feminists who wish to debate, troll and goad us.
They dont do that on Trying To Conceive or Relationships boards , funny that.

Thanks for reply!

It’s incredibly irritating that ‘debate’ hasn’t yet been removed from the title (bad enough that gender is in there at all).

If it isn’t removed I have decided that I won’t comment here at all but will just talk about women’s, girls’ and children’s rights and protections in law and society and anything pertaining to women’s/girls issues over there instead.

NiceGerbil - yes - almost as though some have seen this contrived division by mumsnet as being an attack on feminism itself. I have been wondering where this hole foot in mouth debacle is being talked about, as there certainly seems to be a lot of aggression and hostility to women talking about womens rights. And all the men I know are lovely, its terrible the way women talk about men on this board, blah, blah, blah, blah.

I had a comment deleted as they said I was troll hunting (which is against a rule I had never heard of), but it was to point out that a particular poster seemed to turn up on threads just to hurl abuse.

Apparently if you think there is a troll your are meant to alert MNHQ and they take action.

I am not sure what the dividing line is between a troll, and someone who just seems to think they have been given the green light by MNHQ to tell us we are all just desbicable for even thinking let alone writing about women rights - and if you refer to radical feminism you really are the woman that men have warned us about!

@Ninkanink

Thanks for reply!

It’s incredibly irritating that ‘debate’ hasn’t yet been removed from the title (bad enough that gender is in there at all).

If it isn’t removed I have decided that I won’t comment here at all but will just talk about women’s, girls’ and children’s rights and protections in law and society and anything pertaining to women’s/girls issues over there instead.

Actually thinking about that, it could become counterproductive couldn’t it. I think i’ll have to keep posting on both.

Maddening though. I think it’s especially shitty given recent legal developments. There was absolutely no need to do this.

Apparently if you think there is a troll your are meant to alert MNHQ and they take action.

That's a long-standing rule and I can kind of see the reason.
Thing is though that 'troll' has come to mean 'rude or insulting person' or 'OP making up a story that never happened / goading OP'. Trolling used to be derailing discussion - obviously this includes insults and obviously wrong/disingenuous posts - we see every day how one little awful post just gets constant replies - but I don't know if that counts as troll-hunting now, the boundaries are a bit unclear.

Uncivil/not in the spirit might deal with derailing more. I tend to view someone that won't put forward a clear POV in a debate or won't answer questions without deflecting as being not in good faith and therefore not civil/not in the spirit, but no idea if MN agree!

There was absolutely no need to do this.

Women’s Rights no debate.

I feel really crossed with this. Feel like MN is not telling us something.

Yeah - I feel like I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop. I wouldn't be surprised if this was in service to something else.
Don't massively mind rolling with the two-board thing if there's a way to view both together, but the discussions around it have been kind of weird.