Late night surprise about reputation of FWR

[IwantToRetire]

I was on Site Stuff to report back on ongoing freezing and noticed another thread about whether Mumsnet should apologise about deleting threads about ongoing conflict in the Middle East.

And there were some comments about there being a border line between legitimate criticism of Israel's policies and anti semitism. And it is this last that get these threads deleted.

So was surprised to see some comment on this thread saying it was as bad as some threads on FWR, and those particularly at fault are thos with a GC view point.

(Funnily enough AI suggested a title for this thread along the lines of "Are FWR debates judged differently ..... " but now it has hidden its suggestion, just when I was going to use it.)

Oh its come back

"Are sex and gender debates on FWR judged by different standards?"

It's the hypocrisy and double standards which is the absolute worst of the shit isn't it?

What do you mean by 'tag'? A poster replying to a point you made isn't 'tagging' you, but that response will show up in your notifications because that is how the site has been designed..

A poster using your name isn't 'tagging' you, they are replying to a point you made, and politely acknowledging that you made it. It is basic good manners on this site to include people in discussions.

The only react buttons available are 'thank you', 'agree', 'love' and 'support'. None of those are objectionable.

I'm not sure what you are comparing posts on this discussion board to. Try thinking of it as an informal round the coffee table chat.

It is disconcerting to see replies accurately referencing what and who is being replied to as ‘hounding’.

However, I have also noted the language use of ‘hounding’ while making what I consider a baseless accusation, and in the same post the poster referencing another’s post is said to be acting ‘hysterically’.

With respect, offering only one short comment, leaves you open to being understood in ways you apparently didn’t intend to. And my responses are never intended to pick you apart but to better understand your views. And I thought I had been pretty polite overall.

It started with this comment: I didn’t actually mean the core debate (women’s rights), but the debate about the how hostile to other women this board is ie in your view, women on FWR are / can be hostile

However, after you said your views were aligned to a majority on the board, I noted that with comments like the one above, that: …there’s an impression that you agree or support those who label the tone of FWR responses as aggression and nastiness ie the ‘both sides’ accusation.

So when you replied I don’t think GC women are anything near the same level as TRAs can you see that - in addition to your earlier comment using the word ‘hostile’ - I would understand ‘near the same level’ as to mean that you still see GC women as being hostile or aggressive? Just, not as bad as TRAs. In which case, I thought we’d have to leave it there as that wasn’t my viewpoint.

If that’s not what you meant, then instead of saying "I don’t know what else to say", a natural response is to clarify what you did mean. If you’re not sure and you’re still working through what you do think, then feel free to say so.

Those excerpts posted by that black cat are shocking- I've seen them before but forgotten how violent and horrible they were. But toxic in both sides
Apparently

*on not in
sorry

If we keep this up just a bit longer we will qualify for a discussion about the discussions about the discussions.

Yep.

Exactly.

Woman on Mumsnet fights very hard for her right to think an issue isn't very deep. "It's most important that other people recognize this is something really quite trivial, and I will engage fiercely with anyone who tries to tell me I should care about it."

It's like they've been an assignment:

Present "Not Caring" as your personal opinion and string it out as long as possible.

The aim is to demoralise them by getting them to believe that

NOBODY CARES

We will measure success by the number who say they have better things to do than waste their time posting on Mumsnet about so called "women's rights" and spurious concepts such as "safeguarding" - because they have realised that

NOBODY CARES

This assignment will contribute to development of Key Skills in Gaslighting and DARVO, which should be deployed freely.

This is tough assignment so good luck out there mingling with the bigoted old crones!

Clarity and precision of expression are really important. When you say something in a debate, you have to expect that at least some of the people who disagree with you might have an interpretation of your comments that you didn't intend. This is not necessarily because they are arguing in bad faith and trying to trip you up. It might be because they disagree with you and have become impatient, or are coming in from a completely different angle from you. So you need to reread and clarify.

This is why academic texts can be so turgid: it takes a very skilled writer to hedge a claim about with all the necessary and tedious buts, maybes and in-some-cases without making you feel as if you're wading through mud.

Language matters and clarity matters. As @RedToothBrush pointed out in her eccellent post above, the use of the term 'diddums' being seen as 'aggressive' is just ridiculous. It's mocking and a bit dismissive, but it's not aggressive. If people start claiming that they find being challenged, disagreed with and called 'diddums' aggressive, what words do they have left to describe people shouting angrily at other people, fights outside pubs, and nations squaring of against one another?

Im not a regular on these boards, but even I have got quite cynical about some threads. I can't imagine how difficult it is to keep saying the same thing again and again. Especially the 'no, we don't hate you; no we're not trying to 'erase' you; no we're not alt-right trad wives' etc etc. The idea that we are all right wing particularly galls me as I think it shows a lack of understanding about modern capitalism.
The issue is not, as I see it, that people on this board don't want to debate. But more that you can't debate with someone who has no logical train of thought. Now sometimes perhaps, that makes posters assume that there is bad faith, where maybe there isn't. But some of the faux-naive stuff really does engender cynicism.

We aren't allowed to disagree or have different views Edith. This is an illiberal movement where dissent is heresy. It's authoritarian.

Tbh I'm not remotely interested in being nice. People aren't being nice to me. Respect is earnt and I don't owe anyone being nice, especially when their opening line is 'why do you hate?' when I don't.

I'm interested in being fair. That means being fair to everyone even if it's people you don't like. That means ensuring vulnerable women have access to services and are protected. Men have no rights to use them or their bodies - if they still insist they can't use the men's they need to campaign for and use third spaces. Women are effectively campaigning for their own protected spaces. The worst thing is when there's protected trans spaces but some how this is ok, despite women not being allowed their own spaces.

It's tough titty if this isn't liked. It's the only way it can be done fairly.

RTB, People aren't being nice to me.
Oh, come, were you not flattered by being described, along with the rest of the regular GC posters on here, as 'quite intelligent'?

Its a shame we have to 'be prepared' to post on some boards, but it is what it is.

Part of the problem is how this board has been created and evolved. Some people really don't want to see it discussed, so we were moved and, to a certain extent, hidden. And the feminist discussions disappeared (although I do think that is because there isn't much of a feminist argument for TRA).

And the board became less debate, more awareness and activism.

So its difficult to post here with a 'i don't see what the issue is?' post. But then, it would be bonkers to post on the TTC boards saying 'i don't know why are you trying for a baby?'.

Also, everyone knows the issues around TRA, and that its discussed here, so people must be aware that post will get a reaction. Thats why Im not convinced that the hurt is always genuine.

If anyone wants a real shock, try the primary school board, or search for your children's name in 'baby names'.

If anyone wants a real shock, try the primary school board, or search for your children's name in 'baby names'.

I see Baby Names and raise you Style and Beauty.

Ummm no, I wasn’t making any assumptions about your hair or your politics because I just don’t care about either. I was making an observation based on your posts.

I think the whole leftie must be an active, right must be anti abortion/ anti women's rights is such a simplistic analysis as to where politics are now.

I am a traditional “leftie” who is politically homeless.

And as a GC person i am not concerned with other peoples political stance on various broader issues.

we are all united under a banner of protecting women’s rights, and anyway I have friends in the real word who may vote differently to me it matters none, as long as they care about people.

But you … were? And you were incorrect.

I've just read the old thread (newly revived and so showing on the first page here), called "Women are being censored..." The arguments are all there. There's even a link to a Swedish study which, just like the recent Finnish one, didn't show improved mental health after transitioning.

That thread was in 2013. Thirteen years ago! And yet people are still coming here with wide-eyed naivety and asking why we can't all "just be kind". It's like Groundhog Day.

I haven't been on this board anywhere near as long as some posters. If I had, by now my response to "just be kind", "it's nuanced", "you want to erase trans people" and all the other hoary old chestnuts, would probably be unprintable.

Kudos to those of you who can still patiently start from the beginning - yet again - while choosing to give the benefit of the doubt to the latest (apparent) innocent. If I'd been in the field as long as you, I'm not sure that I could.

Noooo I was making a general observation. No wonder you seem to see aggression on this board if you’re used take every observation and comment so personally. I was using the general”you”, not singling you out.

As there are only one or two posters on the thread that your post could conceivably have been about, and it was a response to one of my posts, I raise my eyebrow at that.

Would you prefer ‘dumb as rocks’? See how difficult this is? I paid you all a compliment, but no. Good lord.

'quite intelligent' You think that's a compliment ?

If you think women (especially older women) can't be very intelligent, it is...