[UPDATED] Facebook remove group campaigning against men who take unsolicited photos of women on trains

Share

Facebook moderation is under a fire again following a decision by the company to remove a group campaigning against another, much creepier group.

trains.png

You might remember a group called “Women who eat on Tubes” that made headlines last month. The group – in a nutshell – is what it sounds like: photos of women eating on the London Underground. What makes it weird is that none of the women pictured have actually consented to having their photo taken.

That’s a bit creepy, right? Needless to add, the comments on the photos were not pleasant either. Astonishingly, at the time of writing the group has over 29,000 members.

Following the outcry, Facebook actually deleted the group, but later claimed it was accidental and reinstated it.

In response to this, a group of women founded a counter-group on Facebook called “Men Who Post On ‘Women Who Eat On Tubes'” to highlight the problems with the group – and call out the men who post on it. As of this morning though, the group has been taken down following a user report for posing a “credible threat of violence”… which it didn’t.

“It’s absurd that Facebook would shut down a group exposing people who are basically being creeps on trains, but not the group full of creeps itself”, said Marianne Baker, who was a regular contributor to the group.

At its peak, this counter group amassed almost 2000 members.

Facebook’s moderation practices are regularly under scrutiny – with previous ‘odd’ moderation decisions including allowing images of blood and gore to remain, whilst censoring pictures of breastfeeding.

What about the arguments for allowing the WWEOT group on free speech grounds? Dr Baker responded by saying:

“It’s not about free speech. Generally we were not requesting the group to be closed, but trying to educate people in why taking their photograph covertly and posting it online without consent to be ridiculed is unacceptable behaviour.

“We set this in the context of women’s everyday lives and the pressures we face, but this was met with dismissals including “well it’s not illegal” – if your sole standard for acceptable behaviour is legality, we definitely still have a problem. Plenty of shocking things were legal – like raping your wife, until 1991. Things change. We’re still catching up in legal terms with what the internet allows in behavioural terms. WWEOT is a violation and that it’s still open when our response has been shut down is baffling.”

It certainly smacks of double standards from Facebook. I’ve reached out to them for comment and will update this post if they respond.

Update (16:56): Whilst we still haven’t heard from Facebook, the group’s creator, Mimi Kempton-Stewart has said the following the former members of the group:

“Hi all, I think we can all agree that we had fun and that feminism’s a great laugh, but as soon as it starts to slightly annoy one man, it should be stopped. I am sorry that “Camembert’s” muesli tasted so salty after all his tears fell in it. This was an error and I regret it. In future I will stick to asking men for permission to be rude about them, as per millennia of patriarchy/Facebook’s Terms and Conditions. Thanks to everyone who helped, Mimi”

Ouch.

Update (9th May, 11:48): Facebook have responded to a report of the original ‘Women who eat on tubes’ group for harassment and found that it didn’t violate their community standards. Hmm.

agh.png

Dr Baker has also written a detailed blog post outlining her arguments.

James O’Malley

102 comments

  • With Black Friday just around the corner, the competition to get the largest number of consumers has gained serious momentum. For now, with bigger discounts and more product offerings, Walmart (WMT) is the clear leader of the pack.http://bit.ly/1m2CD3E

    • Very interesting. So despite it being “perfectly legal” to take secret photos of women in public, it’s not always seen as innocent, harmless, non-threatening behaviour by the authorities. I suggest some of the more prolific posters on WWEOT read your link, and bear it in mind when they take their next creepshot.

    • Very interesting. So despite it being “perfectly legal” to take secret photos of women in public, it's not always seen as innocent, harmless, non-threatening behaviour by the authorities. I suggest some of the more prolific posters on WWEOT read your link, and bear it in mind when they take their next creepshot.

  • People who can be trusted don’t need to persuade others they are trustworthy.
    All they need to do is act trustworthy.
    Taking sneeky photos without asking for consent shows you can’t be trusted to not take photos without asking if it’s ok. And don’t care if the person doesn’t want their photo taken. All you care about is doing what you want regardless of the other person and how they feel about that or what they want

    People who don’t gaslight don’t tell women their feelings are irrational.

    Gaslighters do that.

    http://www.doctornerdlove.com/2012/07/labeling-women-crazy/all/1/

  • People who can be trusted don't need to persuade others they are trustworthy.All they need to do is act trustworthy.Taking sneeky photos without asking for consent shows you can't be trusted to not take photos without asking if it's ok. And don't care if the person doesn't want their photo taken. All you care about is doing what you want regardless of the other person and how they feel about that or what they wantPeople who don't gaslight don't tell women their feelings are irrational.Gaslighters do that.http://www.doctornerdlove.com/

  • In this article, a journalist comments on Facebook page he’s never visited himself.

    “Facebook have responded to a report of the original ‘Women who eat on tubes’ group for harassment and found that it didn’t violate their community standards. Hmm.”

    If you went to the page, you’d see why it doesn’t violate community standards. All the nasty stuff you claim happens there, gets deleted very quickly because it’s moderated. A group of 30k people, you’d expect there to be some nasty comments, but they are not encouraged, quite the opposite.

    Whereas the sole purpose of the protest group was to make nasty comments and intimidate named individuals.

    Not hard to see the difference if you actually research the thing you’re writing about instead of viewing second hand screenshots of posts that were moderated within minutes. Most of the people protesting haven’t actually been to the page either – hence their massive outrage about nothing much at all.

  • In this article, a journalist comments on Facebook page he's never visited himself.”Facebook have responded to a report of the original 'Women who eat on tubes' group for harassment and found that it didn't violate their community standards. Hmm.”If you went to the page, you'd see why it doesn't violate community standards. All the nasty stuff you claim happens there, gets deleted very quickly because it's moderated. A group of 30k people, you'd expect there to be some nasty comments, but they are not encouraged, quite the opposite.Whereas the sole purpose of the protest group was to make nasty comments and intimidate named individuals.Not hard to see the difference if you actually research the thing you're writing about instead of viewing second hand screenshots of posts that were moderated within minutes. Most of the people protesting haven't actually been to the page either – hence their massive outrage about nothing much at all.

  • Ed to me you would be a health and safety risk in the workplace and I would want my employers if I worked with you to put an action in place of no camera phones whilst at work. Also as a women I wouldn’t feel safe with you around me to and from work.

  • True they don’t post the womens names. What they are INSISTENT about posting though which feels creepy again in that the person posting the photo posts the time and the tube line. Now as most of these women are more than likely going to be commuting to work and back. This just doesn’t sit well. The admin are insistent that they want that information. That is also creepy along with it being secretly done without asking for consent. Also a fair amount of sexual innuendo posted with the pics.

  • As a woman you have aright to feel safe in the workplace. So if any woman works with any of these men/women who have taken pics without consent and posted online without consent or are admins inciting this behavior If they felt strongly enough and were concerned that these men or women are a foreseeable health and safety risk to take covert secret pics of them without their consent. As clearly in real life this is what they feel it is ok to do. Then if they brought this to the attention of their employer the employer would have to put steps in place to deal with that health and safety issue that had been raised. Also the Equality act for women may be helpful in the workplace in dealing with this issue if it arouse. Also if your children are around these men again if you felt strongly enough you could raise it as a health and safety issue in the way I have described. if you wanted.
    People with good motives and intentions don’t take secret covert pictures without consent and put online without consent to make fun of, ridicule’ taunt tease,humiliate, violate, or make, derogatory, dehumanizing or sexual innuendos about.

    • “Also if your children are around these *men* again if you felt strongly enough you could raise it as a health and safety issue in the way I have described. if you wanted. ”

      And what about the many many women who post on there Rose? Are they a health and safety issue too? You would think so, if you weren’t just hiding bigotry behind women’s rights.

  • James, be really interested as to your basis for saying WWEOT is more creepy than MWPOWWEOT. Your article didn’t really explain that. Did you write the article or was it sent to you by one of the ‘weird sisters’?

    • Interested why you think MWPOWWEOT was more creepy than the original. Even Burke admitted his little project is “fucking creepy”. Yet you all rally around him like little sycophants. That is creepy, too.

      • Another thing anyone can do if they suspect a passenger has taken their picture is make a big fuss and get British transport police involved. They have the power to check their phones.

        • The police do not have this power, thankfully. Oh unless we’re classing this as terrorism, which given the general hyberbole we’ve seen so far around this, is probably your next move.

          • The police do have that power Rob. say if the women was wearing at skirt and she suspected up skirting or down blousing. That’s all she would need to say. Or say that she felt threatened and intimidated and creeped out as she suspected secret photos were being taken. And who knows if they checked just what other photos maybe on someones phone. wouldn’t be the first time other sort of photos have been found that way. I’d make the biggest fuss imaginable If I suspected someone of doing this to me and get their phobe checked. And Yes Rob same for the women taking theses pictures and the females admins if I worked with one or my children were in their care. They would also be a foreseeable health and safety risk to have camera phones in the work environment. Hope that answers your questions Rob. Everyone in their right mind knows if it was all above board the photographer would just ask and it wouldn’t be all done in secret. If you think it’s ok to take pictures secretly of women and then post on line. After all if it’s not a problem why on earth would anyone be worrried about their families or employers knowing that they did this.?

          • “The police do have that power Rob. say if the women was wearing at skirt and she suspected up skirting or down blousing. That’s all she would need to say. Or say that she felt threatened and intimidated and creeped out as she suspected secret photos were being taken.”

            Rose, firstly – why are you bringing in up-skirt shots here? It’s absolutely not the same thing and you’re (yet again) conflating something that genuinely is creepy (photographing up people’s skirts) with something that really isn’t (photographing someone doing something extremely normal in public) – presumably to add weight to your very shaky case for being so terrified and offended about what amounts to almost nothing. You try so hard to paint everyone as creeps (to the extent that you claim anyone who is in the group shouldn’t actually be allowed near any children ever) yet you don’t even go to the page and see it for what it is, instead relying on second hand websites and screenshots that try their best to make a horror story out of the utterly mundane. Accept that most people, most women, really are not bothered by this in the slightest – even if they find it strange behaviour – and you do not speak for any of them.

            Secondly, for the police to search the contents of a locked phone, they will need to arrest the man and gain a warrant to search his property. When they search the phone and find a picture of a woman eating in public… which is not illegal, they’ll let him go and tell Rose she was wrong and that he had no photos of upskirting. If Rose decides to makea habit of pursuing vexatious claims against men doing absolutely nothing illegal, then Rose will soon enough find herself in court, most likely ordered to seek some kind of therapy for her problems rather than wasting police time with her fantasies.

            “Some of the Photos on wweot are posted with sexually suggestive innuendos and comments.”

            And they are swiftly removed, and the perpetrators warned and banned if they persist (unlike the screenshots left up and posted for time immemorial by those who claim to care about how the victims must feel about them).

            Like any public moderated forum discussing anything, distasteful things are said, but the measure of the group is what is done about it. This is why Facebook did not take the group down. It really is quite simple.

          • Rob, ok here is why I am bringing creepshoots of upskirting and downblousing into the picture and this is how it is linked to the creepshots from wweot. who take pictures of women mouths eating
            They are all linked and all share the same theme of non digital peeping tom creep shots.
            Just as taking pictures of women in bottoms in yoga pants jeans etc boobs in tight tops, etc etc.
            They all share the same theme of fetishsizing non consent. Of yes women doing normal things.
            Yes it’s normal and ok for women to wear skirts, yoga pants, blouses, tight jeans, eat, etc etc.
            What is creepy is to take secret non consensual pictures of women and is even creepier is to share those pictures with others to comment on in either, teasing taunting, derogatory,dehumanizing casually objectifying them in the most public of ways without their knowledge or consent.
            This fetishsizing is a gateway to other non consensual hobbies.
            It’s about power and control. Self autonomy and boundary issues.
            It’s also to do with the photographer having the power and control over what he does with that non consensual photo.

            I don’t want my thoughts and feelings of what I have said and how it makes me feel as a woman gaslighted by you Rob.
            It feels creepy and disturbing to me Rob as it does to other women who have stated this.
            I don’t want them dismissed or minimized.
            I don’t want their feelings gaslighted either.
            I do not feel offended or terrified. Those are your words not mine. That is your attempt to emotionally manipulate me.
            That will not work on me Rob That will not work on people who are aware of how emotional abusive gaslighting works.
            I don’t want to be emotionally manipulated and gaslighted by you in that way. To have my real feelings dismissed and substituted by your imaginary feelings of what my real feelings are.
            That is emotionally manipulative and abusive and I don’t want to put up with or tolerate that.

            I feel surprised you are asking me to clarify again how those things are linked as I am fairly sure you read previously on the posts mwppowweat written by both myself and others how they are linked .
            On the off chance that you didn’t I have posted AGAIN for you.
            I feel no expectation of either your understanding and or agreement however.
            One can live in hope that either you or others become enlightened and no longer want to take these creepy non consensual pictures and behave like that towards women
            Just like happened to one of wweaot previous members.
            Sadly I believe it will take more than my reply to you here or for you or others to want to stop taking non these non consensual creep shots. And violate women in that way.
            It will take women speaking up, outing people who do this, and laws and stronger consequences and victim empathy programmers put in place in most cases.
            Even then some will choose to carry on still behaving like that.
            Just like in other areas of non consensual issues.

            Yes at the moment it is ‘legal’ to take pictures of wweot in this way.
            As previously stated by myself, others including law enforcement officers, it takes time for the law to catch up with both digital technology and the internet.
            They are getting there.
            At one time upskirting and hitting women and raping women when married etc etc was not illegal.
            It took people speaking up and out to get these things changed and laws in place

            Again I don’t want to be gaslighted by you making out that bringing the issue to the attention of the police that I suspect a ‘non consensual’ picture has been taken is wasting their time.
            Yes the police know this is not illegal yet
            They have stated it is clearly not appropriate to do this against the womens wishes and without their consent.
            People of good character just don’t behave like that. They don’t want to. They ask and respect the rejection of No if given.
            The police have stated to contact them if women want to.
            The more women who do, the more likely laws will be put in place and stronger consequences will happen.
            Like I said previously who knows what other pictures may be on their phone if taking non consensual pictures is a hobby and past time of theirs.
            The only fantasizing I have witnessed is from some of the people who take these non consensual pictures and people who join the site to comment on them. Objectifying these womens mouths and what they eat in suggestive and sexual ways.
            There is not really a problem with that if the woman involved has consented in the real sense of the word and is ok with that.
            In these cases she clearly hasn’t.
            Oh yes silly me DOH, that;s what part of this is about though Non consent!
            That’s part of it.
            That’s what makes it creepy.

            Some of those posts are still there Rob quite visibly still to be seen.

          • Rose,

            “Some of those posts are still there Rob quite visibly still to be seen.”

            Link them then….

            “I don’t want my thoughts and feelings of what I have said and how it makes me feel as a woman gaslighted by you Rob.”

            Rose, I’m not gaslighting you. You are free to feel however you like, and I am free to disagree with you. From your ivory tower that is a man abusing a woman. Back in the real world, it’s just a disagreement. Your views are not immune to criticism just because you’re female.

            “They all share the same theme of fetishsizing non consent.”

            This is the heart of our disagreement. It’s just far too black and white in my opinion. I don’t claim to know what all 30,000 people get out of WWEOT – but you do, and just labelled every single man woman and child in there as having identical motivations – and that’s the fantasy I’m talking about.. just assuming things you couldn’t possibly know to fit in with your world view.

            I suspect different people enjoy it for different reasons. At the very least, in my case you are wrong. Consent or not has absolutely no bearing on the entertainment value of the photos for me, unless the photo is obviously staged – because the joy of it is that they are unselfconscious moments captured – not the face people put on when they know they are being photographed. I don’t post on WWEOT, but when taking photos of my friends in real life at parties or whatever, I never tell people and I hide – I always try to capture the moment, not create a fake moment for the camera. Because of the way you look at things, the lens through which you view my actions, you would see this as my attempt to dominate those around me, about “power and control” as you put it – and I’m basically on the path to being a rapist. To me, it makes for a better photograph. That’s all. I’m sorry you see many men in such bleak terms – but it’s not intellectually fair to accuse people like this, and yet claim any disagreement is abusive (your accusations are, by any objective standard, far more abusive than the acts they complain against.)

            “Like I said previously who knows what other pictures may be on their phone if taking non consensual pictures is a hobby and past time of theirs.”

            You’re right, who knows? You don’t and one right you certainly don’t have is to make vile public insinuations about things and people you know nothing about – that really is against the law.

          • Rob disagreeing with how I feel or others feel is by it’s very nature gas-lighting

            It’s disagreeing with their real feelings
            That’s gaslighting.
            You just have a callsic example of how you do this.
            That’s what this whole debate is about the perpetrators photographers who minimize, belittle, dismiss, invalidate, deny the REAL feelings of the subjects who have this done to them and how that makes them FEEL ROB!
            And how they do not care how the people who have this done to them feel. And how some take great delight that it makes them upset.
            Denying that they are upset, telling them to take a joke and they can take pictures for their entertainment even if the subject doesn’t want them to.

            So if any woman who has her photo taken without her consent says she feels violated.
            That is what she feels.
            If any woman says she feels creeped out by men who do this
            For another person to disagree with how she felt is to gaslight.

            For another person to make up that how she really felt was terrorized is gaslighting.
            That’s emotional abuse.

            By gaslighting any women who says she feels upset bu having her picture taken and used in this way without consent. She is then doubly violated.

            A couple of examples of threads that objectify women who have not consented with sexual innuendos for anyone who wants to join and take a look at that are on that site to date are. One posted 19hrs.
            Also there are a couple by Justin Rayner that times I am not able to load at the moment.
            I do not want to post everyone of them.
            They are all there to see for anyone who wishes.

            I hear what you say that you personally when you take photos want to capture an authentic moment rather than a posed one.
            That’s fine if you are clearly walking around with a camera in view and people are happy for you to do that
            Obviously anyone who said please don’t take any photos of me I hope you would respect they wouldn’t want their photo taken.
            That is not the same thing as people sneakily creeping around with camera phones hiding that they are taking photos and hiding their intention and motives to put on online sites to comment on without their consent and for others to comment on.

            You and I both know that so I’m afraid that bullshit just want wash

            Nice try though Rob.
            I’ll give you that!

            I do not want to engage any further on this issue with you
            I feel happy to stand by everything I have written and said

          • apart from to clarify from last post Cont from last post
            Adrian Wulrus was the thread posted 19 hrs ago.
            Jake Snow who is admin was more than alright with this.
            Commented on it joining in and did not delete the thread or give a warning to Adrian.

            These people have not consented to be used as objects of entertainment for photographers and their groupies to objectify comment on and ridicule.

          • Disagreeing with peoples opinions is not abusive.
            I feel happy to agree to disagree with your opinions.

            Disagreeing with how other peoples experiences made them feel is gaslighting and is emotionally abusive.

          • For anyone interested in viewing an example of one of the threads.
            It was by Adrian Walrus.
            posted may the 12th at 2.50
            Under the food title veg soup.

            If it’s edited after the time and date now/ 14/05 at 17.40 that will be interesting to see.

            Feel odd that Rob is denying it’s existence.
            Hey ho!

          • * Feels odd. That Rob denying the existence of that thread.
            Mmm don’t really know what to make of that.

          • Why don’t you just link it Rose?I’m not denying it’s existence but I looked in good faith and can’t find it. Rather than me trawling through a very busy group trying to find some Adrian Walrus guy for god’s sake. I[d like to see it for myself but seriously life is too short. But from the way you talk you should be able to give me a hundred links. I should just open the page and be disgusted by the misogynistic abuse and creepery on display. That does not happent. Funny I’d even have to search for an abusive comment the way you talk about this group.

            As for denying your feelings – I’m not. I believe you feel how you feel. Do I think it’s justified or rational *in this context*? Not really. And that’s an opinion I’m entitled to and It’s not abuse of any sort, and you won’t stop me from expressing it by basically calling me names or trying to shame me with nasty words. You give worse than you’re getting here Rose so please stop throwing around words like gaslighting and accusing people of abuse. Even applying gaslighting to an online disagreemtn with a stranger is pretty insulting to the people who experience this very real sort of abuse in their home, from peole they love or are dependent on.

            My slapping my wife and then saying it was a joke and telling her she’s overreacting and to stop making a fuss. That’s gaslighting.

            Me telling a joke you don’t like and saying “it’s just a joke lighten up” – that’s not gaslighting and it’s not abuse. It’s a difference of opinion. Or saying it’s not appropriate to use words like creep and pervert or relentlessly likening taking a photo of a fully clothed woman in public to rape and child abuse – that’s not gaslighting, it’s called a sense of perspective.

          • Can you let us know what the comments were, Rose? No one can see the photo unless they are members of WWEOT, and therefore presumably have already seen them, so the woman is anonymised, and not being further victimised (as I know Rob in particular is very truly and sincerely concerned about that possibility).

          • Hi Kelly I’ve already posted the date and time and given name for anyone who wants to see that particular example.
            And given name of another serial poster.
            There are others to see if anyone wants to look.
            And Mariannes site gives information about the main instigator and character and insight into of founder Tony Burkes real motivation underneath his smoke screen on ‘art’ for anyone who wants to read and learn.
            I don’t want to post pic of the woman in question or any of the women in question.
            Will happily post a pic, name and details of the men in question who think it’s ok to take secret digital peeping tom non consent creep shots and put secretly online to make lewd taunting sneering or leerily objectifying comments if you want those.

            If you wanted you could join the site to look.
            You could ask someone you know to, just as an observer and look with them.
            Those are two ways amongst others of viewing.

            I personally would be cautious of engaging directly in that group as most
            will have demonstrated with their actions that they think it’s ok to take secret digital on line peeping tom creep shots without asking for the womans consent.
            men who don’t ask for consent in one area in life with women tend to also be like this in other areas. They have demonstrated that they don’t think womens consent over issues is an important as getting and doing what they want regardless of the fact of if a woman is happy and wants to go along and play a part in that. They have demonstrated that they don’t care about consent.
            Good people know that it’s important and don’t need it to be written in law.
            Just like good people don’t drink and drive regardless of the law.
            Good people don’t upskirt and down blouse regardless of the law.
            Good people don’t stalk and harass regardless of the law.
            Good people don’t rape renegades of the law etc etc.
            Good people don’t tale secret digital non consent creep shots regardless of the law.
            Good people don’t need laws put in place not to make sexist remarks.
            Good people don’t need laws tobe put in place not to be pedophiles.
            This list could go on and on really.
            Sadly laws do need to be put in place to help and consequences for actions of people who aren’t good.

            Also what they have demonstrated on that site is if as a woman you are upset about this and state those feelings more often than not when you pull them up about their inappropriate behavior and challenge it will then get psychologically emotionally abusive and gaslight. They will tell you, it’s just a joke. Or call you irrational. Crazy etc, oversensitive.
            Good men who are sensitive to the individuals woman feelings don’t behave like that in the fist place. And if it was a genuine error of not thinking they then feel remorse and don’t want to do that again. They don’t gaslight.
            It is usually to do with power and control issues. And distorted thinking and either lack of empathy or distorted empathy..Again if they are like this in one area of life they will be like this in other areas.

            Men who are good characters don’t behave or treat women like that
            Men of good character don’t sneek aruond taking digital peeping Tom creep shots of women for their own narcissistic entertainment and gratification without consent treating women as objects and or subjects rather than individual human beings. devaluing and disregarding, minimizing how that person feels about being used as an object AGAINST THEIR WISHES like that.

            They also tend not to leave you alone if at a later date you decide you want to walk away and disengage.
            So that is something to be mindful of if you decide to directly engage.
            Again if they are like this in one area of like, they will be in other areas.

            They have already demonstrated that they can’t be trusted not to take secret non consent digital peeping Tom creep shots. And don’t care about what that women wants or how it makes her feel to be used as an object or subject.

            Bottom line is do you want to talk waste your breath and time on engaging with men who have proven with their actions they are untrustworthy characters who have power and control issues and emotionally abuse. And have demonstrated no real empathy for the women who were used in those pictures for their entertainment and gratification?
            Or do you want to perhaps just take a look at who they are and use that information to be aware keep yourself and other family members aware and safe?
            So give others the information what these people are doing and how they have behaved are like take the best steps and actions for yourself and others to keep yourself safe?

            I’d like to leave you to think what you now think is the best thing to do is Kelly.

            All the best, wishing you and all the women and children and good men out there much love, happiness, health and safe lives.
            And all the bad characters a conscious awakening so they want to choose to become better characters.

          • Hi Rose

            “Rob disagreeing with how I feel or others feel is by it’s very nature gas-lighting”

            No Rose, it’s not. Disagreement is not mental abuse. Deliberate, cynical disagreement (knowing I am in the wrong and you are right) with the intent to demean or control you is mental abuse. It’s utterly different and you should learn the very important difference. Do you honestly expect anyone to accept that they are not allowed to disagree with you? Really?

            “Adrian Wulrus was the thread posted 19 hrs ago.”

            As far as I can see, no one by that name has commented in that thread.

            “You and I both know that so I’m afraid that bullshit just want wash”

            You are gaslighting me Rose. Those are my feelings and you are not allowed to disagree.

            “Nice try though Rob.I’ll give you that!”

            Gaslighting

            Anyway, you don’t want to engage any further (any further, you haven’t engaged at all you just basically said I’m not allowed an opinion if it differs from Rose)

            Adios

    • Really?! You don’t understand why taking and publishing photos of people without their consent and discussing their physical appearance on a public forum might be considered creepy? Do you really think it is more creepy to discuss what people have themselves chosen to post on a public forum? I despair for you, John. And don’t delude yourself into thinking the rest of your gender are fine with WWEOT. None of my mates are. There are plenty of us guys who think the WWEOT contributors are slimy and idiotic.

      • Gammidgy, beware the straw man. As all the while you’re furiously beating up bound up grass, you’re completely missing the point that was made. Which isn’t that WWEOT isn’t creepy but that MWPOWWEOT was even more creepy.

        I’m not necessarily endorsing that view, but I’m simply pointing out that you’ve gone off on one for no discernible reason.

  • Ed to me you would be a health and safety risk in the workplace and I would want my employers if I worked with you to put an action in place of no camera phones whilst at work. Also as a women I wouldn't feel safe with you around me to and from work.

  • I’m sorry but whoever wrote this article clearly never saw any of the groups content. Yesterday I saw a thread where several members said WWEOT members should have been aborted by their mothers. I saw members of WWEOT being accused of being paedophiles. I also experienced the groups members trying to contact my place of work attempting to get me fired because of my involvement in WWEOT – something that would have left me unable to afford rent and homeless. Whether you have a problem with WWEOT or not all the behaviour I just listed is why it was removed.

    • FILM PITCH: A man is made homeless after losing his job because of his addiction to posting secretly-snapped pictures of women on the internet. Working title, “It Couldn’t Have Happened To A Nicer Bloke”.

    • One person said it might not have been the worst thing if a WWEOT member had been aborted – they were called on this and told it was inappropriate. Said member of WWEOT then proceeded to post photos of aborted foetuses.

      People were not accused of being paedophiles. The discussion was about people not respecting others’ boundaries, and people who take creepshots perhaps not being our first choice to host children’s parties (as one WWEOT admin seems to do that as a job, presumably not full-time).

      The person who contacted your employer was removed from the group. Were you fired? Were you worried? If so, why? If WWEOT is fine, why would an employer fire you for taking part in it?

      One comment on the 10th April was what got the group deleted, apparently. We don’t know what that comment was, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it was from a WWEOT visitor.

    • Do you understand “credible threat of violence”? It’s a pretty clear phrase. None of that is a threat of violence, and none of it is credible.

    • Ed. Here is the thing. Men and women who can be trusted don’t need to persuade anyone that they can be trusted. All they have to do is behave in an appropriate trustworthy way. Men and women who by THEIR VERY ACTIONS have taken secret covert pictures have shown by their actions that they cannot be trusted to not take pictures in a secret covert way, They have shown you their character. Men and women who then gaslight by saying women or men who don’t like this and find it upsetting further PROVE by doing that they are both personality and character disordered individuals and psychological and emotional abusers.
      You proved what your character was all by yourself just as others who have done this have.

  • True they don't post the womens names. What they are INSISTENT about posting though which feels creepy again in that the person posting the photo posts the time and the tube line. Now as most of these women are more than likely going to be commuting to work and back. This just doesn't sit well. The admin are insistent that they want that information. That is also creepy along with it being secretly done without asking for consent. Also a fair amount of sexual innuendo posted with the pics.

  • As a woman you have aright to feel safe in the workplace. So if any woman works with any of these men/women who have taken pics without consent and posted online without consent or are admins inciting this behavior If they felt strongly enough and were concerned that these men or women are a foreseeable health and safety risk to take covert secret pics of them without their consent. As clearly in real life this is what they feel it is ok to do. Then if they brought this to the attention of their employer the employer would have to put steps in place to deal with that health and safety issue that had been raised. Also the Equality act for women may be helpful in the workplace in dealing with this issue if it arouse. Also if your children are around these men again if you felt strongly enough you could raise it as a health and safety issue in the way I have described. if you wanted. People with good motives and intentions don't take secret covert pictures without consent and put online without consent to make fun of, ridicule' taunt tease,humiliate, violate, or make, derogatory, dehumanizing or sexual innuendos about.

    • “Also if your children are around these *men* again if you felt strongly enough you could raise it as a health and safety issue in the way I have described. if you wanted. “And what about the many many women who post on there Rose? Are they a health and safety issue too? You would think so, if you weren't just hiding bigotry behind women's rights.

  • When you look at this and then compare it to the “men taking up too much space on the train” campaign you can see that absolutely nobody involved gives a flying fuck about freedom of speech and expression nor the actual invasion of space beyond how it applies to their own gender. The people complaining about the “Women who eat on tubes” page would not do so if it were men eating on tubes, as that’d just be another example of patriarchal attitudes in terms of respect to others. Equally, the people who complain about the “men taking up too much space on the train” would not care if it were women taking up the space and would be happy to yap about how it shows the patriarchy is a lie.

    Also, Baker is wrong. It wasn’t until the 1990’s in R v R [1991] UKHL 12 that marital rape was finally outlawed. It’s not exceptionally important, but I thought that it’d be in the interests of general accuracy to point that out. EDIT: BEEN FIXED. Easy mistake.

    As for the main complaint of this article, that Facebook’s a bit of a dodgy moderator, it should not be surprising. It’s comprised of people applying a general policy. When people have been genuinely abusive to me in the past, they did not care. However, when my friend posted “Yolo” posts on my wall as a joke, it led to his account being suspended at my complaint (again, as a joke). It’s arbitrary and utterly dependent on the whims of who happens to working at that point in time. It’s a private company that is far more interested in you sharing as much as you can as opposed to limiting what you share. Pictures of women eating on the tube gathers public attention and interest, increasing ad revenue. Why on earth would they remove a page that has so many people looking at their adverts on it?

    • Jake, this was covered so many times in the group – another reason why its closure is infuriating.

      You cannot compare things like tubecrush and men taking up too much space… without looking at the wider context. Plus people have already agreed that these should be anonymised if not nonexistant altogether; and tubecrush even requests that participants ask their subjects for consent to post online. WWEOT does not.

      Men do not face routine shaming and policing of their bodies and diets, women do. It is not “people who eat on tubes” or “men who eat on tubes”, it’s women.

      The comments in the WWEOT group, as you well know, are frequently of a sexual nature, fat-shaming or simply downright unpleasant. People who do request their photo to be taken down, I know for a fact, have also been abused for requesting this small act of kindness.

      James and I did clarify that late 80s/early 90s was the time of the law, but my original comment hasn’t been edited – if it could be fixed to reflect this fact, I would appreciate it. I’m busy today and didn’t have time when passing comment.

      • The plain fact is that the women on WWEOT are anonymous. You do not own your image and there’s no law (and nor should there be) to stop someone from taking your picture.
        The mistake MWPOWWEOT made is that they didn’t make it anonymous and therefore they did leave their “victims” open to reprisal.
        Why not start a similar group with just the profile pictures and no names? Everyone would be happy (or equally unhappy).
        Better yet deal with an issue that is actually harming women such as pay inequality?

        • “Better yet, why not deal with an issue that is actually harming women, such as pay inequality? Better yet, why not deal with an even bigger issue, such as curing cancer? Better yet, why not deal with something even bigger, such as the imminent heat death of the universe, which will wipe out all animal and plant life? That seems much more useful than what you’re currently doing. Yours sincerely, a person commenting on the internet.”

          • Marianne, if a convincing legal argument could be made against public photography it would be. Could you imagine arguing against photos of people in Leicester Square? A fixed location not subject to the randomness of the tube? The legal avenue was never the right choice here.
            I believe that the answer to inequality is more equality not revenge or shaming tactics. MWPOWWEOT is a great idea, it just needs tweaking. Good Luck

          • A convincing legal argument may be able to be made in the future that posting abusive comments on pictures of clearly identifiable individuals constitutes harassment and cyberstalking. People have gone to jail for stupid things they said on social media. Not saying that’s not concerning in itself, of course. This could be avoided by people not abusing these “freedoms”.
            Just because the police don’t enforce the laws as strongly as they could, doesn’t mean that they can’t, or that they never will.
            And there are plenty of abusive comments on the page – so let’s dispense with the lie that there aren’t.

          • “A convincing legal argument may be able to be made in the future that posting abusive comments on pictures of clearly identifiable individuals constitutes harassment and cyberstalking”

            OK so both groups go to jail. Congrats on that ‘solution’

            “And there are plenty of abusive comments on the page – so let’s dispense with the lie that there aren’t.”

            It’s not a lie. Yes, 30k people sometimes generate some nasty comments, but they are moderated quickly. If you went on the group instead of looking at 2 year old screenshots, you would know that.

          • It is a lie and I know that. I did go on the group, thanks, before your friend Tony closed it to public view, and saw some of the abusive comments with my own eyes, and just how “quickly” they were moderated. Because it wouldn’t be nearly so much fun if you couldn’t insult women with impunity, would it?

          • Few things Kelly.

            1) Tony, not my friend, don’t even know the guy.
            2) I don’t know when you joined the group or when you left, but what you describe is not what I see today, yesterday, or ever since I joined around the time of all the fuss in the newspapers. It’s possible the public scrutiny resulted in the group cleaning up its act – which I guess is something you’d probably want to celebrate, if you bothered to even look there.
            3) Facebook closed it to public view, as I understand it. You can still apply to join and view the content if you wanted to distinguish yourself from your peers by taking the trouble to inform yourself thoroughly on the subject you have such strong opinions about.
            4) I have made one comment on that group, posted no photos, and do not gain any pleasure from insulting women – with impunity or otherwise.

          • 1. Figure of speech. My use of it reflects my perception that you fully approve of what he did when he set up the above-mentioned observational art project.
            2. I have never “joined the group”. It was open to full public view until it became a closed group. I saw plenty of abusive comments about the women in the photos which didn’t appear to be moderated all that quickly. I also saw a definite down the top cleavage shot. There’s an almost upskirt shot on Tony Burke’s public profile together with sleazy comments.
            3. Are you really claiming that Facebook mandated the group to become a closed group? This seems unlikely to me. People might feel the need to take their creepshots and nasty comments off to Reddit rather than remain on Facebook for all their varied social media needs.
            4. You’re the one here defending it. Even its esteemed founder can’t be bothered to do that. He’s got his merry band of sycophants for that.

          • 1) Your perception (or I’d call it a bigoted assumption) is way off
            2) Ohhh an almost upskirt shot. Dear lord, call the police.Have you read a newspaper recently? Shut them down first I say. PLease tell me you don’t read Heat.
            3)I am repeating the explanation given by the only person who would know. I don’t really care whether it seems unlikely to you or not, it is what it is. What is genuinely unlikely is that you are better informed on the matter.
            4) It’s not the group I’m defending, which is of no particular importance to me. I just stand up to ranty bullies who think it’s ok to insinuate someone is a pervert of even a paedophile, just for the crime of even being a member of that group (or for doing anything they disapprove of really), not even posting or contributing in any other way. That kind of very public insinuation carries with it a very real threat of violence – hence the protest group being taken down. It’s not unfair in the slightest, Facebook did the right thing. You want WWEOT taken down, or you want to protest against it – fair dos. Just don’t run around calling everyone paedos like a teenager and posting their work addresses on a public site, because it’s WAY WAY over a line, especially in light of what the protest is about.

          • Facebook did not do the right thing. They have a dodgy moderation policy which bans photos of breastfeeding or post-mastectomy shots, while allowing graphic violence and plenty of hate speech. Basically, they’ve set themselves up as arbiters of what kind of censorship is acceptable and what is not. But they’re not a moral authority, are they? They’re motivated by commercial interests, and WWEOT is the much larger group. And the “bullies” are the likes of Burke and the rest of the gang in WWEOT who believe they can say whatever they want to say about clearly identifiable women with impunity. Get real.

          • You’re off on a tangent again Kelly. The point here is that publicly posting pictures and personal details of a named individual and insinuating they are a peadophile carries with it a very real threat of violence (not to mention it’s slander unless you have any proof to back these wild accusations). Posting an anonymous picture of someone and saying “they look like they are really enjoying that salad” is neither slander nor does it carry a credible threat of violence. If you cannot see how the two activities are worlds apart, then there’s not really much point in any further discussion. If you can see the difference and think that Facebook should have left the protest page up all the same, then just think for a minute about the implications of that as a policy that has to be applied to all situations. Say hello the world of online vigilantism. Yay, that’ll work out well for the downtrodden and oppressed won’t it?

          • Hi Kelly what do you think your chances are at being able to reason with someone who thinks it’s ok behaviour to take non consensual digital peeping Tom creep shots.?

            After all they have already shown you that they use distorted logic and reasoning when they give their reasons to try and justify that behavior.

            My guess would be that you have zero chance.
            I believe they would need specialist help to ever have a chance of seeing where you are coming from.

          • What kind of specialist help would you recommend Rose? I’ll be sure to look into it.

            PS – I never said this “it’s ok behaviour to take non consensual digital peeping Tom creep shots” – I said it’s far worse behaviour and crosses a line when you post pictures of named individuals and brand them paedophiles. It also makes you a massive hypocrite, as I doubt you sought consent either – but I forgive you.

            PPS – “they use distorted logic” LOL, that’s rich. We should rename you the Straw Woman.

          • As you can see Kelly Rob has now come back denying that he thinks that it is ok to take non consensual digital peeping tom creep shots.

            When earlier on this page Robs exact words were exact words were ” when taking photos of my friends at parties or whatever I never tell people and I hide. ”

            So Rob hides and takes a digital picture and doesn’t tell his friends and he thinks that’s ok.

            He doesn’t think he is a digital peeping Tom creeping taking creep shots. Even though in reality he is hiding and creeping around taking sneaky pictures without consent or knowledge of the PERSON in the picture.

            Treating and using them as an OBJECT rather that a real live person with individual feelings that do not belong to him. And have NOTHING to do with his thoughts. Who may not want to have their photo taken for his gratification and entertainment. He doesn’t care what they want! He doesn’t care how they feel. He is only interested in his own narcissistic desires and wants.

            Like I said before I reckon your chances of you being able to reason with him and getting him to see it from your perspective or the perspective of other women who have had this done or don’t want this done to them. Seeing it through their eyes as the woman they are and how that experience really felt for them being on the RECEIVING end of that. Denying yours and their reality. Negating how you or they as the receiver REALLY feels or felt and substituting how he thinks you ought to have felt in his thoughts and mind. Not UNDERSTANDING how that is emotionally abusive and gaslighting. So not truly being able to empathize with you in the real sense and meaning of the word.

            Yes I reckon your chances are still zero.

            For example. Sophie one woman said she felt humiliated.
            So her REALITY was that she felt humiliated by that experience.
            And anyone who says that her feelings are irrational or she shouldn’t have felt like that or she didn’t really feel that etc etc would be being emotionally abusive and gaslighting and in their opinion she is over reacting etc etc shows no real empathy for the real feelings of Sophie.
            They see it through their eyes only instead of the victims.
            They deny the victims reality and substitute it with their own.

          • People like Rob would need specialist empathy programs put in place to help them stand any real chance of developing their empathy. With some this would not help as they are actually getting a kick out of the others person being upset, sad, distressed etc. I would like to think Rob is one of the former and does not actually get a kick out of other peoples distress who don’t want to be photographed without knowing.

          • Kelly your perception is spot on. Rob has clearly demonstrated that he not only approves of men who take secret covert non consensual pictures of women who eat on tubes and their pictures then being put online to be commented on and others to comment on without the women knowing or consenting to this.

            Rob also clearly stated that he himself at private parties hides and takes peoples pictures without their knowledge and consent because he wants to do this to capture authentic moments. So he also thinks that is ok.

            I’ve no idea if he lets these people know that he has secret pictures of them before he leaves the party and asks if they are ok about being photographed in that way.
            And if they are ok with him having these secret non consensual photos that he took at private parties without their knowledge at consent for his own pleasure.
            Only he knows the answer to that and the people who were at these parties.
            Only he knows if he was bothered if both himself and the person he photographed both then mutual pleasure and enjoyment. Or if the the pleasure was just one sided and the person in the photograph did not feel happy or pleased about being photographed when and if they found out.
            Or if they felt upset, creeped out, unnerved etc.
            Only they know how they individually felt.
            Or maybe he didn’t ever tell them having the false belief that what they don’t know doesn’t harm them

            Would you be ok with that kelly?

            How would you feel if one of your friends or acquaintances was taking photos of you at a private party without your knowledge or consent?
            Or maybe filming you?
            Or recording your conversations?
            Would you be ok with that?
            I wonder how many women would be ok with that?

          • Something similar has happened to me before and no, I wasn’t OK with it. It is creepy, from either an acquaintance or a stranger.

      • Thanks for taking the time to reply to me. I hope my post doesn’t sound as aggressive as I expect it might. Both the first and the following:

        I will point out immediately that I didn’t mention tubecrush. In truth, I wasn’t entirely aware of its existence until now (I vaguely remember seeing something about it in the past). Whether or not it requests that its contributors get permission is irrelevant when the group I did mention doesn’t.

        Reasonably recently I read a wonderful article on the Guardian about the MTUTMSOTT page. The reason it was wonderful is largely due to the comments. One of them linked to another Guardian article on the WWEOT group, which is where I became aware of that also. Ignoring the delicious disparity in the tone of both articles, what was telling was the comments. The same people who would comment on the invasion of privacy in WWEOT would extol the virtues of free speech in MTUTMSOTT. And likewise in the reverse. The hypocrisy of this is apparent. I’m not accusing you of this as, as you’ve already stated, you appear to also be against MTUTMSOTT.

        The effect of this is that, to an outsider, it appears to be yet another flame war between feminists and “dudebros” or whatever you’d prefer to call the other lot.

        If PlainJane’s remarks ring true, that might go a long way to explaining why your group was removed and WWEOT wasn’t.

        And fair enough on the point of law. I just noticed it was wrong as I remember learning it last year. I went off on one at the time due to injustice of it being so recent. It’s one of those cases that tends to stick with you when you study law.

    • It’s worth mentioning that “well other groups do it and they don’t complain about THEM” is probably the worst argument for anything ever.

      And you’re right – feminists probably aren’t as concerned about issues not targeting women. Just as I’m sure you aren’t going and posting your thoughts on articles about the Flat Earth Society or other things that don’t affect you in any way. You have to pick your battles, and frankly I would say women have a vested interest in preventing a group that specifically attacks women from continuing to do what they’re doing.

      I think you’ve identified a pretty sad reality though; a page with serious ad revenue probably gets a higher threshold for bullshit than ones with fewer “likes” or “subscriptions” or whatever they’re calling it now.

      • Ignoring the hyperbole, that wasn’t the argument I was making. I was pointing out the hypocrisy I’ve witnessed regarding the matter in that the same people were turning their beliefs right around depending on the gender of the victims. It wasn’t that they weren’t screaming to have it shut down but that I’ve regularly seen the same people making the opposite arguments.

        And I agree that the real issue is one of ad revenue. What reason does the likes of Facebook possess to care about the latest squabbles of the internet. A company rarely has an ideology that trumps the pursuit of money.

          • are you joking?

            Men are a globally privileged gender with a large array of political, social and financial advantages protected by a patriarchal structural system.

            Women are… well, none of that.

            This is why, to pick just one example, sexual objectification is much more harmful to women (and other disadvantaged groups) than men; Moradi and Huang (2008).

          • Is it also okay to punch stronger people in the street because, y’know, they’re stronger and can take a punch? Because that is the point you’re making.

            In principle these two things are the same. People breaking minor rules of social etiquette and having people take covert photos of them for the purposes of shaming them. You don’t get to defend one and slate the other on the basis that one side has it worse in other ways. That’s not what equality is. Nor is it what equity is.

            It’s just as, or perhaps more, unfair to criticise men for being larger than women and possessing testicles as it is to criticise women for eating in what time they can find. Naturally there are example of both which take the piss but the fact is people need to eat and people need to not crush their balls.

          • Why isn’t it hypocritical?

            I set out why I think these two things, in principle, are the same in the previous comment.

      • Men don’t care about stuff like tubecrush/MWTUTMSOTT enough to get them closed precisely because it does not affect them in the same way, because they are not under the same pressures of inequality as women in society. It’s really not that hard a concept to grasp.

        How telling is it that the protest group is closed and WWEOT remains open (if requiring permission to join)? Indeed I’m sure ad revenue does play a part. Going through them might be the next step.

  • James, be really interested as to your basis for saying WWEOT is more creepy than MWPOWWEOT. Your article didn't really explain that. Did you write the article or was it sent to you by one of the 'weird sisters'?

    • Interested why you think MWPOWWEOT was more creepy than the original. Even Burke admitted his little project is “fucking creepy”. Yet you all rally around him like little sycophants. That is creepy, too.

    • Really?! You don't understand why taking and publishing photos of people without their consent and discussing their physical appearance on a public forum might be considered creepy? Do you really think it is more creepy to discuss what people have themselves chosen to post on a public forum? I despair for you, John. And don't delude yourself into thinking the rest of your gender are fine with WWEOT. None of my mates are. There are plenty of us guys who think the WWEOT contributors are slimy and idiotic.

  • I'm sorry but whoever wrote this article clearly never saw any of the groups content. Yesterday I saw a thread where several members said WWEOT members should have been aborted by their mothers. I saw members of WWEOT being accused of being paedophiles. I also experienced the groups members trying to contact my place of work attempting to get me fired because of my involvement in WWEOT – something that would have left me unable to afford rent and homeless. Whether you have a problem with WWEOT or not all the behaviour I just listed is why it was removed.

    • FILM PITCH: A man is made homeless after losing his job because of his addiction to posting secretly-snapped pictures of women on the internet. Working title, “It Couldn't Have Happened To A Nicer Bloke”.

    • One person said it might not have been the worst thing if a WWEOT member had been aborted – they were called on this and told it was inappropriate. Said member of WWEOT then proceeded to post photos of aborted foetuses.People were not accused of being paedophiles. The discussion was about people not respecting others' boundaries, and people who take creepshots perhaps not being our first choice to host children's parties (as one WWEOT admin seems to do that as a job, presumably not full-time).The person who contacted your employer was removed from the group. Were you fired? Were you worried? If so, why? If WWEOT is fine, why would an employer fire you for taking part in it?One comment on the 10th April was what got the group deleted, apparently. We don't know what that comment was, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was from a WWEOT visitor.

  • When you look at this and then compare it to the “men taking up too much space on the train” campaign you can see that absolutely nobody involved gives a flying fuck about freedom of speech and expression nor the actual invasion of space beyond how it applies to their own gender. The people complaining about the “Women who eat on tubes” page would not do so if it were men eating on tubes, as that'd just be another example of patriarchal attitudes in terms of respect to others. Equally, the people who complain about the “men taking up too much space on the train” would not care if it were women taking up the space and would be happy to yap about how it shows the patriarchy is a lie.Also, Baker is wrong. It wasn't until the 1990's in R v R [1991] UKHL 12 that marital rape was finally outlawed. It's not exceptionally important, but I thought that it'd be in the interests of general accuracy to point that out.As for the main complaint of this article, that Facebook's a bit of a dodgy moderator, it should not be surprising. It's comprised of people applying a general policy. When people have been genuinely abusive to me in the past, they did not care. However, when my friend posted “Yolo” posts on my wall as a joke, it led to his account being suspended at my complaint (again, as a joke). It's arbitrary and utterly dependent on the whims of who happens to working at that point in time. It's a private company that is far more interested in you sharing as much as you can as opposed to limiting what you share. Pictures of women eating on the tube gathers public attention and interest, increasing ad revenue. Why on earth would they remove a page that has so many people looking at their adverts on it?

    • Jake, this was covered so many times in the group – another reason why its closure is infuriating.You cannot compare things like tubecrush and men taking up too much space… without looking at the wider context. Plus people have already agreed that these should be anonymised if not nonexistant altogether; and tubecrush even requests that participants ask their subjects for consent to post online. WWEOT does not.Men do not face routine shaming and policing of their bodies and diets, women do. It is not “people who eat on tubes” or “men who eat on tubes”, it's women.The comments in the WWEOT group, as you well know, are frequently of a sexual nature, fat-shaming or simply downright unpleasant. People who do request their photo to be taken down, I know for a fact, have also been abused for requesting this small act of kindness.James and I did clarify that late 80s/early 90s was the time of the law, but my original comment hasn't been edited – if it could be fixed to reflect this fact, I would appreciate it. I'm busy today and didn't have time when passing comment.

      • Thanks for taking the time to reply to me. I hope my post doesn't sound as aggressive as I expect it might. Both the first and the following:I will point out immediately that I didn't mention tubecrush. In truth, I wasn't entirely aware of its existence until now (I vaguely remember seeing something about it in the past). Whether or not it requests that its contributors get permission is irrelevant when the group I did mention doesn't.Reasonably recently I read a wonderful article on the Guardian about the MTUTMSOTT page. The reason it was wonderful is largely due to the comments. One of them linked to another Guardian article on the WWEOT group, which is where I became aware of that also. Ignoring the delicious disparity in the tone of both articles, what was telling was the comments. The same people who would comment on the invasion of privacy in WWEOT would extol the virtues of free speech in MTUTMSOTT. And likewise in the reverse. The hypocrisy of this is apparent. I'm not accusing you of this as, as you've already stated, you appear to also be against MTUTMSOTT.The effect of this is that, to an outsider, it appears to be yet another flame war between feminists and “dudebros” or whatever you'd prefer to call the other lot.If PlainJane's remarks ring true, that might go a long way to explaining why your group was removed and WWEOT wasn't.And fair enough on the point of law. I just noticed it was wrong as I remember learning it last year. I went off on one at the time due to injustice of it being so recent. It's one of those cases that tends to stick with you when you study law.

    • It's worth mentioning that “well other groups do it and they don't complain about THEM” is probably the worst argument for anything ever.And you're right – feminists probably aren't as concerned about issues not targeting women. Just as I'm sure you aren't going and posting your thoughts on articles about the Flat Earth Society or other things that don't affect you in any way. You have to pick your battles, and frankly I would say women have a vested interest in preventing a group that specifically attacks women from continuing to do what they're doing.I think you've identified a pretty sad reality though; a page with serious ad revenue probably gets a higher threshold for bullshit than ones with fewer “likes” or “subscriptions” or whatever they're calling it now.

      • Ignoring the hyperbole, that wasn't the argument I was making. I was pointing out the hypocrisy I've witnessed regarding the matter in that the same people were turning their beliefs right around depending on the gender of the victims. It wasn't that they weren't screaming to have it shut down but that I've regularly seen the same people making the opposite arguments.And I agree that the real issue is one of ad revenue. What reason does the likes of Facebook possess to care about the latest squabbles of the internet. A company rarely has an ideology that trumps the pursuit of money.

Comments are closed.