Fucking women... part 2

[Biggles]

While I would in no way try to influence the direction of your internet countryside constitutional ambles, I would question the wisdom of alighting upon Mumsnet. The little I have encountered of Mummies for the Interwebs has been through the Guardian boards and they struck me as a decidedly odd.

Whilst I am sure someone should be vexed as to whether shops sell inappropriate clothing for 10 year old kids, I personally would rather it wasn't me. David Cameron likes them though.

[NotLettingItGo]

... David Cameron likes them though.

Yes... I shall be having a word with him about that.

[Biggles]

... David Cameron likes them though.

Yes... I shall be having a word with him about that.

He is a bellweather. If he thinks it is good it is bound to be shite.

[NotLettingItGo]

He is a bellweather. If he thinks it is good it is bound to be shite.

Yeah, don't worry, I intend to pitch it to him pretty much like this:

Could someone here just confirm the meaning of this for me please?

The words of MNHQ:
Mumsnet is emphatically not a woman-only site, and have thousands of male posters whom we value a great deal. But, given that your post outlined in some detail your reluctance to consider the feelings of women, it seemed that your continued membership of a largely female site would do little to contribute to the pooling of support and advice that is Mumsnet's reason for existing.

So basically fathers are welcome as long as they're only there to support the women.

Isn't that rather like the BNPs position that black folks are welcome as long as they're only there to support the white folk?

Which bit of that is about representing the interests of parents? Cause that looks remarkably like it's nothing to do with representing the interest of parents... it's about representing the interests of women.

In which case why are Mumsnet misrepresenting their purpose on their website?

What do you reckon?

[Biggles]

Yeah, don't worry, I intend to pitch it to him pretty much like this:

Could someone here just confirm the meaning of this for me please?

The words of MNHQ:
Mumsnet is emphatically not a woman-only site, and have thousands of male posters whom we value a great deal. But, given that your post outlined in some detail your reluctance to consider the feelings of women, it seemed that your continued membership of a largely female site would do little to contribute to the pooling of support and advice that is Mumsnet's reason for existing.

So basically fathers are welcome as long as they're only there to support the women.

Isn't that rather like the BNPs position that black folks are welcome as long as they're only there to support the white folk?

Which bit of that is about representing the interests of parents? Cause that looks remarkably like it's nothing to do with representing the interest of parents... it's about representing the interests of women.

In which case why are Mumsnet misrepresenting their purpose on their website?

What do you reckon?

Seems fair enough - although I've tended to the view that Mumsnet is a psycho place that is unlikely to respond favourably to reason or logic. I would brace myself for crochet needle in the eye if I were you.

re: the men thing I believe they are looking for Johnny's to complement their Fannys.

[NotLettingItGo]

Seems fair enough - although I've tended to the view that Mumsnet is a psycho place that is unlikely to respond favourably to reason or logic. I would brace myself for crochet needle in the eye if I were you.

re: the men thing I believe they are looking for Johnny's to complement their Fannys.

Well it's certainly being run by odd people... I couldn't actually believe they were stupid enough to send me an email like that, stating that they'll happily discriminate against male parents just because they're men.

And the psychos... yeah I met some of them on there... oddly enough they didn't seem to like the idea of any man challenging their logic with reasoned posts.

Crochet needle in the eye eh? .... I should be OK with that... it's going to be pretty hard for any woman to hurt me more than the last one I was stupid enough to allow to use me did.

[bumrocks]

I am sorry that it took you so many years for you to gather all this. In their defense, as they are often crazy, we are often pigs. Don't give up total faith though, as there are exceptions, as few and far between as they might be.

[NotLettingItGo]

You really need to think about that argument a wee bit more...

Suggesting that she had the right to treat me like a complete piece of scum, just because some men treat some women like pigs... doesn't fit with your line about not giving up because there are exceptions... you're in denial... and you're making excuses for them.

If they're entitled to treat all men like scum, because some men behave that way... then we're perfectly entitled to reciprocate by treating all women like scum, because some women behave that way.

[Quarterquack]

Oh please. All men are arrogant pigs. Your belief to the contrary is actual proof to the case. You just need to be put in the right situation with the right motives to show that side of you. Like say, a woman screwing you over hard enough for you to do it to the rest of women you meet from that point on.

I'm just being honest.

But since we're on the topic of me disagreeing with you: I don't believe a single part of your story, for the record. With you being incessant on the issue and all, you're just coming off as an impressive troll, now.

[Quarterquack]

Also, I really opened this thread expecting a demonstration. Sorry for the disappointment induced hostility, like.