Swearing spiked on Mumsnet after every announcement of a school closure

[BuffySummersReportingforSanity]

I do enjoy how much attention the Economist has devoted to just how much we fucking swear. Also I didn't know we had a "swearometer".

www.economist.com/international/2021/05/22/how-the-pandemic-has-upended-the-lives-of-working-parents (subscription required to read)

Correlation doesn't always indicate causation, but I think in this case it probably does

I (fucking) love how they excluded relationships and women's rights

🙃

The site's strapline used to be 'the one with the swearing'

This shows a use for a site where women can escape the pressure to be nice and sweet all the time.

@Reallybadidea

I (fucking) love how they excluded relationships and women's rights

I think that shows they know MN

Relationships isn't a safe space, but depending on nature of research it could still be insensitive to include (ditto a few other topics)

Women's rights because it's not representative - look at the odd thread in the past which shows up just how much of MN have it hidden

Haha! I'm normally in the camp of carefully stressing that correlation and causation are not the same thing ... but yea, willing to take a punt and say these were linked

The Economist is interested in this forum? We better start a few threads on interest rates, on financial instruments, on political instability in smaller developing countries, and a few others then.

I (fucking) love how they excluded relationships and women's rights

Let's face it, those two give us year-in-year-out, 24/7 reason to swear.

The Economist is interested in this forum?

Yup. A few years back they did an article about whether all our fucking swearing put off advertisers. (Answer: some.)

I fucking love this too! I love the fact they sat in an editorial meeting and came up with the idea of doing the analysis and then somebody set up the spreadsheet and graphed it!

What did you do at work today honey?

I counted swears.

@BuffySummersReportingforSanity

The Economist is interested in this forum?

Yup. A few years back they did an article about whether all our fucking swearing put off advertisers. (Answer: some.)

😮 that's fucking ridiculous. And sexist. Why on earth would women swearing put off advertisers?

Brilliant! Certainly reflects my swearing 😃

@FightingtheFoo they don't think it's on brand for them, basically.

"Such streams of expletives are causing trouble for Mumsnet. On August 19th the Times reported that sponsors were threatening to pull adverts from the website. Among them were Confused.com, a price-comparison site, the National Trust, a conservation charity and Bulgari, a luxury jeweller. The organisations are reportedly wary of being associated with increasingly foul-mouthed mothers. Are they right to worry?"

National Trust are shysters anyway, fuck em.

Love how the graph is labelled 'mothercussers'!

Oh noes, the drag foxhunting brigade don't like us because we're a little uncouth in our speech. Boo fucking hoo.

@BuffySummersReportingforSanity

The Economist is interested in this forum?

Yup. A few years back they did an article about whether all our fucking swearing put off advertisers. (Answer: some.)

Seriously? Some prissy companies not wanting to advertise here because some people say cunt

Those are some fucking interesting stats 😂

Well fuck me 🤣

Hawthorne effect being beautifully demonstrated on this thread

@LemonRedwood

Correlation doesn't always indicate causation, but I think in this case it probably does

Best response ever on a statistical report

And I agree!

I do like the economist though. An interesting read and lots of current affairs.

Some prissy companies not wanting to advertise here because some people say cunt

And, as has been mathematically proven, our level of "cunt" is pretty consistent even in times of stress. (Unlike "fuck".)

In all seriousness, the Economist also does an awesome weekly newsletter called "Off the Charts" where they talk about the how and why of some of their key data pieces/visualisations of the week. It's probably too much to hope for that they feature this one, though

I'm fucking proud of you all.

The Economist assuming there are no single people, no fathers, on the site?