to think it's not acceptable to be this fucking rude?

[peeringintothevoid]

I've never posted a fred about a fred before, but I'm burning with a sense of injustice.

There's a thread that's really annoyed me, and I'm bringing it up here because I'm digressing from the OP completely (and noone's replying there )

On this thread www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/1094020-to-think-hubby-should-have-cut-short-his-bender/AllOnOnePage#22509239 (p5) a man posting a 'male perspetive' on a situation was called, by one poster, the following:

Stupid, lazy and selfish.
Childish.
Ignorant twat.
Cunt.
Selfish dick.
You really are quite thick, aren't you? DimGuy (a derogatory play on his username).
Gobshite.
Stupid, sexist, patronising, lazy and shite.
Utter fucking knobhead.

The (male) poster had been nothing but polite in his posts, and was trying to make a useful and respectful contribution to the thread.

Do something for me: imagine that a woman had posted a 'female perspective' on a male-dominated forum. All the other replies were from men, being supportive of the male OP. Our woman comes along and tries to describe how many but not all (he made that distinction) women might view this situation. The woman poster is called the names I listed above. I think that would strike many of you as being unreasonable and chauvinistic. AIBU?

[Janos]

What's also predictable, boring and pathetic is that if someone makes an even vaguely critical comment about a male poster, or men, you get a slew of threads/comments about it.

Funny old world.

[Janos]

The presence of a femininism topic does not mean that we should all be on guard against 'anti-male' sexism though. It's meant to be a space where people can discuss feminist issues.

However, one thing I do dislike (and have pointed out before) is the frequent 'you know what men are like' comments you get on here. I think those are demeaning to men.

[Janos]

That's fine Summerbird - I don't.

Personally, I think it's great to have a space on the internet which is female friendly where you don't have to constantly defer to men and worry whether they will be offended or not.

[Summerbird73]

exactly happyseven

[Summerbird73]

sorry networkguy i didnt mean that you were calling the other poster 'vile' - that was my opinion

[Summerbird73]

janos 'I' care actually. There is a 'feminism' forum on here thus implying that we should care about sexism whether it be female or male.

i for one am all for defending the blokes, i get sick of my friend saying 'oh but they never think of that do they? they never care about how much we do etc etc' implying that all men are the same. utter crap.

networkguy you speak a lot of sense. and yes - spidooklys posts were incredibly vile. in fact i was uncomfortable with the way she was allegedly supporting the OP on the other thread but in reality was picking on her, basically implying that OP's hubby was a bastard and that she was a doormat!

[HappySeven]

I just read some of that thread and to be honest I thought he had some valid points in his first post: he was just saying you might need to spell things out to a man if you want help as they don't always pick up on hints.

It's a pity people feel the need to wade in with insults.

[Janos]

You make a good point NetworkGuy but someone always reacts to a troll don't they - thereby giving the troll what they want - attention. You see it all over MN and on other sites too.

Some people enjoy posting for effect and don't care if someone gets upset - you don't see that quite so much on here thankfully.

[Janos]

Does anyone else not really care very much that MN is regarded in some quarters (whatever they are) as 'man hating'?

[NetworkGuy]

Just reading the first page of this, and 4 more to go, but I think part of the problem (whether a poster is a troll or not) is that some who have seen a name before know a history, and others certainly will not know that history.

Easy to laugh it off with mantroll getting what he deserved but there is nothing to indicate why some are openly hostile.

I feel sure somewhere on MN it says we should not be troll hunters, leave that to MNHQ. Also that personal attacks are forbidden.

The type of post indicated by the OP is both (though no mention of the subject male being a troll) and she, rightly, is concerned. It could make MN look rather bad if some journalist chose that thread and prints in a newspaper, verbatim, whatever was posted (have not even gone to the thread in question, but basing my comment on what OP reported).

Seems pretty clear that a hostile response to a troll may be just the kind of attention they could enjoy, the press could jump on MN as being full of intolerant, foul-mouthed, selfish, moronic, bitches, plus any new or potential MN contributors could see the thread (or reporting of it), see no apparent reason for the attack on 'DimGuy' and be put off posting, not just in AIBU but anywhere on MN...

Think people need to comment in a different fashion - perhaps indicate they have seen 'DimGuy' before and won't engage in debate with him - thus allowing anyone else to see it isn't worthwhile, or to send a message to that poster asking why s/he will not engage in discussion with 'DimGuy' so there would be no name calling, and any mention of said individual would be in a private message not in a post claiming it is a troll.

[lemonmuffin]

Agree with the op, spidookly posts have been vile. And just the sort of thing that gets Mumsnet its reputation for being man 'hating'

[Summerbird73]

jooly i agree with everything you just said (including the bit about setting boundaries!)

[sixpercenttruejedi]

every single section bar one been posted on fairly recently, it shows that clearly on the first page. It's one of many, and regarded by those that have then gone on to create their own site as being too woman-friendly and feminazis in disguise. Why don't you start a thread there? outlining your concern?

[Truckulent]

I've just had a look at that anti-Misandry site, not very popular is it? It's a bit hard to follow but looks like 2 Or 3 posts in 2010.

I'd never heard of it before. I can't see it having much influence.

[Joolyjoolyjoo]

No- it was on another site. I left it soon after (not because of the flaming, which was just one poster after all) but just because I discovered MN and liked it much much better!

[sixpercenttruejedi]

Words on a screen don't tend to hurt those who are looking for a reaction. so when someone appears to post in bad faith, people call them on it knowing that it's an act. the down side is sometimes genuine posters get an undeserved flaming, that's the nature of a public board.
btw I agree with boundaries, was it on MN that you got flamed?

[Joolyjoolyjoo]

See, I know it's just "words on a screen" but sometimes they can really get to you. I consider myself to be quite a rational, nice person, but on a forum I was on ages ago, I ventured an opinion on why I thought setting children boundaries in terms of discipline was ok, given that we do also subconciously set boundaries for our friends/ husbands etc. I was told I was a horrible controlling shrew of a mother, and a terrible friend and wife- it really upset me to think that someone could insult me so personally and viciously on the basis of one opinion. On the basis of "words on a screen", that person drew some pretty nasty conclusions, and I know I should have laughed it off, but I couldn't.

Maybe I am too sensitive, though

[sixpercenttruejedi]

it all depends if he is open to having his perspective changed or if he is just intruding in bad faith, looking for a wind-up?
I don't think niceguy2 will be mortally offended. It's only words on a screen, after all.

[Joolyjoolyjoo]

I don't really want to get into this [woose emoticon], but I have to say I think some posters do go way over the top with the name-calling and personal insults.

Whether you think the guy is being outrageously sexist or not, to rant back so viciously is not going to help change his perspective, and is hardly conducive to meaningful debate. On fora such as these you are going to find lots of different opinions, and it should be possible to tell someone "I don't agree with what you are saying because.." without resorting to mindless insults. I have no objection to general swearing (actually I rather like it ) but I feel really uncomfortable when it is directed at another person- it just seems really nasty.

Imagine you were having a conversation with people you didn't know very well at a restaurant, and you proffered an opinion on something that they found shocking, or even offensive- would you start shouting and swearing, or would you say "I find your opinion offensive because.."?

I don't like MN when people get unpleasant to one another

[spikeycow]

Is this what about the menz night or something? People are derailing threads all over the shop!

[cherrybea]

Wonder if Niceguy's that bothered?

Off to bed, hope this is still here in the morning.

[sixpercenttruejedi]

They're not comparable, by any means.
Woman gets pissed off because Man does something to piss her off, whilst trying not to get mad because of a desire to Be Reasonable
vs
Men piling vitriol, hatred and spite on the whole of womanhood, purely for being women.
Read a thread in mumsnet, read a thread on antimisandry. they aren't comparable at all.

[Janos]

No peering. You have started a thread with the clear intention of drawing fire onto another poster. You've put their comments in your OP and linked to the thread they were made on!

Spidookly was responding to posts someone made on another thread - that's entirely different to what you've done here.