To get angry if DW leaves her job without real consultation

[Seekingthezone]

Found out the night before it was going to happen anyway that DW had negotiated her exit.

She had moaned for a couple of years about the job and people and I offered support during that time but
when it came to the crunch I was not consulted and left as sole earner whilst we do depend on both incomes to maintain the current lifestyle.

It was presented as a done deal and I was told by her that she did well to get what she got blah blah.

AF, I simply call an agenda bullshit when I see it, that's all. Anyway, I don't just point out sexism, I nc and have lighthearted non pointing out sexism convo's too (not with you, you'll be relieved to hear).

Anyway, I don't just point out sexism, I nc and have lighthearted non pointing out sexism convo's too (not with you, you'll be relieved to hear).

Well, that's a bit silly, I would be rather see a poster be a bit more rounded tbh, and I would have no issue being lighthearted with you (if you ever managed to address me a manner not pointedly designed to wind me up).

Although I guess that makes you the opposite of a shitstirring trolly-type in that you name change for the non-goady stuff. An interesting take, I suppose.

What is interesting AF, is that my disagreeing with you or pointing out sexism is considered trolling by you. Says it all really. Plenty of people nc.

I think the winding up is fairly evenly distributed in all fairness AF, don't play the victim.

It isn't unreasonable to point out that the only posts you ever make under the SF name are to defend men against the MN vipers (and worse names you call a particular bunch of people who call you up on your man-pleasing ways)

I am no victim, and don't play one. This thread is an example of how you call me out first though, so don't play the "you do it too" card.

I did this once. Was very u happy at work. Had a total hysterical breakdown in the car park one morning and eventually walked into work and quit the and then.

Dh was supportive when I told him what I'd done.

I could dig up a shed load of posts where you've loftily informed posters of my supposed dark side or just had a dig and you know it.

I haven't only defended men under this nc, I've made other posts. You can call this my serious user name if you like, for stuff that I know won't be popular but I believe in strongly.

I'm not a man-pleaser AF, enough male posters on here should know that (particularly the ones that start apologising for being born male, wtf is that about?).
I care about mens issues first and foremost because I have sons and you know that too. MN is sexist towards men, and I am by no means the only one who points this out.

Why are you pretending you give a shit about what I say anyway?

Because you seem disconcertingly interested in what I say, I guess.

Only when you're being unreasonable.

So ignore me then. I ignore you until you pick me up. Haven't we had this discussion before ?

Probably.

Sigmund I know nae fucker on here, let alone Any Fucker.

I just know an entitled knob who's desperate to whip up a maelstrom of criticism against his wife, when I see one.

And yes, blokes like this turn quickly. They start by making out that they are long-suffering saints enduring an unhappy marriage with a frigid workshy wife, but as soon as somone even dares to question the other side of the story, they get nasty and indignant and 'how very dare you!'

What they especially like is when women turn on one another and join them in their tirade against the woman they are cheating on and belittling. It replicates their conversations with some dozy OW who is led to believe that their wives are bitter harridans who just don't understand them.

Tis just another internet fetish, but one that is easily spotted and best not to be sucked into.

'Sigmund I know nae fucker on here, let alone Any Fucker.'

.

I [heart] badinage. And, MN isn't sexist against men. Any more than the people stading in Trafalgar Square on a given day are sexist. We are all different. All unique. This thread even though I can be arsed to count is about even in pro-U and anti-U people. How is that a consensus?

i havent read the whole thread just the op's statements...

Please be careful with your wife. i was in a terrible situation a few years back and i went from a terrible job to being out of work within days. iw as given a compromise agreement and it was all very civilised.... However they made it really clear that there was no alternative and it was either take the money and go or ...just go.

she may be smarting from that a bit and has decided not to be straight with you.

Of course i dont know that this has happened here, just that if she hasnt been straight with you then there could be a number of reasons why.

you didnt say what she has invested the money in?

'MN isn't sexist against men'

Ok, generally MN appears to be sexist towards men quite a bit.

SF, you know when people criticise an individual man's behaviour attitude, they are not dissing your sons you know. I am sure you are not bringing them up to be like some of the entitled twerps we read about on here.

I have a son. It doesn't make me defend all men in the face of pretty good reasons not to.

behaviour or attitude

No, certain posters may be anti-men. MN is not. Any more than MN is pro-choice or anti-Labour. Lots of posters disagree with far more consensus issues than sexism. There are loads of female posters I have seen defend things like men using prostitutes. I saw someone suggesting that someone stays with an alcoholic, abusive, cheating man the other day. Not all flag-waving militants here.

I know you have a son. Does it not concern you at all when people automatically see the bad in men? Doesn't the women/good - men/bad prevailing vibe bother you at all. There are far more privileges than simply having a penis you know. Like wealth, that trumps everything but no-one hammers on that truth.

Of course I am not bringing my sons up to be entitled, however I see women bringing their daughters to be entitled, what gives? I have no idea how to guide my sons, I'm a few years off really worrying about that yet. But who will they turn to when they have problems/if their wives/gf's hit them? Don't you ever consider that? You don't (not just you) seem to consider that at all..and I'm sorry, that's not equality.

'SF, you know when people criticise an individual man's behaviour attitude, they are not dissing your sons you know.'

You may have a point.

My answer to your first question is in your last line.

A question back atcha.

I could say the same re. you. That you automatically defend men on here. Do you really see the individual attitudes and behaviours that others are criticising as perfectly ok ?

For example, this bloke here. Do you get the feeling he treats his wife well, with care and kindness ? Or are you just making a point ?

I think Mumsnet is sexist against men, but then I may be biased...

What I find is that when a woman posts, she is instantly believed. A man posts and there must be another side to the story.

I often wonder if there is another side to a story that women post too.

And although I am bad mouthing MM just now, I do find it an interesting and varied and vibrant site.

It is quite clear that the OP has taken absolutely zero from this thread and provided only enough information to support his own view of what has happened.

And Sigmund, give over with the amateur psychology. This is the study of one marriage, not sexual politics writ large.

What I find is that when a woman posts, she is instantly believed. A man posts and there must be another side to the story.

I think this is a it of a MN urban myth.

There are are plenty of threads currently where a woman poster is getting criticism.

sorry a bit of an MN urban myth