Use of child death as an analogy for sense of loss should be punishable by wearing a dimwit hat for ever more

[wibblies]

Fucking Liz Fraser in the weekend guardian is the latest in a long line of journalists and writers who seem to think this is ok.

Here's a sample of what she has to say in her article about her sense of loss in watching her children grow from primary age into teenagers:

"When the joy goes - and it does, because life moves on and you can’t play peek-a-boo with a 12-year-old who wants to play Minecraft with his similarly zit-infested mates – it feels like bereavement."

"Those young children are dead now. They are gone."

"The bereavement is long, slow and refreshed every day."

Just so you know, Liz Fraser, watching a child grow up as it gets older is really not anything like not watching a child grow up because the child is dead. I know this, because I've tried them both.

Please tell me I'm not the only one who notices this shit? Please tell me you recognise that it's not the fucking same at all? That it's not even a tiny bit similar and that it's crass in the extreme to suggest it?

@lizfraser1 Mumsnet turning into a lynch mob? They should be ashamed. We shall be sorry not to be regaled by your tweets

@PeterWa42129878 It's been that way for years, alas. It's such a shame. It's like walking into a den of wolves, all ready to rip you apart.

I assume she'll be withdrawing from the Mumsnet Bloggers Network then?

Can't speak for MrsD, but I'm sure reading the tripe in the Guardian was far worse than that.

SHUT UP, Liz. Please.

Coming from a fellow writer (albeit trained).

Yes. She should either leave or be removed. In fact maybe that's the only thing Mumsnet could do, although then she'd slate them to her audience of course which they wouldn't want - blackmail but effective.

She's shown she has no maturity, no ability to handle very mild criticism, and no real empathy whatsoever.

Calling a network she's made vast amounts of money and reputation from a "den of wolves" is unprofessional at best. Even if people had attacked her viciously here, she should know better than to slate the network.

Making sarcastic tweets (even if she deleted them soon afterwards) is a sign of someone who can't control themselves publicly.

Calling bereaved parents "dicks" is unacceptable, and I continue to feel stunned by her reactions.

Morally I don't think MN should keep staying studiously silent, but sadly financially they probably have to. I guess they couldn't just eject every arsehole who they've had encounters with.

what's in it for mumsnet, though?

Liz has @ed them in on every mean-ass tweet, with no response from mn as far as I can see

Putting my Big Cynic hat on- I can't think that she'll do well out of this, either- mn is big ££s. Her losing her shit like this will mean no webchats to flog her books etc etc

All I can see is an article in the Telegraph/MoS and the like- wah wah den of vipers half the story wah wah meanies harpies harridans will this do

you'd think her agent would get her to do a PROPER apology, if only for purely financial/cynical reasons

There is that Muddha.

Be interesting to hear back from Justine or someone there about what would constitute breaking the blogger guidelines etc. Where would MN draw a line I wonder?

FFS. Without outing myself, I once published something (in print) that contained a careless oversight. There was a Twitter backlash, with people calling for me to lose my job, for regulatory authorities to be involved, strangers emailing my employers and colleagues, it got retweeted and snowballed as more and more people saw it and got angry.

So did I block the dissenters? Insult them? Call them trolls? Feel sorry for myself? Of course not. I spent the weekend on Twitter issuing individual apologies, reassuring people that they were being heard, that we would issue a retraction if necessary, that those who had contacted me would have the opportunity to respond in print and that I wouldn't be doing my job if I allowed the piece to go unchallenged.

And guess what? People congratulated me on my response, nearly everyone was appeased, I made some amazing new contacts, and we opened up an important debate that was far more interesting than the original article would have been had it been correct in the first place.

This daft woman's response has been far worse than her original article.

I don't think mumsnet should do anything.

She really is determinedly playing the victim in this and any action on their part would be grist to her mill - 'see they all hate me, stupid dicks'.

Plus, you can't chuck out everyone who is disagreeable. Otherwise everyone would be out at some time or other!

She should of course resign from the bloggers network seeing as she dislikes Mumsnet so much.

I doubt she will. I'm sure she is busily writing her next article: 'Surviving the trolls - I was standing naked in the gas chambers with my screaming children - what? its a metaphor you dumb arses. Haven't you heard of Shakespeare?

Mackerel I was in a similar position recently. I apologised, unreservedly. Because it was my mistake, and I had caused distress (yes, Liz, unwittingly - yes, Liz, I'm a nice person too - but yes, Liz, actual distress).

That's really interesting Mackerel.

I've been wondering what I was looking for from posting the OP, having been a bit naive about where it would lead.

Solidarity and reassurance that I wasn't being weird to find the metaphor a bit much, yes, but also I think once that was apparent, to have a means of letting the writer and publisher know that I felt that way, and to be acknowledged if not agreed with.

I thought it was OK to address a writer (and the publication) on Twitter with a point about something they'd written, particularly since the discussion on the paper's site was closed. The result was to be dismissed variously as unintelligent, bored, troll, dick, oversensitive, choosing to be offended, hater, etc. etc and blocked.

Well, ouch! That stings a bit to be honest.

I read the original blog post "Mother's Day in the Middle Years". It's much less pointed in the use of the bereavement metaphor, and doesn't feel nearly so "rubbing salt in the wound" to read as the piece that went in the paper. I wonder when/why it was promoted to being a major theme of the piece?

I don't think MN give 2 shits about her TBH! she is hardly Hilary Clinton, just a shit blogger .

I think MN are a money making business, and the money they make means we can all comment to our hearts content on a well maintained website without millions of adverts. I think MN are wise to distance themselves from the affray to be honest.

as for Never in all my life have I seen a person so unable to admit they have made a mistake

Its a bit like AIBU played in RL, you know when the poster is sooooo BU and just wont listen, wont read. except in this case she has really upset people who really REALLY don't need to be upset further.

just read it, wibblies

jeeeez

I wonder when/why it was promoted to being a major theme of the piece?

LF tweeted to another blogger that it should have been edited better- the implication was that these bits should have been edited out

but these contentious lines/words WERE ACTUALLY ADDED

someone decided to put them in

uggghhh, not rtft but have read the OP and MrsDV's heartfelt thread and i am . Bloody stupid woman!!! really, fucking idiot.

The moment for it has passed now, but i agree that something from MN HQ regarding the hurt the article caused would have been the right thing to do. Rather than the 'rising above it', 'ignore it' attitude.

The suggestion that people are choosing to be offended shows how wilfully ignorant she is.

There is little to no choice involved in reading something so insensitive that your guts tie in a knot and terrible memories are brought to the surface.

Offended is clutching pearls at another adult's use of a mild expletive. The two reactions are world's apart.

She just will not take on any responsibility for anything. It's almost fascinating to watch. Now it's the fault of the editors:

Did she write the article herself?

Grr at rogue apostrophe.

without millions of adverts

Hahahaha....

"A lesson learned learnt", Liz.

Love, editor.

I think her main crime was utterly self absorbed thoughtlessness rather than any intent to hurt.
But her behaviour, her foot stamping, poor me, OMG the big meanie trolls!, attitude is really really grim.

I don't know if she is mates with mnhq but honestly, if she were a friend of mine I would, out of friendship, be suggesting that she takes her head out of her arse.
Her 'oh golly thank you, you are so lovely' to everyone who agrees with her is as bad as anything else on her feed but the Arthur Miller 'joke' was probably the real low point.

multivac Exactly! That's what anyone with a bigger conscience than ego would do.

It's crap being in the middle of a Twitter storm and you do just wish it would all go away. You do silently curse people tweeting you and wish they had chosen to do something else with their time. But they haven't. Because it affects them, therefore it affects you too.

You know over the years I've heard people describe the breakup of a relationship as like 'going through a bereavement' - I'm sure they do feel bereaved - I do understand that - but until you've suffered the ultimate bereavement ( the death of your child ) you have no idea what it really feels like, you literally never get over it. But I doubt people say these things to be hurtful, to them what they're feeling is a bereavement. Dh was only saying to me a few nights ago that Christmas isn't the same now the children are older, we miss them being young, their eyes full of wonder & excitement, & there is a sense of mourning what has gone, but having lost a much wanted baby we know how fortunate we are to have young adults crawling out of bed at 11 o'clock on Christmas morning - I haven't read the article & I'm not on Twitter, but I'm sure the writer concerned didn't mean to cause such offence. I understand from this thread her reaction to criticism hasn't been great, but what's done is done - if it was me I'd have come on this thread & apologised to each & every one of you. But there's always going to be people who ( unintentionally ) say the wrong thing, she's not the only one - I'm just greatful for the wonderful support there is on here for bereaved parents - I stay positive xx

The whole article is couched in the metaphor of bereavement - including the accompanying sad-face photo (of her sitting in her child's empty room). It is interesting to read that the bits about her children being "dead" were added in after the original piece, so were intentional. I get that Liz Fraser was going for effect, and I get that she didn't mean to offend anyone, but it is an odd and upsetting metaphor to use.

I also understand how she could feel unfairly hounded and attacked on Twitter. But - as many others have said - it is her responses on Twitter which have made this a lot worse. Does she even realise we can all read her responses / replies?! To be laughing with her mates and gleefully calling bereaved parents "DICKS"... she really isn't helping herself. As another poster said above, it is almost fascinating to watch - fascinating, but grim.

she is out of order calling people trolls.
shame she couldn't have said sorry.
a lot of things are sad in life, I remember grieving when my baby was dxed with Cp, but thats not the same as how a parent would grieve for a dead child.