Mumsnet

[mithy]

I think we're due a name change. Just looked at Relationships and 3 out of the 4 top threads are by men.

kawliga and DDD

When I take the piss out of someone who's posted here, (this is fairly unusual, for me) it's because I hate what I think they represent. In a sense I want to bully them into submission, and make them feel wrong for saying what they have said.

Blimey.

This again? YABU.
Couldn't you look back at previous threads about why MN doesn't change it's name

Owllady - I know where you are coming from - I've got a maths background, work as an actuary, and I am definitely introverted. In social situations, I don't talk a lot.

The attraction to an introvert of a forum is that I can pick my interactions and think about what I say (and edit before posting). So in writing I appear witty and articulate (or so I like to think ).

Thomas - to be fair, they are usually completely horrible people

I mean, it's normally only people who are clearly trolling, that I take the piss out of. I don't do that to ordinary people much

Also...wait for it, I'm about to reveal some deep ground-breaking insight that nobody on mumsnet has ever thought of before... ... CHILDREN NEED A FATHER!

There. Bet you never saw that one coming. You're welcome.

God no. In five years time you'd have posters declaring they were on the original mumsnet and it would become a new way of showing how established they were as members. It's bad enough now with the "it's not how it was back in the early days". And insinuations that all the new people have ruined the site.

kawliga

Not if they are abusive wankers.

OhShutUpThomas

Not sure if I can explain properly but to me it seems to exclusively associate parenthood with mums. I'd feel the same about a site called sciencenet that had the tagline "by men for men". Stereotypes and all that.

Children need a father.

Only to get here in the first place. After that a decent attachment figure will do, male or female and they don't even have to be a blood relative. Blows your mind I bet doesn't it?

When I take the piss out of someone who's posted here, (this is fairly unusual, for me) it's because I hate what I think they represent. In a sense I want to bully them into submission, and make them feel wrong for saying what they have said

I would say ^^ that is a fairly common issue on here.

I was going to put a sarcasm alert on my post, then thought that would rather ruin the dramatic effect I was going for with the drum roll and everything.

Not sure if I can explain properly but to me it seems to exclusively associate parenthood with mums.

I think the messages are mixed. "By parents for parents" - and if you read here www.mumsnet.com/info/aboutus, there is no mention of being a site for women / mums. (I believe I read somewhere that they chose Mumsnet rather than Parentsnet, just because the former sounded better).

But then if you look all around the screen, or click on the menu items across the top of that page it all seems to be aimed at women: Pregnancy obviously, but also Life and Style brings down a photo of a woman doing her hair (and shaving her face - maybe it is a man? ) - nothing wrong with these, but that's a pretty clear message.

The name is historical and should not be changed just because the site has evolved over the years. It happens. Someone used Scottish Widows as a comparable example above. Another is the Radio Times, which has covered more than "radio" for over 60 years but nobody thinks that's odd. Burger King sells more than just burgers, and you can buy a lot more than just Personal Computers in PC World. And so on.

Yes and look at boots. They don't sell any footwear at all

owl

Oh dear. Are we in danger of being called a bloke exclusionary radical forum?

Or a BERF?

DadOnIce

Those aren't really comparable though are they? None of them carry the same gender baggage or imply that something is exclusively the realm of a particular group (with the possible exception of Scottish Widows, and even then, tenuously).

"Sciencenet - for men by men" would be comparable. Or how about "Sportsnet - for boys"? Basically when the activity in question is potentially associated exclusively with one sex and, in doing so, perpetuates a gender stereotype.

Eh? How do you figure that?

Slarti - IT DOESNT SAY FOR WOMEN BY WOMEN.

Please stop using those analogies - it says 'by parents for parents.'

OhShutUpThomas

Yes, but the site is mumsnet, which is clearly a gendered name. The issue being that parenthood is associated just with mums. In my analogies science is associated just with men and sport with boys.

But many of the issues here are associated with mothers only - pregnancy, birth, maternity leave etc. This does not apply to science or maths.

There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with having something that is mainly for women, but which welcomes everyone.

Nothing at all.

'Gendered' name? It's a 'gendered' site. This is ok.

Communal groans