to think he should offer to feed a pregnant lady?

[1pregheadpumpkin]

DP is at work and im stuck in his dad's house and im really hungry as i last ate at midday. im ravenous and cant really go through his fridge for food as im a guest. but it doesnt look as if dinner is going to be cooked and i dont want to ask.

as im carrying his grandchild he should feed me yes?

actually i realised the term bitchfest was lame as soon as i posted it but my point is the general tone of the responses on the thread were just quite horrible with no particularly good reason.

sometimes it just seems like when one person piles in the rest blindly follow.

i never felt able to ask my inlaws for anything. they complained once when i finished a toilet roll! some people are weird about stuff and i think people have been harsh on the op.

im older and wiser and much more able to assert myself, but shouting someone down who isnt is helping how?

those comments were me,and yep stand by them.op posting at that point 7+ hours no food is bonkers and such unassertiveness is not a good attribute

however,as thread progressed,bit by bit she revealed more.apparent this isnt solely about food but reticence and unassertiveness aren't great maternal values

so cut and paste as you wish.at point i posted all really known was 7=hrs no food.and yes that merits a comment

i have nowt to do with any of em now btw. fuckwits they are.

agree completely slhilly.

people just make these rash snap judgements on how other people should be living - it pisses me off. what does anyone know of how the op is living? why the nastiness for the sake of it? the name calling? its pack mentality - one wades in - all wade in for a pop. and what exactly has this poster done? committed some atrocity? some crime against humanity? no - she didnt have any money for food and didnt assert herself as mumsnetters saw fit, ffs????!

It is not a bitch fest. It is mumsnet. It is open season pretty much on AIBU, and if you take the OP at face value which is all you can do, then you make your post.

As it turns out the OP has alot more going on, and as that information came out everyone was alot more supportive of the OP. Had she written, "I am a soon to be homeless pregnant 18y old sat alone in my DP dads house, starving hungry and too shy to ask for food. I am totally skint and my DP is out." Then I think the tone would have been set from the start.

Have one of these

not just you SM. this thread is 5 pages long - unless youve managed to fill 5 pages all on your own...

certainly not but the cut & paste was my quotes

you know what else - the "this is mumsnet - so its justified" is a very tired old argument too.

basically as i see it a young women posts saying she is pregnant and didnt feel able to ask for food from her father in law. turns out she had no money and a few other problems,

and the justification for all the name calling, prodding and poking is? what exactly?

cos all the good strong assertive women of mumsnet who piled in for a pop just look like total dicks at this point, to me at least.

SM, you will see the cut and pastes were not my post although i agreed with the poster who did that, certainly.

and are you piling in now,or impartially observing?

you know what if friend of mine recounted that op and no food 7+ hours damn right id say dont be a wuss etc

but this crowing with hindsight is just that.hindsight after she revealed all ohter details

and after everyone else judged her.

impartially observing.

like i have a load of posters all piling in now to say im right?!!?? im not remotely bothered about speaking my mind, and dont give a toss if anyone agrees or not. the name calling did what? really am anxious to hear the rational behind it.

what are you vexed about?who are you arguing with exactly

my laptop is playing up and i cant see posters' names. it is very strange not knowing who is saying what, especially when posts are diected at me.

SM, this is nothing to do with crowing with hindsight. And this is not RL and it's not your friend and it's not a private conversation, it's Mumsnet and a stranger and a public conversation. And it has rules, written in letters at the top of every post. They are supposed to guide the way that we interact with each other. There are plenty of places on the internet where those rules don't exist, if you just want a free-for-all.

It seems to me you are deliberately ignoring the important distinction with disagreeing with someone and insulting them that is supposed to be the core of the AIBU rules. The quotes I posted do not simply disagree with the OP's stance they attack her. It's not that difficult to do, really just the difference between "simpering unassertive jessie" (simpering?!) and "you need to assert yourself more". I have disagreed with your stance, but I haven't insulted you. I even deliberately avoided naming you as the author of those quotes, because I was making a more general points.

You don't need any context to know that it's worth being polite even when you're being robust.

not arguing. 'impartially observing' that some posters were being really really unpleasant. and im wondering to what aim? this op was quite innocuous and inoffensive, and incurred a barrage of insults, and i wonder what they were intended to achieve.
insult an poster who by the very nature of the op clearly isnt assertive??? nice.

"written in letters" d'oh!

yes im v aware its words on a screen thanks.and given what known when i initially posted no i dont retract any posts.based on 7+ hrs no food id say pretty much same again.and if you chose to post in aibu,well as the mn header warns

Please bear in mind that this topic encourages posters to give their opinions - i.e. they might disagree with you

all this cut & paste you said/she said.not sure what retrospective crowing proves

sm - are you reading the headers now? cos by the same token as well as saying that posters may disagree with you it also says no personal attacks. of which they were plenty on this thread.

im really wondering what kind of people (people - not just you) attack a poster who by the nature of their post is clearly not assertive.

i think this is where mumsnet gets its crappy reputation from, and on the whole i think its unfounded, but threads like this do mumsnet no favours.

vicar you have a bitchfest agenda and bee in your bonnet.mn reputation? havent a clue. i am not able to account for large a discursive forum composed of disparate individuals

not so individual SM if this thread is anything to go by.

and i have absolutely no agenda what so ever. i just think this particular thread is shite and shows a whole load of people up.

if not then explain why the need to insult and attack a poster whose very opening post clearly shows they arnt the assertive type?

*aren't

i dont have to explain myself to anyone.posts self explanatory.this you said cut and paste is tiresome

and given that op whom post was directed at has not been seeking further clarification/explanation,why is your need so burning vicar

Sorry to wade in (I did already voice concern at the initial treatment of the OP though) but was intrigued about the mumsnet reputation comment.

Then found this.....for SM and others who (like me) didn't know anything about MN rep. If this article is anything to go by, then I'm not close to the "typical user" (although getting closer to the age bracket.....)

www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1231263/I-hate-mumsnet-Why-mum-thinks-parenting-website-smug-patr onising-vicious.html

i dont read dm online or otherwise so will pass on link.

SM, your response to me repeated earlier assertions, but didn't respond substantively. to what I said. You also encouraged me to read the same headers I've been encouraging you to read, for some reason. So let's try again with some direct questions:

1. do you think your original remarks count as disagreements, which are permitted by MN, or count as attacks?
2. if you think that calling someone a "simpering unassertive jessie" is not an attack, what do you think constitutes an attack? In answering that, there is no need to attack me or anyone else. A theoretical answer would do.
3. what, specifically, do you think I have said that constitutes "retrospective crowing"? I have tried to hold you and others to account for failing to live up to the pretty simple and straightforward standard that MN sets for the AIBU board. Does the mere fact that I've done that count, in your eyes, as retrospective crowing?
4. Is there any chance that you are, by now, defending a position for the sake of it, rather than because you actually believe it? In some ways, I rather hope so. The alternative appears to be that you just don't see how some of what you've posted falls on the wrong side of the distinction between disagreement and attack.