Mumsnet full of inane females according to Petronella Wyatt

[scaryteacher]

www.telegraph.co.uk/lifestyle/9115575/The-state-penalises-women-who-are-childless-and-unmarried-I-might-be-single-but-Im-not-a-failure.html

Methinks she protests too much and should get out more. Isn't she the one that had a thing with Boris?

Ah, glad it's not just me Only

I know plenty of SACs that are having a fine old time, going off on holiday every 5 mins, this woman must be doing something wrong?!

And what she complaining about mumsnet for, why create Sacnet if she wants a support network, name isn't as catchy like...

It's such a navel gazing, internalising article... she needs a good slap back to reality.

I have a good SAC mate who, when I am stressed will tell me all about her fab exciting life in a "tell me about the rabbits George" stylee.

It does me good to know that if DH turns out to be a wrong-un, I too can have her life.

Unfortunately, although I think there is a corner to be argued for SACs (a new acronym?), she argues it in completely the wrong way, comes across all wrong and don't let's even get started on the social circle she describes.

Obviously if you are surrounded by people who talk and act that way you are going to end up bitter.

What a shame that for the sake of keeping up appearances in 'society' one has to be so miserable inside.

Do people like that actually realise how narrow their view on life is? Obviously not, if they think it's worthy of a national article.

What a waste of a chance of happiness, iwith or without children.

She is a victim of her own borgeoisie.

And she should know better than having a public go at mumsnet! Brave woman!

Pet's editor : 'Pet, we need 1000 words that'll get the rabid loons on the comments section really revved up.'
Pet: 'No problem, shall I write about my despair at the Greek debt situation and the ramifications for the UK housing market?'
Pet's editor : 'Er, no, we don't want to get them that revved up. And anyway, we'd quite like to get some shouty women commenting, like they do on the Mail Online site.'
Pet: 'OK, well, shall I write about what a swizz BB creams are?'
Pet's editor : 'No, we've covered that pretty thoroughly. Hmm. Ooh. Do you remember when Julie Burchill was so mean to you? That was pretty nasty, wasn't it?'
Pet: 'Yes, well, no one likes being called barren, especially by a woman who looks like Jabba the Hutt's widowed mother in--'
Pet's editor : 'Great! 1000 words by Wednesday! Mention Mumsnet, we could do with their traffic, they're always linking to the Mail site. Usual fee - you can spend it on Chardonnay and tissues to weep into while watching a Jennifer Aniston DVD. On your own. Oh, sorry, did I say that aloud?'
Pet [thinks] I am totally buying myself a spa break with this.

wildfig is Julie Birchill. (Was Tony Parsons any good in the sack?)

Even the Baby Name threads though are often very witty.
perhaps she came across one being unduly witty at the suggestion of 'Petronella'.

Not in that order though. I went back in time. Honest, Grimma, honest.

Hmm I think the Mumsnet consensus has this one wrong. I thought she was funny, and right about a lot of stuff. Of course the quotes were made up and she had her issues a bit twisted (jealous of stupid Mumsnet?) but I like her style.

There isn't a Mumsnet consensus, though.

I mean the consensus of this thread.

Well someone's already said it was a decent point, horribly badly expressed.

Ooh sorry I shouldn't start posts with 'Well...' - it sounds rude.

I didn't think it was badly expressed though. I think she was funny and clever.

I agree with LineRUnner
no such thing as "Mumsnet consensus"
We are alll argumentative disagreeing types

I think she is a spoilt, self-indulgent whiner with obnoxious friends.

I'd sooner be a viper.

@ wildfig

If she wants to start a chatroom for single woman, there's nothing stopping her. Except her need to fill column inches by taking something insignificant and exaggerating it into a huge deal.

Someone should start a babyname thread on Petronella, that'd give her something to chew on...

(Mind you, I think the cruelty of parents giving you a moniker like Petronella might well make you grow up bitter and twisted.)

I'm childless, and the majority of my friends are too. I'm puzzled by her article as it in no way resembles the life I lead, or that of my friends and family who are without DC. We're a diverse bunch and include people who are single, divorced, married and widowed. Most of us are pretty busy and all of us are leading lives that are rich, fulfilling and packed with friends, family and meaning. And I don't have time to start a bloody chatroom - life is hectic enough. Just thinking about the three or four women I am closest to - one is single, works in waste management, obsessed by disco, and we spend our time together unearthing concept restaurants and visiting various Scandinavian countries (and lusting after Norwegian customs officers). Another runs her own business involving horses, is a superb dowser, is a charity trustee, ace breadmaker, lurcher lover and all round good egg. My favourite aunt who is more like a big sister - chair of school governors, just setting up a community library, ace family historian, Archer fanatic, globe trotting traveller, Excel geek and chutney maker extraordinaire. I could go on. Petulant just seems like a lighweight whinger, TBH. And her "friends" (if they aren't a handy made up source of quotes) sound ghastly - if that's her social life then she probably deserves to be unhappy.

I CBA to actually read her article, but I wish she had written about the NHS reforms, or the workfare schemes, but then I can't imagine inane mners would have had anything to say about that.

Or marriage.

Scuttlebutter, I was like you once ....

Good post.

The majority of my friends are childfree. OK, by a fairly small margin, but if I get my crayons out and draw a chart, then the majority of the people I really love and have known for years, well, they're childfree. One or two of them are assertively so eg joining childfree facebook groups and so on. I was childfree for a long time (didn't have DS till I was 39, and he was an accident, admittedly the nicest accident I ever had) so I do get the basis of the article, having lived with it - if you are female and either childfree or single and over about 25 you do get comments, condescension, hassle from mundanes. But generally you tend to think, well sod them, they're mundanes. And find nicer people to hang out with.

I don't like the article, and the point she makes has been made multiple times, but I do think there's still a big perception difference between single childless men and single childless women once they get past 35, whereby it's usually assumed that for men it's a lifestyle choice, or they're just too successful and busy and interesting to get drawn into the humdrum of domesticity, whereas women must either be "too fussy", "too demanding" or "just hasn't met the right chap"- i.e. there is a broad assumption that women want marriage/children and therefore if they dont have them, then something must have gone wrong.

There is also as assumption that having a child will always be a good thing/ net life positive. Find a thread where the OP has debated another child, and count up the "well you'll never regret having a child, but you may regret not having one" responses. There will be a lot of them.