Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Other subjects

things we are not allowed to say on mumsnet.

209 replies

stitch · 22/06/2005 18:36

bottle feeding is second best.

living together as being in the least way undesirable.

marriage shows more commitment.

children need more than one parent

any opiinion resulting from religious faith. bigoted or not.

the opinion that children should have some sort of clothes on all the time. or that they should be made qware of private parts.

in fact any opinion that is not politically correct.

feel free to add any topics you feel i many have missed

oh, and hurling abuse at people is ok as long as you do not use swear words, and it is directed as someone who has a viewpoint different from yours.

OP posts:
GhostofNatt · 23/06/2005 11:36

Well said, Marina!

madmarchhare · 23/06/2005 11:41
Smile
NomDePlume · 23/06/2005 11:47

BTW, I'm the one who did the majority of the insulting and the swearing. In my defence - SHE STARTED IT !!!

oliveoil · 23/06/2005 11:52

I only post if I can be sarcastic or smartarsed, is that un pc as well?

robinia · 23/06/2005 12:05

Stitch - have looked at your original thread and although I, like you, can't understand why people choose eg. not to get married or to get pregnant whilst still a teenager, I do respect the fact that we are all different and that their choices may well be valid and just as satisfactory as my choices.

However, where I 100% agree with you, is your annoyance at the levels to which some mumsnetters stoop in the way in which they argue their points. Just because you expressed an opinion that is different to theirs doesn't give them the right to abuse you personally (which many of them did and which I also have experience of in the past and under a different name). Why are so many people incapable of having a reasoned debate about an interesting and controversial topic without descending to childish attacks on individuals?

mogwai · 23/06/2005 12:51

but your original thread raises some interesting points. Perhaps in retrospect, if you had known you would get so much flak, you might have reworded it.

It seems to me, in the past, the so-called family unit prevailed, and yes, people chose to get married then have children, in that order (and all the other traditional stuff you mention). That's exactly what I did - went to uni, travelled, got married, travelled some more, had a child and a career running alongside.

Looking back, there seemed to be more stability in family life, fewer problems in society. I must admit I think lots of problems in society are caused by lack of stability in children's lives.

However, I think I'm just one of the fortunate few who thought I had a plan, an ideal of how my life would pan out, and so it has, I realise I'm fortunate (depends how you look at it). I met the right person at the right time, I had educational opportunities straight from school.

I think the crux is that women today have choices that my grandmother's generation never had. She raised four children in a traditional familiy unit. Those children grew up with manners, yes, respect, yes. They had no problems. But my grandma was stuck in a marriage with a man who treated her like dirt. She had no chance of education so couldn't get out and support herself. She was only really free when he died.

I think if you asked most 16 ear old girls (and think of yourself at 16), what they would like their lives to look like, they would envisage a fulfulling relationship, kids, perhaps an education, a job or neither. The point is, they picture an ideal and it doesn't always work out that way, for all sorts of reasons. That's not to say it isn't what they would have wanted for themselves.

I think you need to look at this from both sides. The original post does raise valid points, even if the wording wasn't ideal. On the one hand, I admire women who get an education later in life (how hard must that be? what stamina!), who get out of bad relationships, who stand up for what they want and live life how they see fit. It's none of my business what other people do.

On the other hand, I do feel I've come up against a certain amount of resentment from women whose lives didn't work out quite as they envisaged, cos on the surface, mine did. There's definitely an element of "it's alright for you" involved. I think if you question some of them, they will admit that life isn't how they wanted it, things weren't necessarily in the ideal order, but if it's working for them, we have no right to judge.

mamadadawahwah · 23/06/2005 12:58

I will tell you why!! Because it deflects from the argument. Many times I have brought something up and been accused of pointing the finger at a particular mumsnetter. I have never (and you can look at my posts) targetted any MNer with harsh remarks or lambasted anyone.

When someone cant think up an argument but wants to reply out of disagreement, personalising the issue is the weak way of disagreeing.

Finally, remember that you dont know who you are talking to on MN, you will undoubtedly never meet that person and at the end of the day, IT DOSENT REALLY MATTER WHAT THEY SAY cause this is only a web forum and there are probably millions of other people who will agree with you wholeheartedly. I would caution anyone to get too upset by anything said on this forum. There is alot of good advice, but there is also a lot of crap not worth reading. Same as in real life.

mogwai · 23/06/2005 12:59

just read the original thread again and realised all the stuff about women now having choice has been said before - sorry didn't mean to go over old ground

mogwai · 23/06/2005 13:02

mamadadawahwah

I agree with you

I'd love to set up a website exclusively for reasoned argument, ban all the people you describe. We could have reasoned debate, maybe even change our point of view and come to see things from someone else's (thus learning something and having some humility).

It'll never happen. People react and get all defensive. Not enough open-mindedness, as you say, reflects real life

batters · 23/06/2005 13:05

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

NomDePlume · 23/06/2005 13:06

batters

mamadadawahwah · 23/06/2005 13:07

Who has been banned by the way???? Has mumsnet actually kicked certain people out???

lemonice · 23/06/2005 13:11

no one has been banned in this context the thread title is ironic..I think...

mamadadawahwah · 23/06/2005 13:13

Well in that case people, go on and say what you want. Try and keep it clean, no need for gratuitous expletives. And dont take it personally ok? Sheesh, you gotta choose your battles. There just isnt enough time in the day to get hot and bothered over what someone in MN says. To date i have not read anything earth shattering in the forum and probably never will so what does it really matter.

mamadadawahwah · 23/06/2005 13:14

sorry, earth shattering in terms of news/views.

mogwai · 23/06/2005 13:15

but batters, some people have such a CLOSED mind, you can never change them, they can't take part in reasoned argument, just like I can't swim.

I've no right to join the olympic swimming team, I've tried to swim and I'm crap at it, I dont have the necessary skill!

If people don't have open mindedness, they don't have the required skill to take part in reasoned debate so would be banned from my reasoned debate website

mamadadawahwah · 23/06/2005 13:17

Mogwai, being open minded and providing a "reasoned" argument are not mutually exclusive. What you would need to do is "test" your potential web site members first and have them submit a reasoned request of 500 words as to why they want to join.

lemonice · 23/06/2005 13:17

but mogwai you can learn to debate just like you can learn to swim and the more you do the better you get and the more you gain confidence and enjoy it it is olympics for the brain and helps prevent senility

Caligula · 23/06/2005 13:19

Interesting post Mogwai and it made me think of a friend of mine who is a bit older than me. She'd done all the correct life plan thing as Stitch suggested, and the thing which she wasn't planning on, was her husband walking out on her and simply disappearing, leaving her with no money, no job, utterly shell-shocked by the betrayal of the love of her life and startled by the attitude of everyone around her, which was just that "Well, he's moved on. So must you".

She didn't choose to be single mother, the choice was unilaterally made for her. Attitudes which condemn her for having struggled to bring up her children alone, without any help or any support from anyone, are still so hurtful to her even now, even though all her children are now adults.

EnidHobblingLikeAnOldWoman · 23/06/2005 13:22

we are selective here though arent we? If people dont agree with us we hound them until they give up and go and join Babyworld

oliveoil · 23/06/2005 13:23

what like "be off with you you old decrepid" that sort of hounding?

mogwai · 23/06/2005 13:28

I like the idea of the 500 word essay!

But it would be rather autocratic of me to make the decisions myself. I'd need at least mamadadawahwah to pore over the responses as well...

mogwai · 23/06/2005 13:31

Caligula

Well that's the point I suppose. You can plan all you want, but you don't have ultimate control. Having had the "well planned" life, I live in fear that something could happen to take it all away. Life is so random and situations change.

I guess you just wake up everyday and remind yourself of how lucky you've been and never take anything for granted. And I say that as the child of a single mother who never had enough money for the electricity meter - it always seemed to flick off during Crossroads - I never did find out why Sandy Mortimer was in a wheelchair.

Shit - I'm showing my age!

Caligula · 23/06/2005 13:34

LOL at Sandy Mortimer!

mogwai · 23/06/2005 13:36

laugh all you like...but why WAS he in the wheelchair????????