Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Site stuff

Join our Innovation Panel to try new features early and help make Mumsnet better.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

mn hq, is it really wise to have topics that are deamed so agressive/scary that most members don't want to post there?

429 replies

wannaBe · 29/08/2011 13:40

have just read a thread in the doghouse topic, and posts from a few posters saying that they never post there due to the agressive responses there.

Now, I know that hiding a topic could always be an option, but is it really in the spirit of mn to have separate topics that are deamed so unwelcoming/agressive that few posters actually want to post there?

I can of course see the need for certain sections, conception/sn/relationships, but it just seems against everything that mn stands for to let a topic exist that is frequented only by a few individuals while the majority feel that the responses there are agressive enough to warrant not feeling comfortable there.

Why can't we just go back to having a pets topic?

OP posts:
Cheria · 30/08/2011 15:17

Have just read this thread right through. It does appear to be a witchhunt on one or more regular posters on Doghouse, who have been enormously supportive and useful and kind to a lot of us.

HallnotOates · 30/08/2011 15:20

AORRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGH

pants

mathanxiety · 30/08/2011 15:28

I don't even have a dog and I love the 'robustness' of MN as mentioned above, but I must say the only thread where I ever felt truly ganged up on and ridiculed in a personal way was one where my pov was that an OP should have taken her child's terror of dogs into account and not got a dog.

It wasn't in The Doghouse. When things got heated, many posters suggested the OP ask to have her thread moved there as they felt she would get a far more favourable reception.

Some people seem to lose their heads completely when it comes to dogs and lose sight of people altogether, whether in situations where people and dogs collide head on or on topics where dogs can be discussed (I lurked on The Doghouse and found a few posters there who seemed to have forgotten they were talking to other people). I like dogs, btw, just can't have one where I live and tbh couldn't really afford to keep one. I visit Feminism a bit and find it far more cordial.

intelligenceitself · 30/08/2011 16:37

Oh wow. Does the poster even know about this thread? Has it crossed anyones mind that the reason animal lovers are aggressive is because not enough people care about animal welfare? On Mumsnet since I joined I've been horrified by posters saying they'd leave their pets to burn in fires, would walk past a dog being beaten to death because they would fear for their own safety, and various other despicable attitudes. If it wasn't for animal lovers like Val these statements would go unchallenged. Only genuine animal lovers should have pets IMO

QueenOfFeckingEverything · 30/08/2011 16:48

intelligenceitself - I consider myself a 'genuine animal lover' but yeah, if it should come to it, I'd rescue my children before the dog.

And I wouldn't risk my life to stop a dog being beaten either - phone the police, yes. Possibly intervene in person, if I felt it didn't pose a risk of serious injury to myself.

Are you really saying those are 'despicable attitudes' that mean I shouldn't own our dog???

intelligenceitself · 30/08/2011 16:50

Have started a thread in the doghouse, seeing as nobody knew a thing about this one. Right to reply and all that.

Cheria · 30/08/2011 16:52

Queen no-one to my knowledge has ever said a child's life shouldn't come first or that you should risk your own life or any of the other more outlandish things the Doghouse posters have been accused of.

intelligenceitself · 30/08/2011 16:53

What you have said isn't really the issue. You have to have read the threads to understand the laid back attitudes to animal welfare I'm talking about. I a was flamed by what felt like a million posters for questionning how someone could hear a dog being beaten and not do anything about it. It was sickening.

intelligenceitself · 30/08/2011 16:55

And in a fire no, you don't just forget your pets. If they are part of the family they are part of the family.

Pagwatch · 30/08/2011 16:55

Wannabe
Your post is addressed to Pog. Is it to me?
Because if it is, I was not for a moment justifying the behaviour. Nor do I post on the Doghouse. Nor do I regard myself as an expert. Nor do I get accused of being bullying or hectoring.

I was trying to think through how the dynamic may occur. Not justifying or defending it

MmeLindor. · 30/08/2011 16:56

Intelligenceitself
who decides if I am worthy of owning a pet? I love my mutt but if I had to chose between saving her and saving my children then I am afraid she would lose her life.

And I would intervene if I saw a dog being mistreated, but I do admit I would assess the situation carefully to ensure that I would not be putting my life, or that of my children at risk.

At the risk of repeating myself, I have nothing against any of the doghouse posters. I like Val and the others. And this thread is not a personal attack on her or anyone else.

YaMaYaMa · 30/08/2011 16:58

3rd time I've tried to post and failed so apologies if it shows up a few times.

The doghouse is the only part of the forum I would never post in, after I happened to click on a thread that was quite upsetting. A woman posted whose husband had recently died. She'd bought a puppy for their young children but was clearly grieving and unable to cope with a puppy too so had posted about possibly rehoming it. One poster was was completely vile and lacked any sort of kindness or compassion for the poor woman. I wish I'd reported it actually. I cant remember the poster's name but it was truly disgusting. The woman was grieving the loss of her husband and made a poor choice in buying a puppy; she didnt run over a baby with a steam roller.

MmeLindor. · 30/08/2011 16:58

Pag
Was POG not P something Goblins?

QueenOfFeckingEverything · 30/08/2011 16:58

Cheria - I was replying to the post above mine where MNers were accused of 'saying they'd leave their pets to burn in fires, would walk past a dog being beaten to death because they would fear for their own safety, and various other despicable attitudes'

intelligenceitself · 30/08/2011 16:59

Some people have made it personal, even if the original intention wasn't to do that

Original poster
wannaBe · 30/08/2011 17:00

southmum if I wanted to name a particular poster then I would have done so. Oh and I would have put the thread in ibu for good measure.

fwiw nobody named any names until well over a hundred posts into this thread. And even then there were just two or three posts and they have since been deleted after those that named her requested it. It is those that are claiming this to be a witchhunt that are continuing to bring this back to one individual, when actually it is about a topic, not one specific person.

If you want to make this personal then that is yours and the others defending (and continually naming) the one poster who are choosing to make it so.

OP posts:
MmeLindor. · 30/08/2011 17:01

Intelligence
That is what I mean. If there was a fire, I would do my utmost to get Daphne out. But I have two arms. And two children. If I could not manage to save Daphne I would be distraught, but my children, and my husband, and my own life would come first.

If that makes me a bad dog owner, so be it.

Pagwatch · 30/08/2011 17:02
Smile

Thanks mmelindor. I was concerned- could cope with the suggestion I thought of myself as an expert Shock

Sorry wannabe

intelligenceitself · 30/08/2011 17:04

You have 2 arms for your children. Your husband sorts the dog out. I have children,dogs, cats and guinea pigs. I'd be stuffed

Original poster
wannaBe · 30/08/2011 17:04

no pag it was aimed at um, goblin whatever her name is... sorry can't be arsed to look up thread for the username now. Grin

OP posts:
QueenOfFeckingEverything · 30/08/2011 17:04

Of course I wouldn't fucking 'forget' the dog, I'd do what I could to save every member of my family. I'd want everyone to be saved. But if there was a straight choice, dog or children, then my children would come first, every time.

I'd never ever forget that either. It would probably haunt me forever. But I'd still save my children first, and if that meant I couldn't go back and save the dog, so be it.

southmum · 30/08/2011 17:06

Wannabe - so you are infact very naive and had no idea how this thread was going to go?

MmeLindor. · 30/08/2011 17:07

Assuming my husband was conscious.

Whatever, it was just an analogy.

Remains the same. I would save my family. Then the dog if it were safe to do so.

Silly mutt Is always right behind me anyway.

Original poster
wannaBe · 30/08/2011 17:07

anyone who would die and risk leaving their children orphaned for the sake of a dog is mad, IMO.

I am a genuine animal lover and I would do anything I could to save my animals from a house fire (I have dogs, cats, birds, rabbit).

But the decision to put your animals over your children is not a rational one; in truth your dog will be dead in ten years anyway. Your children could live as orphans for the next 50 years. It is not comparrible.

OP posts:
Cheria · 30/08/2011 17:07

My dog's such a wuss he'd be out the door first well before the rest of us had even noticed there was a fire.