A challenge to Mumsnet

[BitOfFun]

I am posting and running, as I am having a break this weekend, but thought I would flag this up for you all first, as it's interesting:

liberalconspiracy.org/2010/10/14/a-challenge-to-mumsnet/#comment-185859

The comments have kicked off an interesting debate on the 'Let Girls Be Girls' campaign.

mn has a robust and feisty brand because of the range and depth of posters and pov

I think Claig is right.
Also, at the time the biscuit story struck a chord because it was what many people believed about Gordon Brown (he is a ditherer & he can't give an honest answer about something as simple as what biscuit he likes) as well as what people believed about women (interested in trivia) and no nobody cares about Brown any more but Mumsnet is still there so it is just a story about Mumsnet, if that makes any sense.
So - 'Biscuitgate: yes, that was when those silly women had the ear of the PM and all they could ask him about was biscuits' type thing.

the volume of mn citation and namecheck is indicative external sources do take mn seriously

yes and it wasn't true. There were exceptional posters like herbietea on that thread with Brown. He has never been asked probing questions like herbietea asked him, and he never will be again. Of course, he failed to reply. People like Paxman are pussycats compared to herbietea.

spontaneity of individuals is sharper than tv

spontaneity of individuals is sharper than tv

no, it certainly wasn't true.
it's always the thing with MN - there are so many posts any journalist can cherry-pick to prove whatever the hell they want to.

What's Liberal Conspiracy? I'd never heard of it.
I clicked on it once and it looked as dull as dishwater.
I also didn't like the fact they don'T take activism seriously, symbolized by the greyed, wishy-washy font of the word ACTIVISM on the top right-hand corner.

Don't know much about it. But it seems that the founder urged readers to vote for Nick Clegg in the election. Typical, and just like the Guardian did. Apparently he has recently become a member of the Labour Party.

Strange name for a site as well, given that that is what rightwingers in the US always say, "it's a liberal conspiracy". It's a bit like a group of rightwing Hooray Henrys creating a blog and calling it "The Nasty Party". It's almost as if they are reclaiming it, accepting it as truth and are proud of it.

"The first rule of activism is not to expect other people to do your activism for you."

Yes it did smack of
" Can I get you to do the donkey work for us direct you to a more worthy cause"

Taken from the LC FAQ page:

"Are you against single-issue groups?
We have nothing against single-issue groups that concentrate on civil-liberties, feminist ideals or the environment. But there should also be a space to bring them together as a political movement so they can be united to support each other?s agendas. Otherwise there is a danger they fail individually and the progressive movement fails under attack from the conservative right."

Feminism, single issue

I agree on the overall sentiment, but why are we listed as single issue? What wouldn't then be a single issue?

advocating a vote for Nick Clegg, maybe

liberalconspiracy.org/2010/05/01/the-guardian-endorses-the-libdems-and-im-with-them/

why bother trying to make a difference with single issues on such hugely important issues as civil liberties and feminism, when you can save the progressive movement failing under attack from the conservative right, by the simple, united act of voting for Nick Clegg?

It made sense to the Guardian and to Sunny. To be honest, I find it hard to understand, but that's probably because I am one of these "hypocritical" Mumsnetters, who "lacks insight"

strange use of the words "feminist ideals", almost as if they are ideals that can't be achieved. Why not just feminism?

It's civil liberties, not civil liberty ideals, and it's the environment, not environmental ideals.

I like 'feminist unmentionables'- it has a nicer ring to it, and takes me back to the ol' days of Thatcher putting VAT on sanitary towels

What does the Guardian et al. really believe in, when they "enthusiastically" advocate voting for Nick Clegg? Are these "leftists" just jumping on bandwagons for their own ends? Do these "single-issue" bandwagons and "ideals" not really concern them?

why is is a call to mumsnet particularly?

this is a backhanded compliment. that they know that mumsnet has an excellent track record of lobbying on certain issues.

but still can't help wondering why us inparticular

I'm coming round to the view that single-issues are the way to go. At least then you can be certain that the people involved really believe in what they are fighting for. Diluting single-issues under one all encompassing flag of supporting Nick Clegg seems like a guaranteed way to fail to achieve any objectives, apart from putting Nick Clegg in power.

Young people have increasingly abandoned traditional politics and joined single issue protests, because they realised that the traditional dinosaurs were not getting them anywhere. Nothing was being achieved, and this was possibly deliberate.

Single issues are good in many ways. But I do like a bit of underpinning ideology. If you lose ideology out of the equation principles are harder to find. Like, different groups advocate the covering of 'lad's mag's' on different grounds eg objectification of women, what about the children, religion etc. But imo you can then end up with a distorted campaign that is not what you want it to be.

I think I'm rambling!

If its all single issues there's no overall critique, no underpinning development of thought etc. I think you need both

Its like election policies. I vote on principles not policies. Policies come and go, they don't have to do what they say, they can change their minds, respond to events etc. But if you know the underlying principles you can work out what the likelihood is of them behaving in a certain way, and whether that way is congruent with your own principles.