Is Eva Wiseman sending a coded message of support

[speakingwoman]

www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2018/sep/23/mumsnet-forums-are-a-guilty-pleasure-but-there-are-truths-too

I don't think so - but standing up for the right of women to talk amongst themselves is an important one!

Yes, that’s true.

No, she isn't. I'm afraid a little while back she posted something very pro TRA on Twitter.

Yes I remember that too hackmum

Just read it and I felt more patronised and judged than supported. There are little glints of acknowledgement that MN is a great place for women to discuss issues that are otherwise off limits. But overall I wouldn't be calling on her for a reference.

It did feel a bit like patronage. She as a top journalist can discern the jewels among the dross but other less alert people can't, kind of thing.

Who knows where she falls on the spectrum (see what i did there) of opinion on any issue. If she's on here, she's part of the conversation and that's good.

I wouldn't have said this 2 years ago, but no way am I going to click on a Guardian link.

redshoeblueshoe

That is my stance too. We are growing in number

Yeah. It's patronising. She only approves in so far as it helps her.

A lot of articles about Mumsnet are playing to the crowds who think it's all

a) cupcakes and bunting
and/or
b) bitching an vitriol

Neither acknowledges the intelligence or knowledge of MN users

... I suppose her own personal view might be different, but she lacks the guts to say it. So no; not very supportive

I thought it was really patronising and that she'd browsed these boards and felt really superior, so left pretty quickly.

But, but.

Mumsnet is her secret pleasure. Like someone who sneaks into Greggs. Or someone who loves to read about a person who shags her best friends partner.

She is confined to writing puff pieces on 'women's issues'.

And her picture hasn't changed in years.

I had not heard of her. She comes across as awfully superior and not very interesting. Why does she think she is so special ? And why does the Guardian thing that ordinary, MN posting, women would want to hear her views.

12 million registered users, grief knows how many unregistered lurkers/viewers yet there are occasional truths?

My - with numbers like that, what was the possibility of that being true? Who knew that Mumsnet users might have higher education, be in reasonably senior positions in public and private sectors, and have some passing interest in more than baby names, bunting, and biscuits?

Not so much for EW and the ability for even basic numeracy to influence her thinking, eh? So, the news that she supports a TRA viewpoint is not even remotely startling.

Think not thing!

The casual contempt people have for Mumsnet takes my breath away sometimes. It's misogyny in plain sight.

Puzzled at what gives EW the idea she can patronise mumsnetters. She's just another overpromoted metropolitan Polly Filler churning out forgettable fluff, the Guardian is full of them.

Oh yes. I get it from other women when I mention I use it. Rather MN that boasting about my hollybobs on FB

The idea that our specialist subject is "the secret lives of women" is the really patronising bit. 1) We're well aware that what we post here isn't 'secret' thanks for your concern Eva, and 2) many of us know stuff about e.g. our professions or areas of study etc over and above what we read on here.

Good grief.

pachyderm Do you remowhen Laurie Penny came on here? She was unbelievably condescending. It’s amazing that women who call themselves feminists seem to imagine that when mothers come together to talk, we’re only going to be interested in babies and bitching about other women.

That should read “remember when”.

Me too Crackpots

She got her arse handed to her. Didn't Eryshigal call her ' the ultimate cool girl'?

Don’t know if she is. Can’t tell from this flimsy article. What is her point? In my experience we don’t “keep quiet about childbirth”, we tell anyone and everyone about each birth we have, it is that momentous. Usually though, we tell each other. Unless of course we write it up as self-indulgent twaddle for a woke newspaper.