MN in the Guardian

[theDudesmummy]

This whole article is rather grating me and I can't put my finger on exactly why. Sneering at FWR while saying she steers clear of it? The "damning with faint praise" tone of it? The silliness and missing the point of calling out an "obsession with public toilets"? I got a real anti-feminist, "little women's problems" vibe from the article.
Or am I wrong?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/may/11/mumsnet-flaws-experience-parenting?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

The tone makes me think she’s a bit embarrassed to like MN so she’s getting the digs in before anyone else can.

If that’s her attitude to FWR though she hasn’t been paying attention.

Yes that's what it feels like. Trying to be a bit "above it all" while acknowledging that MN might have its uses.

Rhiannon Lucy Coslett has always been a Guardian lightweight, to be honest.

Some users seem to be obsessed with hen do beefs and CFs (“cheeky fuckers” – anyone asking for a favour, ever, basically).

She's obviously missed all the strangers parking on driveways, foreign houses being rented illegally, women leaving their kids at the neighbours for extended periods etc.

Definitely sneery and condescending.

Perhaps she realises that the toxicity on the FWR boards tends to come from one particular direction and is met with infinite patience in requests for clarity, but is choosing to follow the guardian’s pro-trans line?

She's trying to justify the fact that she spends too much time on MN, I get it, and even get paid for admitting this in work time. Kudos to her, who among us etc...But her casual dismissal of FWR, in a piece which is heavy on "amusingly" labelling people as cranks and obsessive, really doesn't sit right with me.

I don’t know which boards she frequents, but ‘hubby’? I don’t think I see it at all.

It smacks of a bit of bullshit to me. Also, I think the threads like ‘penis beaker’ are probably trolling crap, they don’t represent genuine posters.

I don’t believe her when she talks about using the site. She probably just uses it for research for her articles.

Some will argue that it has provided a forum for women to air opinions in a safe space, and raise concerns about issues such as puberty blockers and – an obsession on Mumsnet – public toilets. I personally steer away from reading these discussions, which seem to often descend into toxicity and bigotry.

It grates because she spends much of the article lauding the way the site as a whole combats sexism and misogyny encountered in every day life, things that affect actual females, but her Guardian dissonance stops her from reading the threads that explain how it’s about so much more than public toilets. What she views as “toxicity and bigotry” is others doing the hardest of yards for her, combating the most sexist and most misogynistic ideology around. It grates because she’s close but can’t see it through.

It’s like she’s gone to a Taylor Swift Eras concert and left before the end to “miss the traffic.”

Some will argue that it has provided a forum for women to air opinions in a safe space, and raise concerns about issues such as puberty blockers and – an obsession on Mumsnet – public toilets. I personally steer away from reading these discussions, which seem to often descend into toxicity and bigotry.

How patronising. “I don’t bother to read those bigots, they’re beneath me”.

And of course, the usual lazy accusation that we’re obsessed with public toilets, when we have to continually push the conversation back to prisons, rape crisis, women’s refuges and women’s sports and the associated changing rooms.

She should open up her closed mind and read what we have to say . That’s what I did and very quickly realised the women here were the ones talking sense.

MagpiePi · Today 09:09

Perhaps she realises that the toxicity on the FWR boards tends to come from one particular direction and is met with infinite patience in requests for clarity, but is choosing to follow the guardian’s pro-trans line?

I think you have it there.

"I just wish they wouldn’t use the word ‘hubby’"

'Hubby' is hated here! I might use it in real life occasionally, but I'd never dare to on Mumsnet.

Oh I believe she does use MN, she's a new mother and I can't believe she wouldn't. But she wants us all to know that she uses it in a superior way to the herd.

"Hubby"? I think she's mistaken us for NM.

That’s why I think she doesn’t use the site. She might read threads that come up on google if she has a concern about her kids or a product review, but there’s no way she knows the culture of the place.

I actually think she’s got it about right.

Hi Rhiannon.

🤣

And yet here you are on FWR? Shouldn't you be out avoiding bigots?

I agree!! I enjoyed the article. It was her personal take on MN and fgs she’s allowed an opinion! There is a lot of toxicity on here aswell as the support, which kind of represents how the public are tbh. Sadly it’s a mixed bag. People are so quick to tear others down on here which quite ironically highlights her point.

I don't know why she bothered to write this condescending piece. So the bit where Mumsnet offers a safe space for women to share and discuss concerns is the bit that she doesn't read because toxic and bigotted.

She's allowed an opinion. I'm allowed an opinion. You are allowed an opinion. See how it works?

I don’t rush to read her stuff. There’ll be far more traffic on this article than she usually gets. As I’m sure she’s well aware.

I suppose they were never in a million years going to open CiF on this piece (I presume they don't on any of hers?). It would have been interesting.

I don't rate Rhiannon Lucy Cosslett. She's the one who wrote about wild swimming and book owning in ways I thought were, frankly, embarrassing.

Also recently she took a public pop at Hadley Freeman and then wailed about it when Hadley responded to defend herself.

I just don't understand why the Guardian employs her.

The mumsnet article was just a load of waffle as far as I could see.

No, she doesn't understand the culture of this place. She is just a journalist being paid to write a piece and she has done so with the readers of the Guardian in mind. She knows her market.

One thing she will do is check on here to see the reaction.

So, this is for her: Why don't you make you next article all about women (ie females) in prison. Why they are in there, their backgrounds, the % of them who have suffered from DV and/or sexual assault etc. and then argue why bigots aka FWR say that transwomen should never be placed in the female estate.