Talk:Mumsnet

Mumsnet & Feminism
I attempted to edit the main page with a section, which I have slightly reworded here. It was deleted. Perhaps it is better placed here in the discussion page, though I think the points made - that the general feminist outlook and regular misandry from the site's members is something that should be mentioned on the main page in some way. I am not an anti-feminist, but the site has a political and ideological agenda that makes it an unwelcoming place for those who do not share those views. Mumsnet has indeed received criticism for its attempts to interfere with politics (and Eastenders storylines!) that I think the main page should address.

Criticisms With the site having a Femininism/Women's Rights section, it could be said that Mumsnet broadened its aims to promoting a political view on gender issues. With an overwhelming female membership the site and the feminism section in particular, allows many many often virulent anti-male posts to remain in a manner that they would not leave racist or homophobic posts - which can make the site unwelcoming to fathers or mothers of boys - even if they are not anti-feminism. Mumsnet members'stance against the issue of 'sexualisation' of children, for example, often comes from a feminist dislike of traditional gender roles as it does the premature 'sexualisation' of children - and as in the Let Girls Be Girls Campaign, it is female children that were the ones deemed at risk.

92.234.59.200 (talk) 17:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I removed it from the article because you did not cite a single source for it. You can't just lob a potentially contentious section like this into an article without providing sources. – ukexpat (talk) 17:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough - I am new to this but find inaccurate wiki pages that are pretty much press releases invalidate the Wikipedia ideal of impartiality - in this case, Mumsnet, you can understand how few mainstream media articles I can find that go into the criticisms deeply, as they are after the same market. However I have found this facebook Page listing many blogs, etc critical of Mumsnet - if its not too much trouble, which are valid references and which are not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.59.200 (talk) 01:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Links to criticisms of Mumsnet re undue influence, misandry and more

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1251003/JANET-STREET-PORTER-This-smug-Mumsnet-mafia-wont-vote.html "My criticism of Mumsnet is that it represents a very narrow group of women. The daily discussions are usually pretty childish, and there's a fair amount of bullying. There seems to be a received way of thinking, and woe betide anyone who disagrees." Janet Street Porter

http://www.comedy.co.uk/forums/thread/21438#P775205 "If you were to post a thread on Mumsnet saying, "I think my husband is spying on my emails, what should I do?" - I guarantee that you will get multiple responses saying "Ring Women's Aid ASAP. However, if you were to post a thread saying "I think my husband is having an affair, what should I do?" - you would inevitably get multiple responses explaining how to track his movements and hack into his email account." Afinkawan, British Comedy Forums

http://anti-mumsnet.blogspot.com/ "Mumsnet is infested with man haters, almost the entire board is bulging with vitriol aimed at any Man who wont cough his bollocks up when they demand it."

http://order-order.com/2010/10/06/getting-the-middle-classes-off-welfare/ "The Mumsnet crowd are livid. It must be doubly annoying for them after they had nice Nick and dishy Dave over for biscuits during the election without any webchat about child benefit cuts..." Guido Fawkes

http://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=210938322283842&id=682381613&notif_t=share_comment#!/notes/mumsnet-sucks/how-many-users-of-mumsnets-feminist-section-were-actually-mums-i-wondered/120855611336369 "You totally don't need children - there's lots of us here without." One of many respondents that agreed she used Mumsnet for its feminism section, despite not being a mum.

http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AgpqMaged0qoXy2HUSEGFHsazKIX;_ylv=3?qid=20110628071727AAGhMef Question "Is Mumsnet being taken over by childless feminists looking to spread their man-bashing? That's how it seems as a once regular, now ex-user. Should Mumsnet market itself as a site for parenting, when gender issues (they have a Feminism section) are the reason many post there - and respect for men there is not exactly encouraged... . Is this fair on fathers, or mothers of boys? Would it be better if the site avoided gender politics and left that for other sites?" Answer "There was a time when Mumsnet was friendly even to fathers - you know, those other parents with the same issues as mums. These days, the misandrists have taken over, feminism invades the most non-political threads (e.g. on child health), and politely trying to counter the male-hatred is met with disgusting name-calling and insults that make me hope that the posters are not influencing any children. It is a shame that parents allowed this to happen. It is a pity that the site moderators tolerate feminist hatred and outright misandrist statements. As one recent introduction thread on the site shows, there are a lot of members there who not only are not heterosexual but who do not have children - they are only there to influence mothers to hate males, which must include half of the children." Interesdom, Yahoo Answers

Now I fully realise you can prove most things with 'cheap' internet opinion - but I also think more 'reliable' sources have yet to, if they ever would dare, criticize Mumsnet for being 'too feminist' amongst other issues concerning a parenting site that caters mainly to women - and often childless ones at that. As a supporter of feminism I recognise it is beyond criticism outside of the lowliest tabloids or Top Gear presenters. I have shown that it is public record however, in this discussion page for one, that Mumsnet is not as without criticism as I wanted the main page to reflect. I will leave it to time and more capable Wiki editors than me to see that the main page reflects what has been documented here.

92.234.59.200 (talk) 23:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Of all those links only the Daily Mail one is reliable as that term is used on Wikipedia. The blogs and forums are not reliable. Looking at the Daily Mail link, it's Janet Street Porter venting and probably isn't significant enough per WP:UNDUE to warrant more than a sentence in the article, and certainly not a whole paragraph. – ukexpat (talk) 14:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Endorsements section
I see an 'Endorsements' section has now been added. Is this impartial? At the very least some of the criticisms, even if it's just the Janet Street Porter one should be added for balance. And I think that the Facebook page Mumsnet Sucks, which collects examples of misandry at Mumsnet deserves to be mentioned too. Danavenell (talk) 10:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I have removed it as too promotional and unbalanced. – ukexpat (talk) 15:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Criticisms
I note that editor has been removing the criticisms section, claiming the material is "unrelated". I've given it quite a bit of thought and really cannot see how this can possibly be true. All I can think of is that the protests also involved Marks and Spencer due to their sponsorship of Mumsnet, but they're only been criticised for sponsorship, and it's clear that Mumsnet are the key party. The material is well sourced so clearly belongs in the article. I'd certainly be opening to tweaking the wording or headings if people have ideas for improvement, but deletion clearly isn't the correct route.--Shakehandsman (talk) 01:27, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree - the section should go back in.--ukexpat (talk) 02:15, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for you input, always useful to get input from an uninvolved party. I restored the content when I wrote the above.--Shakehandsman (talk) 06:34, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Intro sounds spammy
"offering brands the chance to influence women via high-profile sponsored discussions and other forms of interaction". Sounds spammy, perhaps inserted by whoever runs Mumsnet, to try to appeal to advertisers via Wikipedia. 86.184.161.129 (talk) 22:16, 18 April 2015 (UTC)