Set theory
I wonder how large the intersection of Mumsnet and Ashley Maddison users is? Not empty I bet.
Now perhaps we'll find out...
Mumsnet founder Justine Roberts and another user were both targeted in swatting attacks at the apex of a series of hack attacks that may have led to the compromise of user logins at the high-profile, UK-based parenting site. Swatting involves making an emergency call to the police claiming that a crime is taking place at the …
> "Given that there are only half-a-dozen real women on AM, I'd guess very, very small :-)"
Given that the number of women committing adultery is exactly equal to the number of men, this seems unlikely.
I'm happy to believe that there are a lot more men who might like to commit adultery than women, but the actual numbers match.
As to numbers of women who want to? Don't make the mistake of thinking that women don't do that sort of thing. Years ago I used to work as barman and if the graffiti in the bogs is anything to go by then there is no shortage of women to harbour the desire too.
>Given that the number of women committing adultery is exactly equal to the number of men, this seems unlikely.
That's not very, er, "Modern" of you.
There's also the possibility that there are lots of men trying (and mostly failing) to have an affair, with just a few very promiscuous women.
I have a sneaky suspicion that linking "misogynist" with "griefers" is a mistake. That implies that they have some philosophical basis for their actions - probably not griefers in that case. Either Mumsnet has misunderstood griefers or they rae falling into the trap of saying "if you aren't for us, you're against us" which irritates people.
Haters gonna hate. I think it was a mistake to turn this into "thing."
> That's not very, er, "Modern" of you.
Since adultery is legally defined in many places as full on penis in vagina intercourse between two people where at least 1 of them is married, just not to each other. The "Modern" I assume you are referring to has naught to do with adultery.
So I'll stick with my argument that the numbers of male and female acts of adultery balances out.
Someone else suggested that a lot of men were being adulterous with a few promiscuous women. This might well be the case, but there are also a number of promiscuous men who engage in adultery with a large number of women. So even if you want to argue in terms of the numbers of people rather than the number of sexual acts then I'd be highly surprised if there was that much of an imbalance.
As to soft or hard science, genetic studies have shown up real hard numbers for the number of female adulterers. They even have a term for the effect, they call it the "Milkman effect". Correlating similar numbers for males is much more difficult and so I've never seen any published numbers. Instead all we have to go on usually are the boasts of men of how many people they've sh**ged.
In terms of citing adultery in divorce petitions the figures in the UK for 2011->2013 show a dead heat at 13% for both sexes.
What your local night club doesn't have a "grab a granny night?"
Maybe things have changed since I was in my 20s but it was a regular occurrence everywhere I lived, nights when what I think Yanks now call Cougars or Mumsnet calls Yummy Mummies would go looking for their sport. Plenty of chances for hard research.
This post has been deleted by its author
Sorry, not sure why attacking Mumsnet would help Dadsecurity. So far as I'm aware there's nothing sinister, evil or even anti-men about Mumsnet.
I feel #misogynistsnet would be a better tag for this bunch of clowns. One hopes that if Mrs. Dadsecurity (Be it his Mum or Significant Other) has her rolling pin handy.
"So far as I'm aware there's nothing sinister, evil or even anti-men about Mumsnet."
Perhaps you just need to spend a bit more time finding out then - I've seen some horrendous attitudes presented in comments on that site which seem to be accepted by the majority (stuff that would get shot and buried on here pretty quickly).
Poor attitudes are not limited to a specific gender, but only one gender seems to get it in the neck from what I can see.
Watch 'Loose Women' some time and you will see the same undercurrents of prejudice.
I've upvoted both the OP and the response. I can't see the point in attacking the site even if there is anti-male sexism on there, however, having worked in predominantly female environments in the past I have to say that I've heard ladies happily express offensive attitudes about men that would have got me a trip to HR for a little chat if I'd expressed similar attitudes to women. Obviously it didn't bother me overly but it did strike me as double standards. I've also worked in some terrible male-only environments that wouldn't be pleasant for female workers, a break area with a draw full of porn springs to mind...
I grew up in a household where aligning with the feminist movement required simply chanting "all men are bastards" three times, once the entry was complete all social problems could be blamed on blatant sexism and associated penis ownership, without any hint of irony.
Some brave soul might venture that having a working uterus does not instantly make the owner a sage, but not me, and certainly not on mumsnet.
Anybody who thinks that feminism is a coherent pro-woman movement need only type "white feminism" into google to have their illusions shattered.
Rather, it is a disorganised mess of people looking to justify the opinions they already hold, whatever those opinions may actually be.
I've worked in offices where it's acceptable to have calendars of naked male firefighters posing holding their hoses or male rugby players using their odd shaped balls to cover their modesty yet any attempt to pin a calendar of a scantily but clad woman resulted in howls of 'sexism' and complaints to HR.
I have no issue with the calendars but it does seem a little unfair.
Worse yet, I've worked in environments that were almost exclusively staffed by women where men dare not tread. One such place saw a man parcel taped to a pillar after the women had stripped. That one resulted in a police visit when his wife reported him missing five hours after his shift ended.
Pretty much, but look at how much criticism is leveled at Top Gear.
Try doing that with Mumsnet or Loose Women and you will hear the cry of SEXIST.
I dunno, being a white male seems to mean that we aren't allowed a voice simply because all the other voices are quite obviously victims of white males.
We aren't all the same!
mumsnet is like a bunch of yokels with torches and pitchforks. They are often meddling in matters that they are completely ignorant about, it isn't surprising that they have provoked a reaction. I don't support harrasment or a campaign against them but lets not pretend that they are innocent victims, harmlessly minding their own business.
You'd have the twatterati on to you in a flash. And remember her hubby is Ian Katz, once editor at the Guardian who has now somehow found a job at the BBC. Don't know HOW that happened, moving from the Guardian to the Beeb. Still, impartiality, it's in their genes.
Good point. Except that there is no evidence that misogynists ( of whom there seems to be a bafflingly huge number relative to a handful of actual misandrists ) need any help at all in making themselves look like repugnant imbeciles. They seem to actively enjoy it, in the same way that American conservatives do. Maybe it's just the new fashion with the young people and whathaveyou. Probably in a few years they'll look back and be as cringingly embarrassed by their antics as we are witnessing them.
As a MNetter, there have been some important questions surrounding this incident.
The perpetrators have been able to gain access to the site and use admin functions.
A file has been made available which seems to contain usernames, passwords (in plaintext) and IP addresses.
For the protection of it's uses, MN allows a feature called "namechanging". This means long term posters can disguise their identity when posting details. Bearing in mind a lot of abused and at-risk people regularly use the site for advice. Currently it seems MN are rather coy as to whether anyone could have gained a list of posters with previous namechanges. If such data has been accessed, then quite a few people could be a *serious* risk from violent partners, or their families.
It's questionable how well MN have handled this. They were a bit slow in warning users.
Personally I have no confidence in MN security. They were assuring us all passwords were encrypted. Yet here some are - in clear text. Which I know - I'm on the list.
"They were assuring us all passwords were encrypted."
According to the BBC, Ms Roberts said, "Mumsnet itself stored users' passwords in a "high strength" encrypted form, so doubted its own database had been cracked."
Assuming the quote is correct at a technical level, one question worth asking is, why were the passwords encrypted, as opposed to hashed?
Anyway, my comment here is really just an aside if XSS was used to pilfer passwords, as has been suggested elsewhere. Either way though, it still raises questions about data security policy on MumsNet*.
*Of course, it's possible (I would hope, probable) that passwords were in fact hashed and that Ms Roberts is simply confusing the two.