Temporary Mumsnet logo -not at all funny!

VioletSky

Oh that's an interesting one

Please start a thread on the "parentsnet" idea with "grandparentsnet" thrown in

I would but, it's me, I annoy too many people lol

I’m sure that it’s been mentioned loads of times. There is no way that they could do a total rebrand, especially in the current economic climate.
I’m sure someone will post about Justine Roberts finances, but either way, it ain’t gonna happen

And what if those of us who aren’t parents / grandparents?

That’s been done to death too.

The fact is that MN started as a parenting support site, and it grew like Topsy and is now far more diverse and it a general chat forum.
They’d have to get shut of the Mums and Grans part and just call it Chatnet

I'm not a gran yet (possibly soon) so I take your point

Galaxy

I am not making it personal. When I use 'you' I mean anyone who decides what can be heard, seen etc. So all those who got the logo pulled. And MN for caving which is most unlike them.
When we decide what is offensive then there is always a 'you' so to speak.

Well I voiced an opinion on the logo - but certainly wasn't one of those who demanded it be 'pulled'. My voice is only one amongst many so I don't think it carries any more weight than anyone else's.

Political satire and caricature is a tradition - but there are other traditions that we've abandoned over the years because for various reasons they're not in keeping with a modern society.

Is it OK to satirise high-vis figures / politicians because of their politics or opinions, and distort their identifiable physical features? I've always seen it is acceptable in the sense that cartoonists etc exaggerate for the sake of effect. Rowson, for example, exaggerates everything, every feature of his landscapes, not just people. Others of course will feel quite differently about satire and caricatures.

My complaint (such as it was) about the MN logo is that there was no satire - no point being made about Charles other than the fact that he has prominent ears.

"My complaint (such as it was) about the MN logo is that there was no satire - no point being made about Charles other than the fact that he has prominent ears."

Spot on, Dickens. I wouldn't dignify what M.N. produced by even describing it as a caricature. It was, pure and simple, a juvenile attempt to draw attention to and to make mockery of an individual's physical appearance. A cheap shot... which badly backfired.

MN is I am afraid quite political but not party political. Many campaigns in relation to womens rights originated on MN. The fact that it is a predominantly female site is political in a way, the fact that it tries (usually) very hard to allow freedom of expression is quite political. Campaigns such as let toys be toys originated on MN. It's a chat site but that's not all it is.