Is MN feeding unhealthy attitudes towards men?

Have never yet seen ' all men are arseholes" on MN, and I have been here since 2004, I think. And yes, male dominated sites like Reddit or 4 chan do get a huge voice.

It's so odd- in a world where VAWG is a huge issue- to pat yourself on the back for saying " all men are not arseholes" and do a clenched fist. We know that.

I am a bloke on MN - I have wide experience of forums and MN is not especially different to any other - most people on here are decent people who respect all others (male / female) and reserve judgement for actions of individuals, not being foolish enough to assume that one person's actions defines the whole sex etc. There are a lot of very wise women (and hopefully some men!) on here, and they do not come across as anti-man...

There are of course also some people who perhaps gravitate to the more foolish / illogical approach of assumption / poor logic / lack of coherency / stereotyping... who might well assume that all men are lumped together.... - just ignore those posters...

The reality is that as a bunch men haven't exactly covered themselves in glory across the centuries, and continue to still have some generic traits and characteristics which can be seen as stereotypes - but it is not all men by any means and the decent folks on here know that

What exactly do you want from this thread? Kudos for not being like other girls? A pat on the back for the brotherhood? Men to be eternally grateful for taking their side?

It is not a red flag to not want to date bisexual men or men who dont have any ambition because this often results in STDs, being screwed over or having men babies in the house. It is a bright green flag to have standards and think things through.

Men talk about how icky women are all the time. In public and on the internet, personally directed at anyone who doesn't appeal to them.
I don't think this is a particular failing of MN.

This is the same misunderstanding that always crops up on those threads and I'm never sure how wilful it is.

No one is saying anyone should date someone they don't want to. Literally no one ever says that.

It's the way in which men who don't fit the masculine ideal are referred to - with contempt, disgust, "ick" etc.

A man who is not attracted to an overweight woman, says nothing negative about that and simply does not date them - nothing wrong with that. A man who feels the need to talk loudly and constantly about overweight women with contempt? You know that's a red flag.

The way MN talks about short men, low-earning men and bisexual men? Massive fucking red flags all the way down.

Surely I am allowed to not want to date bisexual men. I also don't want to date anyone who isn't hard working and ambitious. Why is this an issue?

Height was never a dealbreaker for me - my late husband was shorter than I am. I am more about shared values, shared interests and so on. But we are all allowed to set those boundaries. No man and no woman owes any other person a date, sex or a relationship.

I was reading it from about the other posters replying. But never mind, we've moved along.

I think the idea is that we are attracted to tall, outgoing, confident men because the patriarchal society has convinced us that men should be strong leaders, and women weak and fragile and in need of protection, and that these ideas are to our detriment because they keep us in a subordinate position.
However, my view is that the only people who really suffer from this particular manifestation of patriarchy are men who don't fit the masculine ideal, and I'm not overly concerned about that in all honesty.
Partly because the impact is exaggerated. Short men do get dates, they just maybe have a smaller dating pool than tall ones, and can't get any woman they want.
Partly because I think its a bit of a cheek to set up a society in a way that benefits some men then ask women to make sure that the men it doesn't benefit don't lose out.

I genuinely don’t even get why we need to be against it. Everybody had things that attract them and repel them. As long as nobody is harmed then who cares about what people find attractive?

It is just SO weird to me!

I am not going to be with men I am not attracted to to smash the patriarchy!

It’s also another case of women carrying men’s water for them. Men never police each others preferences. Most men (for example) have height preferences yet no man would ever comment on it.

I think this is another good example of ideology not always translating well to reality.
I completely get that rejecting short, quiet, shy, unsuccessful men perpetuates toxic masculinity, and so is something feminists should in theory be 'against'.
However we didn't create toxic masculinity, so if in practice this means women being duty bound to date short, quiet, shy, unsuccessful men in order to smash gender stereotypes...well, it does rather smack of women being asked to throw the game to compensate for men's own goal.

There is no literally nothing and I mean NOTHING wrong with a woman having dating dealbreakers.

Nothing to “unlearn” because there is nothing wrong with it (ditto men’s dating dealbreakers.)

Yep this is what I have noticed. The response is generally “neither of you are wrong but it maybe the end of the marriage / relationship.

Or they pathologise the woman as not wanting sex must be driven by an underlying issue.

Then you’ve definitely not been here long enough!

I was going to say the same thing - of course popular forums can influence attitudes and opinions.

Those who deny this have either not been here long enough or are too brainwashed to see it.

No, I think that you just get called out on how you present that criticism.

Thought out comments about how Reeves' changes to minimum wage and NIC requirements have made it harder for small businesses to hire new employees are fine, and are usually treated sensibly. Snarky comments about Rachel from Accounts are grounded in misogyny and are rightly treated as such.

Overall, I think what many of these complaints are rooted in is a lack of literacy and an inability to handle nuance. What I find MN is very good at is getting to people to think about what they can and can't control, the standards they can set for how people treat them, and how they choose to respond to that. So e.g. for someone talking about a marriage that has been sexless for a long time and is deteriorating, the MN hive mind tends to come down on:

1. You don't have to have sex with your husband if you don't want to, and he should not be pressuring you into doing things you don't want to do.
2. You don't have to open up the marriage if you don't want to.
3. However, you might have to accept as a consequence of 1 & 2 that you no longer have a marriage that works for both parties, and your husband is free to walk away as a consequence.

I agree with you here too.

It’s by far the friendliest board here.

Mumsnet has really helped me see how so many men look down on women, including my partner unfortunately. I am not being brainwashed by Mumsnet, I was brainwashed before to place too much value on ‘pleasing men’ and I am grateful to have more insight now. There is a long way to go but I think the vitriol towards a lot of men’s damaging attitudes and behaviour is totally justified to be honest.

Not just on MN - all over social media. Usually on lots of threads from people just commenting REFORM.

This

Yes. I think people don't always understand the difference between prejudice/negative feelings and discrimination/detriment, and the requirement of power to turn the first into the second.

Exactly.

Misandry doesn't exist in the same sense that racism against white people doesn't exist and snobbery against rich people doesn't exist.

What I have noticed on MN is a sizeable uptick in the number of posts telling us feminism has been a negative for women, men are getting a raw deal, things were so much better in the good old days. OP is just another of those.