women's issues, always remember men are victims too

This is another feminist position i struggle with, whereas I agree that violence is pretty much exclusively a male problem, I would argue that most of the effort expended trying to control violent men is coming from other men no ?

Well, of course men don't want to be victims of violence, so they do something against it. However, you will notice that violence against women is legal in many patriarchies.

I do not agree that the most effort trying to control violent men is coming from other men - it is coming from society as a whole, which is about as many women as men.

Men who are not policemen, and thus paid to control male violence, are often not very invested in stopping other men's violence against women. (And even policemen ... if that crime novel I read recently contains a kernel of truth, then some policement treat domestic violence of males against women not as a real crime, and even allow offenders to attack female colleagues)

perhaps I am a pessimist but how do you propose to stop males from being violent given that it has been this way since time immemorial ? The "solution" the patriarchy came up with was to try and control it rather than stop it altogether.

Well, many wise people say that you cannot change others, you can only change yourself.
One option to stop male violence against women would be to live separate from males. (You may notice that this principle, as embodied by houses where women can go to be away from violent husbands, has been invented by women, and at best gets some funding from the general public)

I am of the opinion that violent men should be prevented from breeding by reducing women's economic dependancy on men, wholly legalizing abortion everywhere, and promoting a male ideal that doesn't glorify violence.
(And of course by locking rapists up in prison for a long, long, time. Without women, women here meaning any person with a functioning uterus, regardless of how that person identifies. All rapists with penises are to be treated as male, obviously.)

Considering that violent males have, historically, fathered most children, it should be possible to reverse that process ... though it would likely take a long time.

Male violence is a terrible problem, and I can't take anyone seriously who tries to suggest that DV is something men suffer from equally at the hands of woman, it's depressing that anyone could take this seriously. My opinion is that even those who spout the "what about men" line don't seriously believe that there are 000's of grown men cowering in terror from their violent wives either.

But is it really the case that feminists are the only ones trying to do something about it ?? Men go to, and have gone to, great lengths to prevent violence on the part of other men. The functioning of our society is possible because of a monopoly on organised violence. This is another feminist position i struggle with, whereas I agree that violence is pretty much exclusively a male problem, I would argue that most of the effort expended trying to control violent men is coming from other men no ?

perhaps I am a pessimist but how do you propose to stop males from being violent given that it has been this way since time immemorial ? The "solution" the patriarchy came up with was to try and control it rather than stop it altogether.

haven't you noticed how men (or women) who dare to even mention male issues get shouted abuse as by feminists?

No ... no I haven't. Ever. And I don't think that's because I haven't paid attention. People talk about male issues all day long.
Never even saw feminists complaining about all those adverts for medication against enlarged prostates.

Feminists also are more or less the only people who mention the male issue of male violence. You'd think men would be more interested in fixing their problem with violence, but strangely enough, it is only some brave male schoolteachers who want to fix their male pupil's violence problems, and feminists. That's it.

Kind of proving the point of the thread, though

I cant believe anyone would minimise FGM. It's more than just the procedure (which is horrific in the extreme), it's the reasons for doing it - to make women 'worth' more. To stop them becoming sexually active. To remove any chance of enjoyment of sex. To ensure they're not 'spoiled goods'. It's fucking disgusting and circumcision isn't even in the same league.

It's not a fresh hell, Ophelia.

More a well trodden path from a murky, dusty, MRA site ;)

Holy Granola!
From which fresh hell did priaget emerge?

Please, go back!

Oh where are my manners.

Welcome (back) to Mumsnet, priagaet.

Oh, you're back are you!

"So, looks like male victims are overwhelmingly at risk from, well, male criminals."

And how does that fact console the victims? Does that make the crimes less serious if their attacker is the same gender as themselves?

"We are interested in breast cancer, we're fucking sick scum?"

Just look at you all trying to trivialise and downplay prostate cancer. It has been pointed out prostate cancer kills as many as breast cancer.

And I want to see a valid source for the claim made on this thread that men don't bother getting checked for prostate cancer.

If you want to talk about women's-only issues noone gives a fuck. But you are scum when you try to suggest men's issues should receive even less funding than they already do.

" if men are outraged by it, what's stopping them from starting up a campaign?"

haven't you noticed how men (or women) who dare to even mention male issues get shouted abuse as by feminists?

You do know there are different types of female circumcision/FGM? 4 different types and the most common worldwide procedure of these is about as harmful as male circumcision/MGM?

I also can't get very excited about circumcision, i don't recall any stats about men dying in labour due to it.

Women also can be reluctant to leave because they know damn well they would be punished with poverty for doing so.

And im betting there is a correlation or link with women who have been sent to prison or fined for not having a tv licence.

The 'it happens to boys too' really riles me when it comes to talking about FGM.The two are not the same and not comparable.

I don't believe that a baby boy's foreskin should be removed for non-medical reasons but the impact of the procedure comes nowhere near the impact of female genital mutilation. There are sometimes medical reasons to remove the foreskin-its a legitimate medical procedure. There's nothing legitimate, excusable, necessary or humane about causing a woman lifelong pain and complications by cutting off her clitoris or her labia or sewing the skin up so tightly over her vulva that she can neither urinate nor pass menstrual blood.

Although i don't agree with automatic circumcision I just can't get too outraged about it. And, as with the dv, if men are outraged by it, what's stopping them from starting up a campaign?

So, looks like male victims are overwhelmingly at risk from, well, male criminals.
Graphics only available for arrests and prosecutions, not convictions; also not this year, but gives the general idea:

re the original OP about crime, men really do commit the vast majority of serious crime:

• 85% of all indictable crimes in England & Wales
• 88% of crimes against the person
• 98% of sexual offences refs Gov MOJ Stats Table Q4.2 , The Times

Women do however vastly exceed men in convictions for not having TV licences (for those looking for heinous offences committed by women)

I was hunting out the stupid links about prostate being a "womens" issue to show someone and i stumbled across all this proper serious stuff that seemed to say we did actually proper have one, but research today revealed the name skenes glands.

jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/90/9/713.1.full
www.berkeleywellness.com/self-care/sexual-health/article/female-prostate

OP reminds me of something I read somewhere about all this whataboutery: "Do you go to donkey sanctuaries and shout about cats too?"

at "My DP complained about lack of support for men's charities and then admitted he primarily gives to animal charities."

I am going to revise my charity donations in the new year ... Time to take stock...

To clarify my post about the race for life and breast/prostate cancer, the reason there were accusations of sexism and anger about it was because it was perceived as yet another thing for women and therefore exclusive of men. Rates of breast cancer vs prostate cancer didn't come into it.

gaedoutr, interesting night you've had, indeed.

Prostate cancer is serious yet it tends to affect older men and, on average, be less aggressive than breast cancer. Both need research but breast cancer does tend to blight more families and is thus a higher priority.