Can men really grasp women’s reality re safety?

Have you seen what some people, sorry - men, do to horses and ponies? Fucking disgusting, non?

No, what do some men do ?.....horrible bastards some men, not to be confused with men.

Have you seen what some people, sorry - men, do to horses and ponies? Fucking disgusting, non?

Men just don’t know what constant fear is like

Generally, I guess this is true - not constant fear. Must be awful.

You can't tell if someone on here who claims to be a woman is telling fibs.

Unlike real life.

Not saying that there aren't any women who hold that view. But, you know..

Men just don’t know what constant fear is like

Neither do many women, as evident from this thread.

like the implied inferiority of women who don't want to focus on their career. Most feminists won't say it overtly but it's very clear.

Then they’re not feminists.

Men just don’t know what constant fear is like

Persistent.

Oh of course. A ridiculous argument has been made but anyone daring to point that out is nitpicking?

Nitpicking.

But the original poster was making the point that males don't care about women from birth. That's the ridiculous argument. No baby cares about anyone else from birth, regardless of their sex. Male children might well be socialised into caring less but this doesn't manifest at birth and if it's a result of socialisation it isn't intrinsically their fault is it?

I can only understand it as an argument if, at birth, male babies cared about men and not women and female babies cared about people. As none of this happens I just cannot see that it's an argument at all.

You might well argue that men, as a class, care less about women but to categorically state that it happens from birth just makes a mockery of your argument.

It is an utterly ridiculous argument.

No one is claiming that female infants care about anyone else. Female and male infants are socialised and treated differently from birth. Female infants are socialised to be caring, male infants much less so. My wording was a rhetorical device alluding to the differences in socialisation, no different from people talking about "hell freezing over", "raining stair rods", or "steam coming out of someone's ears".

bd67th

What's the definition of woman as used on the FWR board? I thought it was "adult human female"?

How about "male humans don't care about female humans and don't from birth"

So do females care about females, or males come to that, from birth then? I don't think babies, of either sex, care about anyone so the statement is equally true of both male and female babies. It proves literally nothing. It is an utterly ridiculous argument.

Given how varied and diverse women’s experiences, opinions and perspectives are it would seem impossible for a man to get the “reality” seeing as I don’t think every woman is singing from the same hymn sheet even amongst themselves?

I think this is one the the reasons men can’t really be feminists as by definition accepting one paradigm of women’s lived experiences by definition means rejecting those women outside of or opposed to that experience.

But men and women are terms reserved for adults aren't they?

I'd like to introduce you to the Equality Act definitions of man and woman: "a male of any age" and "a female of any age". How about "male humans don't care about female humans and don't from birth" because they are socialised not to? It's not just about empathy, it's also about entitlement.

You lot are worse pedants than me and that's saying something.

You keep using the word 'sacrifice', but most women I know enjoy motherhood. And the men sacrifice spending time with their children.

Yet men continue to do this. It's almost like it benefits them in some way to be the sole earner with all the financial power in the household. Being in charge is more important to them than spending time with their kids.

Again, I remind you this isn't about individuals being happy, it's about structural forces and the impact they have on women in aggregate. It's about the normalisation of "her at home, him at work" as default parenting model takes away women's financial independence and impacts women's safety.

Does it never occur to you that men do more overtime than women because someone has to be at home for the kids and somehow, magically, that "someone" has defaulted to being her? Sex class analysis shines light on this in a way that an individual analysis never.

As for that rant on Thought Catalogue, whatevs. It's one woman's opinion. It holds no more or less weight than mine or anyone else's. If you've decided that she's some kind of spokeswoman for feminism, that's on you not me. I'll give you a tip though: anti-mother and anti-parent views are unlikely to be held by regular posters on a website called Mumsnet.

Here's a few quotes from the recent AIBU thread. Do these posters really sound like victims to you?

And your barrage of quotes by self-selecting posters, proving nothing about the proportion of SAHMs who are happy or safe, continues to miss my point, which is that parenthood in practice means very different things for men and women and these choices are not made in isolation.

And you've completely not addressed at all the reality that a wife without means is at the mercy of her husband. Lucky her if she managed to wed a decent one: the Relationships board is full of women who didn't.

Classic example of this from DP. Looking at Airbnbs we came across a listing specifying "women only" and his immediate reaction although light-heartedly said, was "if it said men only - there'd be an outcry"

For an otherwise intelligent man he could not see straight away why someone might not want strange men in their house and the probable (non) reaction from the authorities should something bad happen.

Whether he wasn't imagining that an Airbnb owner might be themselves female or, just WHAT, I don't know, but danger just was not on his radar. I had to ask him if he'd be happier if I went and stayed in the home of a male or female owner before it sunk in.

DARVO is alive and well in 2020 I see.

Fair point.

Actually men don’t care about women from birth but neither do women care about men.

But men and women are terms reserved for adults aren't they? So, there is no such thing as man or woman at birth. Male and female, yes. So it's ridiculous to say that men don't care about women from birth, because as you say, babies don't care about anyone whether they are male or female babies.

Actually men don’t care about women from birth but neither do women care about men. In fact babies care about very little aside from their own needs. Empathy which is the trait we’re circling around discussing is a learned behaviour which if not picked up by the age of the 7 is difficult if not impossible to develop past that stage of development.

men don't care about women and don't from birth

Then * what a ridiculous assertionn"

Then a discussion about how men are socialised

Can't be from birth if it's socialisation..nit picking

I think it would be easier for some readers if it was made clear that you are (I suspect) talking about the class behaviour of men, not every specific instance of men

Some men are socialised but reject that socialisation. I would guess fewer men reject the socialisation then women.

I hope we crack it eventually, but I fear it’s all a lot more complex than first though.

Agreed

Why are you making it all about you?
This is hilarious. You ignore questions you don't want to answer but seem annoyed when posters won't engage with you on the specific points you want them to.

One poster can't answer for "feminists" and isn't a spokesperson for whatever strawman argument you want to build.

You've gone totally off topic, whether women as individuals are happy in certain scenarios is irrelevant. Nobody is suggesting marriage is terrible for everyone, for example, but we do think that divorce needs to be a viable legal option. Some SAHM are perfectly happy and some are stuck in an abusive situation. Some women take what others would consider as risks with their personal safety and nothing bad happens, some women follow all the unspoken rules and get raped and murdered anyway. The individualist thinks it's their own personal good fortune and good judgement that prevent bad things happening to them but it's as much luck as anything else.

Who decides who gets abused and attacked? The men who do the abusing and attacking. None have ever been stopped by the rational individual woman who is making Good Choices and is Confident and Takes No Nonsense. If a man decides he wants to use his physical, social and financial advantages to hurt women then he will, and the key is to examine those advantages and to try to set things up for women so there are escape routes from abusive relationships and so there is greater safety in general.

Going back to the actual question, what are your actual thoughts on the question "Can men really grasp women’s reality re safety?", CustardDream?

Do you believe men can, or do you believe men can't? Why do you think this?

If you believe that women can't grasp men's reality re safety, and want to discuss that, I would suggest you set up a separate thread.