Why do I get so irrationally angry at all these "poor men" threads?

No, that's fine. I do seem what you mean. I guess my POV is coloured by my being a mother of boys as well as a girl. If I thought they my sons were struggling because of an issue that impacted mostly on them I would be very upset that it wasn't being addressed. Wouldn't you?

I am not worrying about the hypothetical problem. I am suggesting that it would be unreasonable not to worry about it regardless of what sex it affected mostly.

Agree with RedLentil as well.

I don't know dittany. It was just a hypothetical example.

What Dittany said.

The first Midwifery Act was passed in 1906, due to the work of a dedicated group of nurses, despite much resistance from the medical establishment (mainly men) because they would lose an income stream (1 guinea a time) if they no longer had to attend births. The statistics for maternal and infant death (across all classes) in 19th Century Britain are horrific (ref the midwife boks by Jennifer Worth). They improved steadily throughout the 20th Century but were still pretty horrendous during our mothers' and grandmothers' generation in the 50s, 60s and 70s compared to what they are now.

I won't even mention the humiliations associated with illegitimate births,'Churching' ceremonies or destitution (invariably ending up with workhouse admission for a poverty stricken woman and her children if she lost her husband).

We got the vote early in the 20th Century but it was a long fight.

The pill arrived in the 60s and if I remember corredtly only married women were allowed to be prescribed it originally.

Social history tells us that we don't get anything without fighting for it.

It may not be as bad as 100 or 200 years ago, but there is still some way to go to get proper equality.

that does NOT however mean that I don't want to see women's (and children's - why is there no request for a children's rights topic?) rights supported, upheld and taken serously

I still remember a thread on here ages ago where the OP had thrown a glass of water over her OH, and he was using threatening behaviour (OP chucked glass of water because of his behaviour).

I am still by how many woman said that it was ok what she'd done because of his behaviour.

I still stand by the fact that BOTH were in the wrong, if a woman shouts abuse at her OH and acts in a threatening manner he has no more right to throw a glass of water over her than she does him.

I am a woman, I have 3, mixed race, foreign surnamed boys. I will continue to fight for equality and understanding for issues for BOTH sides.

I know that my DS's are more likely to be victims of (non-sexual) violence, they're more likely to suffer from untreated mental health issues and more likely to commit suicide. They are more likely to be discriminated against when looking for work (because of their race and names), and they are extremely likely to come across women who treat them as if they are evil beings who need to be put in their place.

I think there is a lot of 'poor men' attitude as an undercurrent in society. For example, a lot of the threads on here, where men have cheated, aim their anger at the OW as if the man was this poor defenceless diddums who just followed his cock and what more could you expect. I can't bear that attitude.

but in terms of earning power, I know many more couples now than I did 10 years ago where the woman outearns the man. I think that is becoming a lot more common.

"Toccata, why do you think that there are so many women who care about men's "issues", "

because we can multi-task

Imsonot - on all the big issues you raise, I share your views, and the ideas you mentioned in your op have occured to me too while I've been on mumsnet.

I think we need to be careful not to treat gender as the only binary linked to power in our society though. Arguably a white middle-class able-bodied, straight girl has more power and better prospects than a boy whose access to power is complicated by factors of class, race, physical ability or sexuality.

Most men have it better than women, without a doubt. My work as an academic has been about 20th century patriarchy in Ireland, the hideous excesses of which are in the news again today.

But part of my passionate belief that patriarchy is wrong, is made up of anger about the ways in which patriarchy does a disservice to the potential of boys and creates damaged men.

If I believed or taught otherwise, I would be reinforcing the notion that men are naturally rather than culturally predetermined to assert their dominance.

As mothers of boys we want to raise them to break the mould, but are doing so when they are being brought up alongside boys who are having conventional wisdom, and a conventional sense of their supremacy, confirmed at every turn.

How to help boys navigate that situation successfully is a legitimate focus for discussion on a parenting website.

As you say, we need to be very careful that we are not creating discussions where men are uncritically being given the status of 'new victim', or where their complex relationships to power become excuses for patriarchy's continuation.

Only, if a new problem arises that seems to affect mainly boys can we really in all conscience just leave them to it? If for example boys GCSE results suddenly start to fall dramatically and not just in relation to girls, does that not matter?

Have to say I agree with you - I want equality - not domination by women (or any other group)

I hate this idea that because we care about issues that DO affect men we are women haters

ISNT - I do agree with you I think. You are assuming that there is a finite pot of 'rights' and that giving them out equally to men and women disadvantages women because men are so far ahead?

YANBU

I get irrationally annoyed at the man 'bashing' threads. AIBU?

Why does it have to be either or though? Is it not possible to care about issues that affect humanity?

Can we really only improve the situation for rape victims if we ignore the further reaching impact that rape has on the the whole family/community? Different yes, but not insignificant surely, when we want to deal with such emotive and destructive issues.

I've got breast cancer, does it belittle my experience to also acknowledge that my Mother, Husband, Son and Brother are also affected by the diagnosis? Does understanding that they are also devastated by what has happened mean I should feel aggreived that it's not all about me, me, me?

"You really don't need to tell feminists (or anti-racists or whatever) that by improving the lot of the disadvantaged group, the lot of the advantaged group will change too, and that this change can be good for everyone "

Why not? Because they don't want to hear it or because they know it already?

OK. I agree with that. Maybe as the more 'advantaged' sex men don't have the habit of questioning, in the same way as perhaps white people didn't always question rascism when they saw it. However I do think it's helpful to look at the problem as a whole - women don't live in a vacuum.

For example I posted a thread about my DH's job in a school for children with behavioural problems. The overwhelming majority of the pupils are boys. These are boys who need the time and effort in a hope of turning their lives around. Is this not important? Surely it will help society as a whole if these children (who just happen to be mostly male) come out at the end of the experience more whole and healthy?