A good job there aren't many men on MN

[Truckulent]

I think men would be shocked at the level of resentment leveled at them on MN. Almost a seething mass of contempt at times.

I'm a man, been on here for years. And I was surprised by it.

AIBU to think it's a good job there aren't many men on here, or would more men posting help men and women understand each other better?

Indeed LTW - your daughter is more likely to be raped and/or killed by her partner as opposed to a stranger.

i think on balance I would rather be beaten/abused/raped/killed by someone who wasn't supposed to love me.

"out of interest the conviction rate for rape is about the same as for most types of violent crime"

Bullshit. Between 60-85% of all other violent crime does not go completely unreported because the victims have either been conditioned into believing that being stabbed/ thumped/ kicked was not really GBH or their fault anyway and other victims of violent crime are not automatically disbelieved when they say they have been assaulted.

But my son is much more likely to be a victim of violent crime than my daughter is to be raped or killed - in a relationship or otherwise.

This of course doesn't excuse DV but it does put it in perspective.

(And when I refer to my son or daughter I'm speaking figuratively - the number and sex of my children is very different to what I've said here - anonymity and all that).

Windward the only reason young men are more likely to be the victim of crmie on the street, si because they are more likely to be on the street.

If more women/ old people etc. were on the street, they would be assaulted in greater numbers as well. But they're not, because they are afraid to be on the street.

Oh and the conviction rate - 6% for reported rape. That's not the same as other violent crime.

And who is more likely to be the perpetrator who is violent towards your son LTW? Would that be other men?

Doesn't make it less wrong or scary but if the perps in all those cases (violence against white males and against women) then that raises other questions doesn't it?

but then your son is more likely to go out and behave in an aggressive and risky way.

"Bullshit. Between 60-85% of all other violent crime does not go completely unreported because the victims have either been conditioned into believing that being stabbed/ thumped/ kicked was not really GBH or their fault anyway and other victims of violent crime are not automatically disbelieved when they say they have been assaulted."

The conviction rate for reported cases of rape (this is where a crime has been logged - we're not talking about court cases here) is if memory serves a little less than 6%. If memory serves (and the I don't have the figures to hand) the conviction rate for assault is about 7%.

Of course - not all rape cases are reported, just as most punch ups on a Saturday night don't end up reported so the figures might not be comparable.

That isn't to say that there isn't much more that can be done to help the victims of rape and there needs to be more training and education for front line coppers on how to handle rape cases but the basic point is valid.

TSH - happy to take your point on DV if you can show me any DV statistics that point to men being the majority of victims (google is your friend )

Am not sure it is generally frowned upon - a 6% conviction rate for rape means a 94% not frowning majority surely?

Your daughter has a 1 in 4 chance of being a victim of DV.

Does your son have a 1 in 4 chance of being a victim of a violent crime? Is it that high? I know that 1 in 3 men under 30 have a criminal record, but that's often because they get cautions for minor offences.

Is it really news to anyone that men as a group attack both women and other men?

But you knwo I mean SOME men TSH.

We've had the conversation before.

Only an idiot would mean ALL. You know that. And only an idiot would believe that someone meant all. You're not an idiot, so you're being annoying for the sake of it.

Just going back to discrimination law for a second - when the Sex Discrimination Act 1965 first came into force and a claimant alleged indirect discrimination (e.g. a rule/criteria/requirement disproportionately affected women more than men - or vice versa - discrimination law is symmetrical in its application to gender apart from on pregnancy discrimination) the claimant would have to prove this to be true - so for example a requirement for 24 hours call would disadvantage more women than men - now employment tribunals haven't got time to be shown what they know to be true and consider self-evident and you no longer have to submit statistics showing majority of childcare is done by women.

In effect, even employment tribunals have been forced to recognise 'entitlement' as a fact of life before they try and remedy its effects.

TSH - again, happy to take your point on inconsistency and variance re DV figures if you can point to JUST one study that shows men are in the majority of victims for DV - especially a notable lack of consistency which would suggest more than one set of statistics which could be dismissed as an anomaly (or has google not been your friend ?)

Thanks for links to Wimmin's Section, ladies.

Am combing my armpit hair in readiness for group plaiting already, thanks.

Or possibly not.

What are we arguing about now?

See you there granted

Is it necessary to debate precise statistics of violent crime here, though?

Not really relevant to the OP's claim that it was poor little men who were being set upon here, surely? It's not as though he meant the attacks on men were literal... And violence against women is dreadful, and lack of success ot resolving it possibly even more dreadful; but then violence against anyone is dreadful.

It's getting a little bit like the sketch of who had the poorest upbringing - clearly they're all awful. Not as though more violence against men would somehow make violence against women ok and just fine, or the reverse.