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?

MQ, how can a man be unaware that the woman does not consent?

I also think that women are not likely to post in Relationships unless things are very, very bad and she is coming to the realisation that they are very, very bad. If things about her dh are midly irritating she is likely just to shrug her shoulders and either sit him down for a talk or just carry on and ignore it.

Posting in Relationships is very often a cry for help.

WTF - ccpccp.

BTW is ccpccp a man or a woman?

I did ask him/her on another thread but was ignored.

'....wihtout any real supporting evidence.'

There should be 'IMO' at the end of that sentence, or '... without any real supporting evidence that I can see', because what constitutes 'real supporting evidence' is in the eye of the beholder. Lots of beholders => lots of different definitions of what is 'real evidence'.

No-one who responds to an OP was there when it happened. All anyone has to go on is what an OP posted. Clearly, when a woman posts about a problem it is not trivial to her or else why would she bother? Something rankles, something makes her think, or feel, strongly enough to post and ask.

People (men as well as women) who have been there and done that can see things that might not be obvious to others. Some can recognise a situation or a turn of phrase. You could buy a book of course, and see your situation there, or go to counselling and have your perceptions validated by a therapist. But MN is quicker and cheaper and more convenient. When I was 18 I couldn't have contributed anything to a forum on relationships or potty training (or pretty much anything else that gets discussed here) -- except maybe Style and Beauty. Possibly Food. The fact that I can now speak with a voice of experience on several topics here does not make me a man hater, or a nappy hater.

I am a bit to find anyone here trying to discuss the label of 'man hater', and disappointed with myself for defending myself against it, because discussion of it accords it a dignity it doesn't deserve.

"MQ, how can a man be unaware that the woman does not consent? "

That is the law. He must be unaware or reckless to the fact.
It's known as the Morgan principle. As far as I can remember the case it derived from involved a man who enlisted another man (I think they were coleagues but can't remember) to help his wife fulfill a rape fantasy. The woman in truth had no such fantasy, her husband was just a bastard. While on the facts of the case the court held that the man did have knowledge or was at least reckless to the fact that she was in fact not consenting, it held that it the man would not have been guilty had he been unaware that she was not consenting or reckless to the fact.
This applies to all consent based crimes such as assault.
There are many hypothetical instances one could postulate could give rise to the argument that it is possible the defendant did not know that consent was not present, a lot of them may concern alcohol and whether the consent given was valid consent.

or for example lets say a woman goes home from a nightclub with a man who she may or may not intend to have sex with. On arriving at his house they go to his room and he locks his door and makes a move. The woman now begins to feel intimidated by the combination of the mans physical presence, the locking of his bedroom door and his now forward advances. Under this she goes along with it but only because she is too frightened to speak out as she fears the consequences. Now it is quite clear that in such circumstances the woman has not consented but it may be a case that the man does not know this or that he has been reckless. He may have locked his door for a number of reasons (e.g. to stave off intrusive housemates etc.) and it is possible that he has not been reckless as to a lack of consent. He has come home with a woman, gone to his bedroom and when he made his move the woman went along with it and gave no indication as to her lack of consent.

Now clearly this is a hypothetical and it is an unlikely combination of circumstances but the law has to be applicable across all the possible spectrums. The situation outlined imay be a bit of a stretch, it is quite often more concerned with the relationship between alcohol intake and consent.

'There is a lot of man hating going on which on any other site would not be tolerated. But on MN with so much estrogen, its hardly a surprise.'

Have you been to your local bookshop lately? Or a library? Have you perused the shelves where books on domestic violence are displayed?

Nice dig there with the reference to estrogen. Clearly testosterone has nothing to do with anything. Neurotic much?

MQ your definition is not the same one as given in the sexual offenses act 2003

that says

"A person (A) commits an offence if?

(a)he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,

(b)B does not consent to the penetration, and

(c)A does not reasonably believe that B consents.

(2)Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents.

(3)Sections 75 and 76 apply to an offence under this section.

(4)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.

another example may be in it's application with assault. Lets say two people are sparring in a boxing gym. Due to a mistake in communication one party believes the session to be full contact when the other thinks that it is a non-contact round to work on footwork and speed. So when they step out the party who believes it to be full contact throws a punch and knocks him out. Clearly the other person had not consented to the attack but equally the party who hit him was unaware of the lack of consent.

Sorry I know this is an irrelevant example wrt rape cases, I just wanted to show an example of how it operates for all consent based offences.

"A does not reasonably believe that B consents."

would that not just be the statutory implementation of the Morgan principle. as I put it earlier "that the man penetrating the woman is aware or reckless to the fact that she is not consenting." i.e. he has no reasonable belief as to her consent, which was the common law principle it is derived from.
Sorry I'm only really familiar with Irish Law so I may be missing some nuance here.

hmm deeming women to be a "neurotic mess" is a way of denying us our reality...

Many issues identified on MN would be far less of a problem (IMO) if women were in tru equality in society and in positions of power.

I think the two do read slightly differently.

I am also feeling a sense of dejavu! I am sure this conversation has happened before.

Truckulent - its because this a support group for those who need support. Could be related to their partner, their pregnancy, breastfeeding, their DC's behaviour.

People generally need support when something isn't going so well - maybe a pregnancy test they are worried about, breastfeeding is uncomfortable, children waking up in the night etc etc.

Look at the feeding board - hardly anyone posting there saying oh how wonderful it is. Or on parenting board saying oh how great the DC are. Same with partners.

I have however come to realise how wonderful my DH is - he is totally reasonable and supportive - which is more than can be said for the partners of others who have to post as they need support.

Whether unaware or reckless to the fact, legally rape must involve a penis, which means that rapists are of necessity male. The law recognises that victims can be either female or male.

From CPS wrt rape -- pdf, sorry.
'2.3 Offences committed on or after 1 May 2004 are prosecuted under the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The 2003 Act extends the definition of rape to include the penetration by a penis of the vagina, anus or mouth of another person. The 2003 Act also changes the law about consent and belief in consent.' (Penetration of the mouth was not formerly included in the definition of rape. This is the change alluded to).

'2.4 The word "consent" in the context of the offence of rape is now defined in the Sexual Offences Act 2003. A person consents if he or she agrees by choice, and has the freedom and capacity to make that choice. The essence of this definition is the agreement by choice.'

'2.6 The Sexual Offences Act 2003 requires the defendant to show that his belief in consent was easonable. In deciding whether the belief of the defendant was reasonable, a jury must have regard to all the circumstances, including any steps he has taken to ascertain whether the victim consented. In certain circumstances, there is a presumption that the victim did not consent to sexual activity and the defendant did not reasonably believe that the victim consented, unless he can show otherwise. Examples of circumstances where the presumption applies are where the victim was unconscious, drugged, abducted or subject to threats or fear of serious harm.'

(And obviously, Niceguy, there are laws about rape because it is not an imaginary crime based on neurotic, estrogen-fueled perceptions).

mayorquimby I've heard it all now.

You find the need to post on here (a UK based formum - maily posted on by women) to "tell" us all about the defnition of rape:

On a pedantic note "The legal definition of rape". And now it transpires that you know about Irish law.

It is a weird one this man/woman hating.

As dittany says, women hating is normalised and institutionalised by society. Many women hating actions are tolerated indeed considered acceptable and as things should be.

It seems a bit rich that when women get angry about this institutionalised women hating, and express that anger, they are the ones being out of order!

Sure men are welcome on Mumsnet - "By parents for parents" is the by line - the main name is MUMSnet. It's a matriachcy (in contract to the real world around us) with all it's flaws & beauty.

You've been on here for years Truck so presumably, you like other members of MN get alot out of it??? Not every area of MN suits all members - but it's a broad and varied place so I image you'll stick around whilst it still offers you more good than bad.

Some women have good reason to be contemptious/fear/loathe MEN, some just one particular MAN - and this is a safe place to vent those feelings with other people who can listen and understand. It shouldn't change.

Niceguy2, I think your own posts answer your own question perfectly.

"Or is anyone here going to suggest that every poster on MN is balanced and logical to a tee?"

Quite possibly.
I can see how they do look different and do read slightly differently.
I'm trying to work it out in my head. The difference I can see is that it has possibly made a slight shift in onus onto the defendant.
Having taken a quick peek at my notes it seems that it has always been a case of reasonable belief, however it has been worded differently in Ireland.
The H.O.L. in that case held that an "honest belief in consent is sufficient to negative the mens rea of rape." and that it would be judged on the facts and circumstances of a case, it was not necessary that the belief was reasonable just that it was honestly held. however the more unreasonable a belief the less likely it was to be honestly held.
So it may be that the new act has removed the scope for an honestly held unreasonable belief.

In ireland it remains thus:
a [male person] commits rpae if
(a) he has sexual intercourse with a femal who at the time ... does not consent
(b) at that time, he knows that she does not consent or he is reckless as to whether she does or does not consent.

findingmymen- to be contemptious and to loathe all men is ludicrous. There are 3 billion men on the planet

'The Sexual Offences Act 2003 requires the defendant to show that his belief in consent was reasonable.'

I think this negates the Morgan principal as it places the onus on the defendant to prove his belief in consent was reasonable, as opposed to being allowed to assume consent with the victim having to prove lack of consent. However, in practice, the victim still has to prove she or he didn't consent. A case of a common mindset and attitude falling behind the law -- which suggests that various laws on equality, etc., are not worth the paper they are written on, Niceguy.

"mayorquimby I've heard it all now.

You find the need to post on here (a UK based formum - maily posted on by women) to "tell" us all about the defnition of rape:

On a pedantic note "The legal definition of rape". And now it transpires that you know about Irish law."

Someone posted a definition of rape. I pointed out that she was missing one point. It transpires that since I studied English Criminal law a new Act has come into being which has placed the common law which I relayed on a stautory footing. It is possible that it has altered the implementation of the priciple which I flagged but it is not certain.
Irish law and UK law are almost always linked both by out historical relationships and through the community of common law as our laws tend to follow yours.
I'm not sure why you are confused by Irish law to the extent that it needs Italics or emoticons.

I think a lot of confusion comes from how different people use the terms 'men' and 'women'.

Say what findingmymojo says - I took it to mean some women fear/loathe MEN as a group as defined by patriarchal society.

Which makes me think of this;

"Have you ever wondered why we are not just in armed combat against you? It's not because there's a shortage of kitchen knives in this country. It is because we believe in your humanity, against all the evidence.

We do not want to do the work of helping you to believe in your humanity. We cannot do it anymore. We have always tried. We have been repaid with systematic exploitation and systematic abuse. You are going to have to do this yourselves from now on and you know it."

www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/dworkin/WarZoneChaptIIIE.html

A few more thoughts from a male MNer perspective:

The few other (sports) forums that I tend to frequent are mostly male-orientated so it's interesting to get a different perspective on life that you get here.

At times there seems to be a bit of double standards from some posters in relation to minor relationship issues but when you have (a) a large number of posters and (b) most posters are coming from one prespective then I suppose that's not that unexpected.

From my admittedly not that extensive reading of some of the relationship threads it seems to me that some posters seem to cry "emotional abuse" or "leave him" when my first instinct would be that it's not
THAT bad. But on the other hand that same section has opened my eyes to some of the shit that some women endure.

And the feminist section is an eye-opener. Mght not agree with everything in it but again it has educated me in certain areas and made me challenge or re-think some of my previously strongly held views, e.g. anonymity of (alleged) rape victims.