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?

"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."

That was the only possible change I could see in the reading. Any idea of how it's been viewed by the courts since implementation? HAs it affected any real change?

• oops sorry you pretty much answered my question in your post already.

MayorQuimby - no, it's most definitely not! The Morgan principle was widely known as the Rapist's Charter because it was purely subjective (e.g. even if the belief was NOT reasonably held by the defendant it could still be held to prevent proof of the mens rea (intent) for rape and for every criminal offence there is a mens rea (intent) and actus reus (act)) - the law was hastily amended in 1976 and then again in 2003 to ensure a Morgan defence did not exist for very long at all.

The 2003 Act establishes a subjective and objective two limb test. The best way of dealing with this issue is to ask two questions.

    (i) Did the defendant believe the complainant consented? This relates to his or her personal capacity to evaluate consent (the subjective element of the test). 
    (ii) If so, did the defendant reasonably believe it? It will be for the jury to decide if his or her belief was reasonable (the objective element). 

The aim of several pieces of amending legislation has been to abolish the Morgan defence because thankfully it was immediately recognised as placing a higher value on a man's word or thoughts or beliefs than a woman's (or in gender neutral terms the defendant and complainant/witness for the prosecution) - sadly it took two governments a few attempts.

noyoucant. I agree with you that sometimes I also read posts where I don't think things are THAT bad but where others are crying "emotional abuse". But of course some posters seem to think anything which upsets said woman is emotional abuse whereas sometimes I think the worst you can class it as is insensitivity.

No doubt now I/we will be shot down in flames now by some MN'er who will pick an heinous example where there is no defence and imply we're pricks because we dare suggest that SOME cases arent that bad.

See above regarding rape. I've never commented on it, don't even think my comments are even related unless you heavily twist what I say yet mathanxiety seems to think I have.

Nice one HAW. thanks.
We still operate on the basis of the Morgan principle over here.

MQ I am sure I've been on a thread with you before where the rape laws and the changes and the differences with Irish Law were discussed. One of us must have a wonky memory!

Also just to point out how sickening the Morgan case was - it was THREE men who Mr Morgan invited back to gangrape Mr Morgan's wife while she struggled (and he couldn't be prosecuted for rape because until 1991 all husbands had a complete right of access to their wives bodies and could not technically commit rape as per Hale: "But the husband cannot be guilty of a rape committed by himself upon his lawful wife, for by their mutual matrimonial consent and contract the wife hath given up herself in this kind unto her husband which she cannot retract."

Sorry - don't mean to hijack thread but just shocked there are people out there who think there the Morgan defence still exists!

Ah well in that case I guess the Irish rapists are home free really then MQ? Am really surprised Irish law would not have moved on to try and abolish the Morgan defence. Am not a criminal lawyer btw - studied criminal law a good 15 years ago now.

"Sorry - don't mean to hijack thread but just shocked there are people out there who think there the Morgan defence still exists!"

Dont worry HellAtWork - this thread was hijacked long ago.

The problem with your opinions, Niceguy, is that you are presenting them as facts.

'But of course some posters seem to think anything which upsets said woman is emotional abuse whereas sometimes I think the worst you can class it as is insensitivity.'

This is an example of an opinion. You think it's insensitivity. Women who have experienced something along those same lines see it as something else. Your thoughts are not the final word on someone else's experience, neither are mine. Your thoughts are not the gold standard of objectivity merely because you don't have estrogen. Mine are not the gold standard merely because I do. Men are not the norm, women are not the aberration from the norm.

No, Niceguy, read my post again. I responded to your point about laws on equality -- I said that despite the 2003 statute wrt rape (and the burden of proof about consent changing), public opinion was lagging behind the law in response to a point from MQ and went on to suggest a parallel of public opinion and practice lagging behind wrt equality laws. Two points from two posters addressed in the same post.

Blimey. Is Mr Morgan still at large?

How has the thread been hijacked Nicguy? By whom?

YABU. Not read whole thread, but you are posting in 'mumsnet'. I wouldn't expect to start posting on 'blokesnet' or whatever and find all the men on there terribly respectful of women. If you don't like it here, you don't have to read/post, do you?

Seems like common sense.

By the way, I chose to come here precisely because it was going to be largely women - I wanted a space away from men. Plus because it was 'mumsnet' rather than just 'womensnet' - because I wanted somewhere where I would have in common with other posters that we all had (or in some cases were about to have) children.

I don't see what's wrong with that. If you want to hang out with men, fine. Just picking a forum called 'mumsnet' and then complaining it's not full of men seems rather silly, frankly.

Niceguy2
" Name me one situation where women are legally treated differently?"

How about abortion? Name me one medical proceedure where men are deemed incompetent to make decisions for themselves. Women require the assent of one one, but two docotors for a legal medical proceedure.

Math. My point is that the law fully supports equality. The application of the law may not be perfect but then thats kind of beside the point isn't it?

It's a bit like saying Wow, we have a law about theft but people still steal. Therefore inequality exists.

I don't even understand why you are labouring the point. Rape is obviously a heinous crime but its utterly unrelated to this thread.

And HerBeat. I never said this thread had been hijacked, that was HaW (but I do agree we're going off on a tangent.)

Ha ha aha at name me one situation where women are legally treated differently.

Men have set up a society where they own 90% of the world's wealth, but they own it legally. Where women do most of the world's work, but are poorer than men in their old age because the work they do is unvalued and unpaid.

And then they express surprise that women say "but... but..."

Formally we have equality in most areas. But a society which is designed for men to function smoothly and for women to be handicapped right from the start, is not an equal society and anyone who believes it is, just isn't paying attention. Or is speaking from the perspective of male privilege.

By parents for parents Granted, though it does seem some parents are more equal than others.

My opinion is the same as your own TBH - its mumsnet, so non-mums should be aware of the potentially hostile environment they are in.

It doesnt justify some of the man hating that goes on though.

a lot of people come here for advice it is a good place to come when you have no one else to talk to and the majority of people on here are very nice, men are welcome too if they have things they want to share and your seething mass of resentment comment is unreasonable because if these women were treat better by their partners they would not resent them . imo i find a lot of men are threatned by mn because they dont like the fact the dw has such a large support network of parents who will happily point out their other halfs very unreasonable behaviour
i personally think men are just as welcome as women and im not saying their arent abusive women too just men usually dont like to ask for help

Can you give specific examples of man-hating ccpccp? That would be helpful.

You keep on going on about man hating but you don't cite specifics. Everyone knows that feminists are called man-haters by people who are threatened by the idea of equality, just as black people are described as having "chips on their shoulder" by rapists.

If you are not to be confused with a sexist, then you really ought to cite some concrete examples.

Sorry rapists should have read racists.

Ah the differnce one consonant can make.

To reply to the OP - OP until I had a baby I am ashamed to admit I was probably a secret feminist - an adherent to equality but never having felt I had particularly suffered as a woman (being one of the lucky ones) although I would feel extremely angry at injustice against women in the news, I just didn't feel so personally affected to be motivated to be angry. Having now attended a few interviews post baby and been asked how I intend to arrange childcare I wonder how many men 'of child bearing age' (presumably approx 12 - 80 years old for most men?) are asked the same questions?

While I agree there are always women who want to denounce ALL men on the basis of their own bad experiences, women have to live under so many double standards, institutionalised prejudices (cf interview questions above), and literally millenia of patriarchy I view those opinions as the exception rather than the rule - even on MN.

I have had fabulous boyfriends who have been very comfortable in a properly equal relationship but I have also experienced this sense of entitlement that MNetters refer to in other relationships (work etc not necessarily romantic) and now I recognise immediately for what it is. If that helps me not to be abused/raped/taken advantage of/used as domestic appliance with a vagina then I will be forever grateful for having my eyes opened. The majority of my friends are men (for no reason other than individually I have a lot in common with each of them) and however much I love them I am sometimes shocked at having to point out certain ways of thinking as being clearly skewed (or neurotic as perhaps NiceGuy would say if I was keen on being patronisingly dismissive) - to the extent that one of them spoke to me the other day at how sad he was to be having a daughter - not because she would be a girl - but because of how much harder her life would be than he had previously realised. He then went on to rant about Nuts being on display in his local newsagents. He's come a long way (as have I).

OP - your reading of the feminist threads is very heartening to hear and makes me think what an excellent parent your daughter has. I continue to read and learn too

No, it's not beside the point. Your point was that law = equality so life = equality. And that clearly is not the case.

Are you familiar with the concept of analogy? The law on rape used to place responsibility on a victim to prove absence of consent.
Now, the defendant must prove he had the consent of the victim.
Nevertheless, rape cases are routinely dismissed because of assumptions about consent of the victim that are based on the sort of mindset that produced the Morgan reasoning.

Before these enlightened days, there were laws on the statute books that codified the unequal treatment of men and women, or single women and married women.
Now, there are many laws that make us all equal.
However discrimination is still practiced against women, in the workforce for example.