to think the term "menz" is bloody irritating?!

[Squtternutbaush]

Since we've had the recent influx of (anti)feminist threads appearing I've noticed that anytime an issue arises that might put males at a disadvantage they are dismissed with this bloody belittling term and its really starting to grate on me now.

I understand that in most peoples eyes feminism is about equality but it seems that some are intent on turning it into a war between women and men and being just as disrespectful to males as they complain that males are to females.

I'm not denying in anyway that feminism is a great thing or that women haven't been at a disadvantage forever but I don't see how this attitude helps the cause.

I have a son and a daughter and I want them both to have a respect for people regardless of gender!

Oh I see Penguins. I haven't really noticed other specific terminology.

Not that 'menz' is specific to FWR, because it's used a lot in the Relationships topic too. Mostly as an insult to female posters who are seen to be taking the man's 'side' so to speak.

Again, I understand that male to female violence is a much wider problem and part of this is due to attitudes that are instilled in men despite our best efforts although obviously not all men act on that physically and I get that this attitude needs to be challenged and gotten rid of but I still don't see why its an issue to mention the fact that there are support networks out there for the fewer female to male victims.

I guess I just can't grasp the concept that one persons suffering is lessened because more people of a different gender happen to be suffering, maybe its too close to home with the incidents I seen with my cousin.

The clue is in the word "domestic" though, muddy - men may suffer more violence, but not more donestic violence. And DV has its own shape and set of problems that are very different to male-on-male violence. Should women discussing DV be made to feel that they must our of some kind of courtesy dutifully make discursive detours into comparisons with pub brawls or male gay-bashing because the victims of those are overwhelmingly men? How does that help women and children living in violent relationships? Are you suggesting the ways we address those kinds of violence should be the same?

It's not just a question of scale though is it. Where women harm men we need to be able to talk about how the motivation and type of violence is different, so that it can be tackled in a way that is particular to the problem and to help men in a way that is particular to the violence they have experienced.

So if men do not report their attackers because they feel emasculated that is a particular issue that wouldn't be helped by a concurrent discussion about violence against women.

I guess I just can't grasp the concept that one persons suffering is lessened because more people of a different gender happen to be suffering

I don't think anyone is dismissing anyone's suffering just because they focus on something as a women's issue. I hope littlemisslazybones doesn't mind me quoting her but I think she summed up the issue about individual cases really well.

*Well on the topic of domestic violence, which seems to keep coming up as a point of equivalence, the issues around an individual man who beats a woman or an individual woman who beats a man is very different to the issues that surround why men as a class perpetrate so much violence against women as a class.

If women and men cannot have a space to speak about the latter, on its own terms, without having to negotiate around people jumping up and down about someone's bil who was battered by their wife and accusing people of hating men, then little can be achieved.*

No, I don't mind at all basgetti.

That's disingenuous muddy - you say:

On threads where there are suggestions that women disproportionately experience violence in society, there has to be something to compare it to.

But those threads you refer to are about domestic violence, not general "violence in society". You are trying to change terms of the discussion mid-thread to remove the focus on specific violence against women - much like the derailing action posters are explicitly writing about. This is exactly the kind of thing that makes people say "what about teh menz", no? Because it's such a predictable manoeuvre.

"I guess I just can't grasp the concept that one persons suffering is lessened because more people of a different gender happen to be suffering, maybe its too close to home with the incidents I seen with my cousin."

Squtter, if that was what you felt people were saying then I am truly sorry, as I don't believe any feminist I know believes or would believe that. No one I have seen is suggesting that if a man is murdered by his wife it is 'less bad' than the reverse. All people are saying is that, in some discussions, where an issue disproportionately affects women, they want to focus their energy at this time on its affect on women.

A bit like if I said reading achievement was poor amongst the socially disadvantaged and wanted to talk about programmes to assist that. If someone comes on and says "but my child has poor reading achievement and we're very middle class" then that is true, and that child deserves support, but it doesn't make wanting to talk about socially disadvantaged children at this time invalid or inappropriate. Now, of course, pointing this out should be done kindly and respectfully, but so often that kidn of 'what about' is done in feminist discussions intentionally to derail them, so sometimes people are maybe blunter and snippier than they should be.

I wouldn't go mention it on a thread specifically about domestic violence against women or if it were a specific poster asking for help that would be pointless and yes it would derail the conversation.

The thread in question was about support networks offered to victims of domestic violence in the aftermath of a TV show depicting the murder of a young lady at the hands of her partner, the show was to promote the effects of domestic violence and how you can get away. Other than the genders portrayed it had nothing to do with gender.

I didn't see the thread so I really don't know. But I thought we were talking about the wider term rather than one poster's use of it on one thread. I can see whoever that was really annoyed you, but obviously those who post on fwr aren't the Borg and don't necessarily agree on everything.

'Murdered by my boyfriend' had everything to do with gender. It is overwhelmingly women who are killed as a result of DV. It was also a true story and the programme was made to highlight the fact that 1 in 4 women will experience DV, and that the most 'at risk' group are 16 to 24 year old young women.

That was just one example that I seem to keep spouting to be fair, I've came across it a few times and really don't like it.

As said I would love to join in on FWR but it all gets so heavy with stuff that its hard to understand as a newcomer and then you inevitably say something that means you are anti-feminist and then you worry about going back on for it to happen again.

i don't see a problem with people wanting to just talk about women,
and not wanting a thread derailed.
but why not just say that??
why make a snidey post about men?
seems rather odd and unequal

"The thread in question was about support networks offered to victims of domestic violence in the aftermath of a TV show depicting the murder of a young lady at the hands of her partner, the show was to promote the effects of domestic violence and how you can get away. Other than the genders portrayed it had nothing to do with gender."

Hang on! What do you mean it had nothing to do with gender? How many men are murdered by their girlfriends in this country every week???????

A bit like if I said reading achievement was poor amongst the socially disadvantaged and wanted to talk about programmes to assist that. If someone comes on and says "but my child has poor reading achievement and we're very middle class" then that is true, and that child deserves support, but it doesn't make wanting to talk about socially disadvantaged children at this time invalid or inappropriate. Now, of course, pointing this out should be done kindly and respectfully, but so often that kidn of 'what about' is done in feminist discussions intentionally to derail them, so sometimes people are maybe blunter and snippier than they should be.

And there you have it, people may have a valid point to make but using 'shorthand' to make that point purely seems to be creating a sense of division amongst people, even if they agree on the issues, is this the aim? Those using it seem to feel that they should be able to control the discussion and limit it to a perspective they want to discuss by being derisive about other people's perspectives, those objecting to it seem feel that a more respectful approach would be helpful.

the menz is used in sarcasm towards those that post but what about the men they suffer too. No one is suggesting they do not

It seems a real problem for many to stay with an issue when we are discussing the impact on women

It is not dismissing that men suffer too it is simply not allowing the often very serious subject being diverted which sadly so often happens

Squtternut I do understand that feminist boards and sites can be intimidating but I think it's okay to take that into account when deciding to read or post - I think that is each person's choice to make.

Other posters have made the point better than me above but I guess part of what I'm trying to say is that it's frustrating that discussions are derailed because women are supposed to take care or everyone's feelings and make sure everyone is okay.

I also feel that men as a class/group don't need women to defend them.

Well, hello, here is a classic derail, just nicely demonstrated.

*I.e. When people start saying that women, in general, in society experience more violence that men from men.

At that point it's relevant to point out the statistical truth.*

EXCEPT precisely no threads on MN claim what you've just said. This thread, and other threads referred to here, are specifically about DOMESTIC violence.

Keeping harping on about this is exactly why people get fed up and use the term menz.

Is it acceptable to use the derogatory term "wimmin"?

Well, yes. Yes, more men are victims of violence, more men are murdered. Who is perpetrating this violence? Um, not women. So 'men as victims of violence' has no relevance on this thread and is indeed classic but waht about teh menz.

But why the sarcasm Freudians?

'Poor menz' comes across as not giving a shit about male suffering

Whereas "Right now, we're discussing the impact on women rather than men", does not.

Argh, yes to penguin, not yes to 'wimmin' though personally I'm not offended.