Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To think it's a bit weird when men get over protective about their DDs having boyfriends?

331 replies

PinkyOfPie · 08/05/2016 15:11

BIL has a thing about his DD getting a boyfriend (she's only 5!) and keeps saying things like he'll wait at home with a baseball bat when she goes on her first date and tells her she can't have a boyfriend until she's 21. Apparently he "knows what lads that age are like and how they treat girls" Hmm He doesn't do it in a jokey way either has no sense of humour.

This isn't the first time I've encountered this over protective attitude, and it's often portrayed on TV/films too. AIBU to think it's ridiculous and unhealthy? My dad was always fine with me having BFs as a teen, as long as they were treating me right.i think it's rather unfair to assume all boys are shitheads to girls.

OP posts:
AskBasil · 08/05/2016 23:07

They're deliberately getting angry about nothing so that they don't have to engage with what we're actually saying.

Hmm
Fourormore · 08/05/2016 23:08

I haven't been involved in the discussion on convictions at all.

Fourormore · 08/05/2016 23:09

Ask - I felt the same about your posts.

Original poster
PinkyOfPie · 08/05/2016 23:09

Except for every time when "Men get raped too" is met with "poor menz

Please link to where this has been said.

OP posts:
Original poster
PinkyOfPie · 08/05/2016 23:11

They're deliberately getting angry about nothing so that they don't have to engage with what we're actually saying.

Yep. I really shouldn't get annoyed about an apologist and a mansplainer forming an allegiance on a thread that is discussing rape.

OP posts:
chilledwarmth · 08/05/2016 23:13

Pinky you're right it doesn't mean that they didn't happen. It also doesn't mean that they did happen. It would be very wrong to assume that all allegations which didn't result in convictions are actually true, just as at would be wrong to assume they are all false. Some might be true and some might be false. There is simply not enough evidence to use those numbers as an argument for anything.

AskBasil no, I would likely believe my friend because he's my friend and I know him. Someone who is friends with an alleged rape victim will likely believe them for the same reason. She's my friend, I know her, she wouldn't lie about this. I understand that, that's why I'd believe my friend if he tells me he was robbed even if there's no proof. But convictions don't and should not happen just because we're friends with the victim and believe their word over the accused, that wouldn't be fair to all parties and it certainly couldn't be described as justice.

AskBasil · 08/05/2016 23:15

You said Chilled had summed up what you believed, Four.

She was going on about not believing rape victims unless they'd been through the courts and had evidence tested.

Hmm
swiggityswoogity · 08/05/2016 23:15

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

AskBasil · 08/05/2016 23:17

"But convictions don't and should not happen just because we're friends with the victim and believe their word over the accused, that wouldn't be fair to all parties and it certainly couldn't be described as justice."

No-one's asked you to convict anybody.

The statistical evidence, is that 85-90% of rapes do not get reported and 2-4% of rape allegations are false.

That's not asking you to convict anyone.

Fourormore · 08/05/2016 23:17

I was referring to her post at 22.58.

AskBasil · 08/05/2016 23:20

Oh I missed that, sorry, my question's irrelevant then.

Original poster
PinkyOfPie · 08/05/2016 23:23

Pinky you're right it doesn't mean that they didn't happen. It also doesn't mean that they did happen. It would be very wrong to assume that all allegations which didn't result in convictions are actually true, just as at would be wrong to assume they are all false. Some might be true and some might be false. There is simply not enough evidence to use those numbers as an argument for anything.

You're so wrong. Those numbers mean rape crisis centres are set up and well used, police officers in positions that deal solely with rape cases and victims , helplines, support centres, all over run with people coming forward. To say something effectively didn't happen because it didn't end in a conviction is foolish and backwards. Can you really not see how the "allegations might not have happened just because someone said they did" is damaging to people who have been raped? Would you have this attitude of a man said he was raped? And I'll ask again - is it only rape stats you are suspicious of, or would you believe that so many common assaults didn't happen to because of lack of convictions?

And did you know only 2 people per month are charged with either wasting police time or perverting the course of justice allegations because they lied about being raped? Based on that I'm gonna go with most women are telling the truth when it comes to saying they were raped, and be glad you have male privelege and don't ever have to know why it's so important that the default response to a woman saying she has been raped is "I believe you"

OP posts:
Original poster
PinkyOfPie · 08/05/2016 23:26

swiggity

Hmm

Wouldn't want to spoil your fun with our anti-mysoginy views now would we? Fucking boring wimmin!

OP posts:
KindDogsTail · 08/05/2016 23:29

Given what happens to girls at very young ages it isn't surprising he's worried.

KindDogsTail · 08/05/2016 23:32

Pinky you're right it doesn't mean that they didn't happen. It also doesn't mean that they did happen. It would be very wrong to assume that all allegations which didn't result in convictions are actually true, just as at would be wrong to assume they are all false. Some might be true and some might be false. There is simply not enough evidence to use those numbers as an argument for anything

I've already had this sort of argument with Chilled.

Original poster
PinkyOfPie · 08/05/2016 23:33

Mind - it's fine to be worried, I'm worried that my DD may be the 1in5 women who gets sexually assualted when she's older. But to respond in a "I will smash his face in just for going out with her" kind of way is not a healthy response.

Chilled I also want to ask if you would say "it doesn't mean it happened" if a child came forward to say they have been sexually abused, but didn't want to name their abuser? Or is it just women who are fair game?

OP posts:
Original poster
PinkyOfPie · 08/05/2016 23:33

*kind not mind - sorry!

OP posts:
Original poster
PinkyOfPie · 08/05/2016 23:35

And four in still waiting on the link to a thread in which someone responded to the story about a male rape victim with "poor menz"

OP posts:
chilledwarmth · 08/05/2016 23:35

It's not a matter of whether I believe them or not. I already said if it was my friend, I'd believe them over some random stranger who denied robbing them, or raping them. As would most people. But that isn't strong enough evidence for us to base arguments on, or to state with authority that this counts towards the statistics of that offence.

I don't agree with saying "I believe you" whenever someone makes an allegation. It does not make sense and I don't consider it a healthy attitude, because it's basically saying that you automatically believe any allegation anyone makes. So if you are in favour of the "I believe you" approach, then you also believe the rapist when he says he didn't rape her. He alleges it was true, and you believe all allegations. You now have a situation where you simultaneously believe an alleged rapist and an alleged victim about the same incident, which isn't going to work. So such an approach, the idea of believing all allegations by default aka "I believe you" is not sensible imho. A far better approach is not to "believe" either allegation. I don't automatically believe a woman when she says she was raped, but nor do I automatically believe a man when he says it was consensual. I make no judgement of either account of the story until I know more facts, or unless I know one of them in which case I'd likely believe the person that I knew was telling the truth over a stranger, which is what most people would do.

KindDogsTail · 08/05/2016 23:37

Pinky there was alot of this sort of argument with Chilled here
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/in_the_news/2612813-Students-cleared-of-gang-rape-because-the-woman-had-previously-enjoyed-a-threesome-wtaf

chilledwarmth · 08/05/2016 23:39

Pinky this is my approach to all criminal allegations, so I don't know why you're trying to claim that I'm singling only women out as being what you have described as "fair game". Yes of course I would have the same "It might have happened or it might not have happened" feeling if a child made an allegation of sexual assault. Again, just because an allegation is made doesn't automatically mean it is true. It doesn't mean it is untrue either. That's what police investigations and courts are for, they help us work out whether the accuser or the accused is the liar.

Original poster
PinkyOfPie · 08/05/2016 23:41

not a matter of whether I believe them or not. I already said if it was my friend, I'd believe them over some random stranger who denied robbing them, or raping them. As would most people. But that isn't strong enough evidence for us to base arguments on, or to state with authority that this counts towards the statistics of that offence.

Way to avoid a question! And you're wrong - the evidence I linked you to is strong enough to suggest around 85,000 rapes have taken place, the fact that most haven't ended in a conviction will not change that. Or are you suggesting your logic is greater than that of Rape Crisis? If so I think you should inform them that they're wrong.

So if you are in favour of the "I believe you" approach, then you also believe the rapist when he says he didn't rape her.

My stance is not "believe anything anyone says" - it is "believe someone when they say they were raped". Of course an alleged rapist isn't going to admit to it. He has a reason to lie, a rape victim very seldom does.

You clearly do not wish to understand why it so important to take rape allegations seriously, and have an "I believe you" default stance, and I thank Christ your attitude is no longer the norm (atleast with authorities). It's the same kind of attitude that allowed Jimmy Saville to die knowing he'd got away with sexually assualting hundreds of men women and children for decades.

OP posts:
Original poster
PinkyOfPie · 08/05/2016 23:44

Also an investigation/court case that ends in either no charge or a not guilty verdict does not make the accuser the liar - convictions have to go beyond all reasonable doubt, and judges and juries may be convinced the alleged has committed the rape but cannot legally convict due to lack of evidence. This does not mean the accused is innocent and the victim is a liar.

Kind - thank you for that!

OP posts:
Fourormore · 08/05/2016 23:44

Pinky - as a feminist, you will know that it is not necessary for a direct comment to be made.

All of the "she deserved it, her skirt was too short, she was drinking, she went to his hotel room, they were married" type comments will make a future female victim of rape less likely to speak up. The comments weren't aimed at her but she absorbed them.

Responding to "men get raped too" with "poor menz" works in exactly the same way. It implies "We don't care about the men, we don't care about their experiences, if they get raped it doesn't matter". That's not going to make a future victim of rape feel supported in speaking up.

I absolutely understand the anger if "men get raped too" is used to derail threads rather but I still think "poor menz" is the wrong way to go about it. It doesn't deter the MRAs (the real ones, not just the ones genuinely interested in men's issues as well as women's issues) at all and it does harm past and future victims.

Original poster
PinkyOfPie · 08/05/2016 23:48

Pinky - as a feminist, you will know that it is not necessary for a direct comment to be made.

Eh? Was the "poor menz" comment actually made or not to a male rape victim or someone wanting to discuss male rape? As a feminist I do not get angry about comments that could technically be made, but have not actually been made. That's just stupid.

OP posts: