My husband says “notallmen”

[Lastchancesalonco]

NC for this! My teenage daughter and I were discussing the current outcry regarding violence against women and women living in fear, my husband entered the room, and immediately said it “wasn’t all men” and now men were “scared to do anything” wtf??? Scared to what exactly? Terrorise women? it’s very relevant I feel that my husband is a police sergeant! And although we do live in a very very low crime area so he doesn’t personally deal with many murders etc it’s mostly petty crime I KNOW he deals with domestic situations and has previously been very vocal about protecting people in domestic situations etc. This is very out of character for him, when pressed he said he felt people were “taking it too far” calling for a “6pm curfew” for men, when my daughter, who I’m ashamed to say was more vociferous than me because I was stunned, pointed out she effectively had an unofficial curfew for safety reasons, he seemed flustered like he hadnt thought of that, then he said “men are scared of attack too” and I said “who from? Who from? Not Denise on her way home pissed from her hen night is it? No it’s MEN you are scared of OTHER MEN” anyway he reflected a bit and was apologetic but I’m worried, he never used to be like this? Is he hearing some extremist narrative at work that poor white middle class men are under attack because the system that gives them every advantage is trying to be dismantled? He works with women and even a transsexual officer and has never shown any sign of prejudice or anything but acceptance for them and up till now never said anything concerning but he literally said “not all men” did we say it was??? I dunno it’s made me a bit sick, and I can’t help but wonder how a man who was previously totally on my wavelength about these things has changed to “but what about me”
Especially when we have a teenage daughter who will be going off to uni soon and won’t be in her safe little village! AIBU to take this so seriously or was he just being a giant selfish man baby and truly sees the error of his ways?

@TheJerkStore

And we need to need to stop with the 'not all men'. It's distracting everyone from the real issues

Disagreed.

See how my issue is with the handling not tje subject?

Well we'll just have to disagree here.

I know.

But that doesn't mean I don't respect your views Jerk. I've always found your posts to be interesting.

@youvegottenminuteslynn

When we connect every issue back to the fact women die, we are completely erasing everything else.

But many of us have tried to explain that the underlying misogyny in society allows for lower level aggressions to go unchallenged, be excused as 'boys will be boys' etc, which leads to too many men (not all men before I'm accused of saying that - nobody is so there's no need to counter it) feeling enabled and entitled to coerce, to harass, to abuse then too many men feeling enabled and entitled to attack, to rape and to kill.

Two women a week being murdered doesn't happen without the structure underneath holding it up. When we try to challenge that structure, we are told we are overreacting / boys will be boys / they don't mean anything by it.

When we explain the outcome of that structure is two murders a week and all of the other attacks on women both reported and unreported, we are told we are 'erasing everything else'.

I think you're always keen to play devils advocate @RootyT00t which can in some scenarios be constructive, but I can't understand what you're really saying here as you're unwilling to engage in the actual issue of male on female crime.

Yes there is male on male crime.
Yes there is female on male crime.
Neither is under the umbrella of male on female crime, which is enabled and excused by a patriarchal system and systemic misogyny. Surely you can see that?

I've always been a devils advocate yeh because I don't think in black and white.

I agree with all of your post for what it's worth.

Two women a week being murdered doesn't happen without the structure underneath holding it up. When we try to challenge that structure, we are told we are overreacting / boys will be boys / they don't mean anything by it.

Agreed.

'And we need to need to stop with the 'not all men'. It's distracting everyone from the real issues.'

There is an interesting 'not all Muslim' thread running parallel to this. There, they are disgusted and surprised that a group/class could be grouped together and judged by the actions of a few.

Murder itself is a vanishingly rare crime (thankfully) in this country, and women are only about 1/3 of its victims. More people died in 6 hours of COVID on the worst day than women are murdered in a year.

Context does matter here. Yes, anyone being murdered should not happen but, equally, the idea of no bad people existing is totally unrealistic. There will always be bad people, no matter what society's attitude.

I will always take people as I find them and not judge human beings as a reductionist 'class'.

Sadly true, and outside of MN represents many people -
he key is to work together rather than point fingers which causes people to roll their eyes and ignore.

Before anyone jumps on me it's obviously awful that people ignore murdered women, but it goes back to my point about the way the issue is approached.

Rootytoot= goal post shifter and pretty good at it.

It doesn't matter what you say they come up with a close but not quite retort to what you didn't say. Ignore anything short of a woman's death but account for every time a man has had a cause to cry. In a conversation about male violence on women they move it indoors then outdoors then indoors again as it statistically suits their point. Goes to great lengths not to compare like to like. Ignores replies that are too hard to work with. Very disingenuous poster

We cant put the blame on porn or inappropriate dressed woman. The worst countries for woman being sexually abused have the woman covered from head to toe.

@OneTC

Rootytoot= goal post shifter and pretty good at it.

It doesn't matter what you say they come up with a close but not quite retort to what you didn't say. Ignore anything short of a woman's death but account for every time a man has had a cause to cry. In a conversation about male violence on women they move it indoors then outdoors then indoors again as it statistically suits their point. Goes to great lengths not to compare like to like. Ignores replies that are too hard to work with. Very disingenuous poster

Oh hello there.

I assume you've name changed, unless my three strong little gang of regular posters who pop onto threads to paint me out to be a weirdo villain who enjoys derailing and playing games and causing mayhem has arrived - identifiable by their ' I notice you do this on many threads, rooty' despite the fact I only have this much of an opinion on the NAMALT issue. Welcome to the gang, anyway. You missed an opportunity to reference the time o was bullied off a thread which was deleted die to their behaviour as they like to mention it and accuse me of playing the victim.

Firstly, there have been numerous examples of people on this thread replying with things o didn't say and then saying oh I know no you didn't. Secondly, I don't ignore women violence nor do I ignore sexual harassment as previously evidenced on this thread. I don't ignore any replies , but I do try and cut down given that your wee gang like to accuse me of railing threads. Finally, I'm not disingenous. I'm as genuine as they come Hun, you just don't like my opinions, and that's absolutely fine with me :)

Thanks for the contributions thougn. Do you have anything to say about the issue at hand or can we return to the topic?

Thanks for saying I'm good at my non existent tactic by the way. Rooty likes a compliment.

@RootyT00t Oh but it is lack of empathy. If they (or you) actually paid attention and empathised with what women were saying, they would understand that people not listening to how bad this situation is, and focusing on the men rather than the women, is a huge part of what has been causing this for so long, and they would be doing anything to avoid that. They would care about the conversation not being diluted just so they don't have to feel a bit bad. If they had listened, they would know they are doing exactly what women are saying is the problem. So no, they cannot claim to have listened and empathised.

It is not balance to have equal coverage of how women and men are affected by this, because they are not proportionally affected. That's why men are being asked not to CONSTANTLY reply to this discussion with NAMALT. Because that should not be the centre of the discussion and it does not affect them negatively to anywhere near the degree women are affected by this culture. It can wait, frankly.

Young men are not being "demonized" fgs. They are being avoided at most and asked to condemn the misogynistic treatment of women as much as we do and care about awareness being raised. They are choosing to divert the conversation because they think their feelings are more important, or are too stupid to realise that huge amount of public discussion on that subject is a massive distraction that could actually dramatically reduce the space the actual matter at hand is able to occupy. It is effectively the biggest example of manspreading I have ever seen.

[quote RootyT00t]@PinkPanther27, I appreciate I'm banging this drum, but are we all ignoring the long post by a man which detailed horrendous behaviour women and the unchallenged post of "but did they rape you?" It works both ways.[/quote]
Absolutely not, as I said in my earlier post, it's devastating to hear about anyone being abused regardless of their gender and I don't think we can say one type of abuse is worse than another as it is more about the impact on each individual which again is devastating. I don't minimise that at all, I just want people to acknowledge it is predominantly a gendered crime which Everyone needs to work together to eradicate.

[quote aSofaNearYou]@RootyT00t Oh but it is lack of empathy. If they (or you) actually paid attention and empathised with what women were saying, they would understand that people not listening to how bad this situation is, and focusing on the men rather than the women, is a huge part of what has been causing this for so long, and they would be doing anything to avoid that. They would care about the conversation not being diluted just so they don't have to feel a bit bad. If they had listened, they would know they are doing exactly what women are saying is the problem. So no, they cannot claim to have listened and empathised.

It is not balance to have equal coverage of how women and men are affected by this, because they are not proportionally affected. That's why men are being asked not to CONSTANTLY reply to this discussion with NAMALT. Because that should not be the centre of the discussion and it does not affect them negatively to anywhere near the degree women are affected by this culture. It can wait, frankly.

Young men are not being "demonized" fgs. They are being avoided at most and asked to condemn the misogynistic treatment of women as much as we do and care about awareness being raised. They are choosing to divert the conversation because they think their feelings are more important, or are too stupid to realise that huge amount of public discussion on that subject is a massive distraction that could actually dramatically reduce the space the actual matter at hand is able to occupy. It is effectively the biggest example of manspreading I have ever seen.[/quote]
They are choosing to divert the conversation because they think their feelings are more important, or are too stupid to realise that huge amount of public discussion on that subject is a massive distraction that could actually dramatically reduce the space the actual matter at hand is able to occupy

It's this attitude which as evidenced upthread causes people to tune out.

You cannot stamp your feet and expect to be heard. (Althoigh no one is arguing the issue needs to be).

@Robbo94

We know it's not all men BUT all men need to acknowledge the issue and do something about it. Until this happens nothing will change.

Some posters on here seem very keen to suggest that innocent men should 'step in' and protect women from violent men, but why should we endanger ourselves when women don't want to do it themselves and we're 4x more likely to be attacked by a stranger and 3x more likely to be killed by another man?

There's a current thread on here about a poster who heard a girl screaming for help outside (was being chased by a man) and loads of posters said they wouldn't intervene out of fears for their own safety, so why should an innocent man who hasn't done anything wrong be obliged to?

Being physically bigger doesn't protect you from being stabbed. In fact, a thug is more likely to feel threatened by a man and use a more extreme response whilst he might feel he can handle a woman without using a weapon (and he probably knows he is less likely to be physically attacked by a woman). Also, we are conditioned that 'you don't hit girls'.

'Not all men' is usually a reaction to people making it about all men rather than just the violent ones. Also, we always seem to have our own fears dismissed. A gay/black man scared of homophobic/racist assault (and 4x more likely to be attacked than a woman) is shut down with "oh, well it's always men who attack" which is basically victim blaming him for sharing his sex with his attacker. Imagine if white people told a black woman "oh, well your attacker was black. Black-on-black violence isn't our problem."

The key is to work together rather than point fingers which causes people to roll their eyes and ignore.

I wouldn't expect you to put yourself at harm to rescue me but I'd like to think that you'd call the police if you saw me being assaulted and do whatever you felt safe doing to help me. I'd also like to think that you'd call out your mates when they make sexist remarks or are pestering a woman and don't take no for an answer - these are the kind of things that I would do for you and anyone else.

Seriously though, are these issues connected? The people doing fhe murdering will give no heed to any of these discussions.

By issues I meant the sexist lad culture (which I agree needs called out) and the two women a week.

You missed an opportunity to reference the time o was bullied off a thread which was deleted die to their behaviour as they like to mention it and accuse me of playing the victim.
This feels like a 'recollections may differ' moment for those of us who were on the thread (which i believe was the thread started by you to continue the debate where apparently mean toxic feminists were nasty, so nasty in fact that you felt harassed, but then started another thread and openly said you were going to continue defending men), but there we go. It was also a thread where some other posters suggested that you stopped dishing it out and step away if you weren't happy, but you said you weren't going anywhere, and then other posters also reported the thread as they felt it was unhelpful for you and IIRC you said you weren't reporting the thread because you weren't going anywhere and were just fine.

It is also interstsing how you selectively avoid the fact that despite regularly claiming NAMALT, when I mentioned my husband supporting women discussing male pattern violence that you accused him of being a 'virtue signaller' and insisted I had to justify why he wasn't.

I also like how you have very, very selectively ignored all your dishing out and yet if any posters point out things you've said you tell people not to because that's harassing you and apparently taking things out of context.

I look forward to your inevitable reply where you ask (tell) me not to point these things out as doing so is apparently mean/nasty/sly /insert any other word to try and prevent people talking about the thread in a way that doesn't suit your agenda.

@LolaSmiles

You missed an opportunity to reference the time o was bullied off a thread which was deleted die to their behaviour as they like to mention it and accuse me of playing the victim. This feels like a 'recollections may differ' moment for those of us who were on the thread (which i believe was the thread started by you to continue the debate where apparently mean toxic feminists were nasty, so nasty in fact that you felt harassed, but then started another thread and openly said you were going to continue defending men), but there we go. It was also a thread where some other posters suggested that you stopped dishing it out and step away if you weren't happy, but you said you weren't going anywhere, and then other posters also reported the thread as they felt it was unhelpful for you and IIRC you said you weren't reporting the thread because you weren't going anywhere and were just fine.

It is also interstsing how you selectively avoid the fact that despite regularly claiming NAMALT, when I mentioned my husband supporting women discussing male pattern violence that you accused him of being a 'virtue signaller' and insisted I had to justify why he wasn't.

I also like how you have very, very selectively ignored all your dishing out and yet if any posters point out things you've said you tell people not to because that's harassing you and apparently taking things out of context.

I look forward to your inevitable reply where you ask (tell) me not to point these things out as doing so is apparently mean/nasty/sly /insert any other word to try and prevent people talking about the thread in a way that doesn't suit your agenda.

Not engaging Lola.

My last post was neither to you nor needs your input.

I was fine to leave it yes but it was deleted by MN due to 'personal comments to the OP'. Funny that.

I knew when I started reading your post you would mention the comment I made , ooh months ago now. That's quite worrying.

You've had quite enough airtime from me. The post was neither to you nor about you, and your input is not needed . Thanks.

You are of course welcome to comment on the thread at hand :)

@Ddot

Men being abused by men terrible, men being abused by women terrible, Woman being too afraid to go out after dark, is a completely different situation. Its gone on too long and needs to change. I WANT MY FREEDOM!

What would it take for you to not be afraid to go out after dark though? There'll always be violent men.

@twelly at least you have admitted now that you don't believe in the only science available when you don't like it. I'm sure if I provided qualitative work you would say it was unrepresentative, and if I provided detailed regression analysis the 'stats would lie'. In the meantime we know people are more likely to underreport violence than overreport it and I have provided you with 4 studies that all show (unsurprisingly given how many women are victimised) that male violence is really common, not just done by a few weirdos. But hey, you don't like it, so surveys lie. You are part of the problem, not part of the solution. Perhaps read some Lewandowsky about how we cling to our mindsets, once formed.

We know it's not all men BUT all men need to acknowledge the issue and do something about it

They can acknowledge it all they want, but they can't stop violent men being violent men, can they?

@RootyT00t

By issues I meant the sexist lad culture (which I agree needs called out) and the two women a week.

I explained the connection as I see it in my post a short while ago and you said you agreed with what I said in that post - I'm not saying that to be goady, just that maybe you have understood the same connection explained in a different way.

You've , I see your point.

I was fine to leave it yes but it was deleted by MN due to 'personal comments to the OP'. Funny that
Some of the thread was personal because you used an example regarding a family member not wanting to help a woman and some posters didn't respond to your anecdote how you wanted, which was probably hard for you.

I knew when I started reading your post you would mention the comment I made , ooh months ago now. That's quite worrying
Months ago? You mean recently following a woman's tragic murder?
There is nothing worrying at all about highlighting a poster with form for posting on this topic, denying what they said, and then selectively presenting situations.

You've had quite enough airtime from me. The post was neither to you nor about you, and your input is not needed . Thanks.
No, you're just posting about all these people who are apparently put to get you, rather than a range of posters who have repeatedly robustly challenged some of your views on this topic
You are of course welcome to comment on the thread at hand smile
Despite your approach to various threads on this issue, people don't require your permission to engage. They do, however, have the right to challenge misleading versions of events.

@LolaSmiles

I was fine to leave it yes but it was deleted by MN due to 'personal comments to the OP'. Funny that Some of the thread was personal because you used an example regarding a family member not wanting to help a woman and some posters didn't respond to your anecdote how you wanted, which was probably hard for you. I knew when I started reading your post you would mention the comment I made , ooh months ago now. That's quite worrying Months ago? You mean recently following a woman's tragic murder? There is nothing worrying at all about highlighting a poster with form for posting on this topic, denying what they said, and then selectively presenting situations.

You've had quite enough airtime from me. The post was neither to you nor about you, and your input is not needed . Thanks.
No, you're just posting about all these people who are apparently put to get you, rather than a range of posters who have repeatedly robustly challenged some of your views on this topic
You are of course welcome to comment on the thread at hand smile
Despite your approach to various threads on this issue, people don't require your permission to engage. They do, however, have the right to challenge misleading versions of events.

Haven't even read this lola. 😴 Stop derailing.