AIBU or is mumsnet slowly being infiltrated by women hating men.

[NotSuchASmugMarried]

Am I imagining things or is it getting worse here. Every single time we post something a poster will immediately pop up and hijack the thread with a pro-men agenda instead of actually contributing to the thread.

Please tell me if you agree. I can't possibly be the only one who thinks this.

I just think it’s so telling that when men are responsible for almost all violent crime, people are FAR less offended by that truth than they are at women pointing out that truth.

But if you take the final 'consumers' out of the equation, enabling women wouldn't have anyone to enable, would they? So they wouldn't no anything. I don't think there's any equivalence, when you look at the evil some men, & virtually no women, do.

The one thing I'd be interested to hear solely from men is how they feel about being of the sex which includes all these murderers, child abusers & rapists. How do they respond? (with whataboutery, 'humour', idolisation of the evil & minimisation of the crimes & the pain they cause, judging by various media). How does it affect your view of yourself? Of other guys? Do you just not think about it at all, because the crime doesn't affect you?

wouldn't DO anything 🙄

Meanwhile VAWG by men (and indeed against other men) is happening right now. Yet it’s some random person’s words on one forum you want to Stand up against? Why?

This is what gets me the most. The energy that gets put into but it's not ALL men, it's not my son etc far exceeds the energy, outrage at the problem of VAWG. Why?!

Misogyny/internalised misogyny?

I hate men, not sorry about it, don’t care

@ifIwerenotanandroid Do you mean if there were no men Maxwell would not have abused young women? That's a leap.

Men commit more violence because they can. I would argue that men and women are complicit in systems of worldwide inequality - our tech, our children's toys, come at the expense of women and children in far away places. Each one of us destroys forests in our lifetimes. We eat food produced from the misery of animals. Some of us enjoy our dinner while a family down the street goes hungry. Girls starve themselves because other women agree to be thin, hate their bodies because other women agree to be part of a media that presents impossible standards and promote their sexuality as the best thing they have going for them. All of this is violence, and if we changed ourselves it would end. This is probably too esoteric for MN, but it's what I think, and the site would be boring if everyone agreed.

So in short - men commit violence because they can. but women just being women in a society that objectifies them (aka a patriarch) are responsible for other women have eating disorders…simply by existing? And this equates to violence - but the ACTUAL violence men inflict at ridiculously high rates is just ‘because they can’.

Sails too close to the wind of ‘men can’t help it’

Also a little tip: using word salad doesn’t make you sound smarter when you park a load of sexist drivel.

Women can be violent too but rarely are. Why is that? When they ‘can’?

I think this thread has proved the OP's point beautifully.

@CakeInAJar Obviously men can, because they are stronger and created the current patriarchy. I believe women would be the same if they had the advantage. I also believe women are complicit in systems that objectify women, for example music or other media. Women are much less violent physically because it wouldn't be allowed and we need to survive being at a disadvantage in other ways. Not sure what you don't understand. Just because you find something hard to grasp, it isn't a word salad.

This is what gets me the most. The energy that gets put into but it's not ALL men, it's not my son etc far exceeds the energy, outrage at the problem of VAWG. Why?!

I wonder the same, but thinking back the the rules of misogyny it becomes clear:

The worst thing about male violence is that it makes men look bad.
Women’s ability to recognise male behavior patterns and talk about those behaviours is misandry/proof women hate men.

It's why threads about VAWG and other issues of male pattern violence get turned into NAMALT, you hate men, not my Nigel, and a lot of whataboutery to suggest that whatever is being discussed about male pattern violence someone woman is worse.

Yep

Cant talk about VAWG without someone moaning about the poor menz

Do women have a single point of view on all of these topics?

In what way are women complicit in objectifying other women that men aren’t? Because I took from that statement you think objectification is nothing to do with men?

In fact can you give an example of violence that is the vast majority perpetrated By women and not men?

Of course they don’t.

IME, points of view are often delivered differently on MN depending on if the poster is male or female.

@CakeInAJar I think a lot of films objectify women by lingering on parts of their body with the camera, with clothes, make up and cosmetic surgery. Same for music. Madonna was particularly bad for presenting herself as interesting only because she didn't wear much and apparently liked having sex. Women who choose to do those things are complicit with sexism and identify with the male gaze. They are playing the game of pleasing men while also harming women. Yes. you could say they wouldn't do it if men didn't exist - but they do. The question of violence is interesting, but not relevant to my points, since it's clear men commit more violent acts. However, you could look at the Magdalene laundries for an example of a a female environment that perpetuated abouse on women.

abuse

So even though in your words the male gaze exists, women are to blame for themselves being objectified because <checks notes> they enjoy sex?

This is some absolute total and utter victim blaming drivel.

Re the Magdalene laundries - having been raised a Catholic I assure you the thought of women controlling the Catholic Church - or even have a modicum of a say - is laughable. The laundries were devised, upheld and ordered by those at the helm of the church - male priests. Yes nuns were complicit but they were beholden to the orders of their priests. Not to minimised nuns’ crimes but the laundries existed because of men. Rampant sex abuse in the Catholic Church is committed by men. I’m baffled as to why you think women were responsible for the laundries

@cakeinajar Oh well, if you don't agree that conforming to feminine stereotypes and expectations of appearance/behaviour upholds sexism - never mind. I'm not interested in winning an argument. You do you.
The Sisters were responsible for the institutions, the non reporting of deaths, the unmarked graves and, according to survivors, committed physical, mental and emotional abuse on the women and girls. I won't be exonerating them for that. If you think they were just forced to do those things by men, again you do you.

No I dont

thats like saying upholding stereotypes of being black is enabling racism.

The Sisters were responsible for the institutions, the non reporting of deaths, the unmarked graves and, according to survivors, committed physical, mental and emotional abuse on the women and girls. I won't be exonerating them for that. If you think they were just forced to do those things by men, again you do you.

Im not exonerating anyone - but it was men who were responsible for this sexist and horrific culture. Not sure why you haven’t addressed that

@CakeInAJar No, ethnicity is what you are, not something you put on.
Have you read the survivor accounts? They are distressing and include descriptions of being beaten by nuns, being forced to eat off the floor by nuns, being called a number and not their name by nuns... The thing is, the nuns ran the institutions, so the daily cruelties were enacted by nuns. I feel you are dismissing what was done to these women, who will never get over what was done to them. I think you should read some accounts. I can't engage with the idea that men forced nuns to do this - they had plenty of autonomy and were given power over a more vulnerable group. We know what this can do to people - see the Stanford Prison experiment. I would find it too distressing - but if you were to look at data for female concentration camp guards, or female wardens in the old asylums, I'm afraid you would probably find similar events of cruelty and violence by women.

Maybe, just maybe men are causing this?

Sec is what you are not something you put on. Yet according to you women by simply existing and just getting by in the world are upholding sexism.

Im not sure if you’re being obtuse or just not reading my posts properly? I never said nuns didn’t commit abuse. I’m saying this is not a crime in which women for the vast majority are responsible for perpetrating. Sorry (not sorry) that you can’t find one. But there’s a reason for that. Women working in those places doesn’t mean that women were the main perpetrators of abuse.

I find it beautifully ironic that you claim ‘women aren’t violent because they can’t be’ and are also claiming female violence was responsible for Ken of the most sexist atrocities in modern times. Which is it? Because it seems whichever way YOU look at it you’re excusing Men’s poor behaviour and blaming women for everything

@CakeInAJar I'm tired now. You don't seem to understand anything I have said. Being a woman and presenting oneself as a sex object for the male gaze are completely different things. One is what you are, the other is a set of gender roles and stereotypes. The Magdalene laundries were a woman only environment, so all abuse there was perpetrated by women. Women are LESS violent generally, because they don't have the opportunity to be. Like all humans, they CAN be in certain situations where they have power over a more vulnerable group. Just like men. But, while it's been interesting talking to you, and your abusive insults have been touching, I need to sleep now. I'm quite happy to disagree with you and respect your right to have different views. Good night.