Why is it always men?

[bobcat2424]

I think IABU, I hope so but it seems as though every single news story, every horrible brutality; wars, murders, rape, abuse... in the very large part of it seems to be caused by men. Am I wrong to think this?

Men are violent because society allows them to be.

Men are praised for violent acts.

Women are vilified.

I agree with this. For all the talk of inequality, the message we send to powerful men is that power and money make them more eligible.

It is telling that almost everyone will recognise the names of those female murders and that is because they are so rare.

Perhaps you should post a list of let's say every man that has murdered his partner or ex partner so far in 2023 and we'll see if anyone finds them all immediately recognisable.

They won't of course because the OP is absolutely correct.

Well, 96% of the U.K. prison population are men (not sure who is counted as a ‘woman’ for the remaining 4%):

What does endlessly complaining about crime stats accomplish anyway?

The only way to change anything is probably to get the non-violent majority on board. Even then, there will always be some violent crime, especially whilst sections of society are impoverished and crime offers the easiest and quickest route to money. Trying to completely eradicate violence is like trying to prevent 100% of dog bites. We already live in a pretty soft society in the west.

Another problem is that if you demand that non violent men take ownership for the actions of other individuals solely for sharing their biological sex they'll just regard you as bonkers and stop listening. Even if they share their sex with these violent men they likely share little else in common and in all probability these men (the violent ones) will have more in common with criminal women than with a middle class male librarian from Suffolk.

Well you're endlessly going on about surveys even though there's lots of reasons they may be misleading.

Also any man who thinks women are 'bonkers' for that is a prick......especially if it's a man who has daughters.

@LadyTrunchbull @Another problem is that if you demand that non violent men take ownership for the actions of other individuals solely for sharing their biological sex they'll just regard you as bonkers and stop listening."

That kind of is the problem. If men really want to sort this issue out they need to talk to each other about it. And not tolerate unacceptable behaviour-even of a minor nature-from men in their circle. Because that creates a culture where men think it's OK. And in SOME men that can escalate into violence. And anyway can make a unsettling and unsafe -feeling environment for everyone. Including lots of other men.

I agree that men should challenge casual sexism. The harder part is what happens behind closed doors I think. And given that the majority of DV is supposedly bidirectional I suspect that lots of people just think better to 'leave them to it'.

I can't imagine it's easy challenging a violent man though. Especially as a normal guy unaccustomed to violence. I mean, statistically men are at high risk of stranger assault. I'm not sure I'd want my partner putting himself in harm's way tbh, even with him being an ex boxer and likely pretty capable of holding his own.

You do hear a lot of horror stories like the recent case of that 50yo family man who was fatally stabbed when challenging some rowdy 14yo's for pissing on the floor of a public toilet/slamming doors etc.

Also any man who thinks women are 'bonkers' for that is a prick......especially if it's a man who has daughters.

Hmm, I don't agree that anyone should be held accountable for the actions of complete strangers who share some attributes. Like, you can't say all Jewish people are responsible for what's going on in the Palestine conflict atm. That would be bonkers.

Much of the awful behaviour I have experienced from men has not been in private. It has been witnessed by their friends, family, associates etc. In some cases it has been encouraged or enabled.

And they were not intimidating men (to them) that they would be afraid to challenge, they'd be well able to if they did something to them that they didn't like, but if it's too women or girls then they leave them to it.

A huge amount of the terrible behaviour is highly visible which shows there is zero shame attached to it because nobody says a bloody thing to them.

I certainly wouldn't expect men to put themselves in harms way with strangers but so much of it happens within their groups of friends etc. and they just turn a blind eye.

Any man who would think women are 'bonkers' for something like that is clearly a problematic, toxic man anyway because men who label women as crazy tend to be!!

It would help to frame the kind of behaviour we're talking about. Do you mean what men often call 'banter', which can frequently be pretty vile?

I just remember seeing a collage of women and girls faces who’d died at the hands of men (whether that be strangers or partners) all since lockdown. It’s sickening that our government isn’t doing more to change the laws.

Most men think it is wrong to hit a woman and many of them would intervene if they saw a man hitting a woman.

I am not saying they don't hit women, they do, but they don't think it is right to do so. Or at least that is what they say, so I'm not sure them talking to each other about ti would do much good. They would all agree it is wrong to hit a woman.

Perhaps the better question is what should be the 'social punishment ' for hitting a woman. That perhaps is where the re-education needs to focus.

At present, men don't always see the woman as blameless and men are more prepared to victim blame than women. Men grow up knowing that if they antagonise a man, insult a man or wrong a man then they might get hit. Many men know that if you scream in a man's face he might lash out. And if you behave badly and get hit, well you were sort of asking for it. That doesn't make it right, but come on.

Men are quite willing to say their mate shouldn't have hit his wife but she shouldn't have cheated on him. Not all of them are going to throw a mate over for this, particularly if he has just been booted out of the house and stopped from seeing the kids. That is sufficient punishment when it was her fault really.
He was wrong, but give him a break.

Many men have been hit by girlfriends who have lost their temper. It didn't really matter because the men weren't scared/over-powered and women are allowed to hit men but if society is not going to care about women losing their tempers it's a bit harsh to ostracise a mate for losing his. Geez we all can lose our temper. He's never done it before and it won't happen again.

Some men will say when she's annoyed with the neighbour I'm meant to go round and threaten him for her, but when she's going for me, I'm just meant to stand there and take it. Double standards or what.

There is surely a lot of re-education of men to be done.

Vile banter, sexual harrassment including touching, intimidation, threats etc.

I've never really encountered too much of this, although working with builders I do hear a fair few crude jokes which would probably offend some women.

Yabu

I actually prefer working with men as I found my 80% female team really bitchy/backstabby when I was in a corporate job, but perhaps I was just unlucky.

Hegemonic masculinity. Also, only men can commit rape.

I've experienced a hell of a lot of it, the 'vile banter' started at a young age, my daughter at 13 is also unfortunately experiencing the same.

Also, only men can commit rape.

This is true in the UK but in other countries (e.g. America) either sex can be a rapist.

In a victory for survivors of rape and their advocates, the Attorney General announced a newly revised definition of rape for nationwide data collection, ensuring that rape will be more accurately reported nationwide. The change sends an important message to all victims that what happens to them matters, and to perpetrators that they will be held accountable.

“Forcible rape” had been defined by the UCR SRS as “the carnal knowledge of a female, forcibly and against her will.” That definition, unchanged since 1927, was outdated and narrow. It only included forcible male penile penetration of a female vagina. The new definition is:

“The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”

For the first time ever, the new definition includes any gender of victim and perpetrator, not just women being raped by men. It also recognizes that rape with an object can be as traumatic as penile/vaginal rape.

@LadyTrunchbull
Important to note that that definition still refers to the victim being penetrated.

Yes, but it can now be a man and isn't restricted to just a penis.

All the defnitions are splitting hairs tbh IMO. It's like how only women can commit infanticide. Doesn't make it any less horrific if a man kills a baby.

@LadyTrunchbull "Yes, but it can now be a man and isn't restricted to just a penis."

It's always been possible for men to be raped. And as far as I know, rape still requires a penis. Sexual assault doesn't.

It's not splitting hairs. I'm noting an important point because many people get it wrong...and label women as rapists when the sexual act involved a penis and vagina.

And 'infanticide' is a unique one because it's both a crime AND also possibly a partial defence for women.

So no it's not any less horrific if a man kills a baby, it would generally be considered more horrific because he doesn't have the possible defence that he hadn't fully recovered from the effects of birth.

Of course now people try to claim that men can get post natal depression too 🙄 I have no issue with a new label referring to depression in men after the birth of a child, but not the same label that applies to women who have actually given birth to the child and have had huge hormone changes.