Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

NAMALT. Really? Dig deep and be honest with yourself. AMALT

571 replies

NoEggs · 04/03/2026 21:47

I love my DH. He’s a great guy and we’ve been happy for many years.

But
He’s not perfect. Doesn’t do the laundry. Defaults to letting me make stuff happen etc. etc.

Now even if your partner is a paragon I would argue that the species ‘men’ will generally default to slightly bloody useless.

AIBU?

OP posts:
Thread gallery
12
Carla786 · 15/03/2026 03:04

TooBigForMyBoots · 15/03/2026 02:59

What do you think they should have done differently?

I don't think they should have done anything which risked endangering civilian life.

So I certainly disagree with the following :

In June and July 1912, five serious incidents signified the beginning of the campaign in earnest:
the homes of three anti-suffrage cabinet ministers were attacked,

a powerful bomb was planted in the Home Secretary's office and the

Theatre Royal, Dublin, was set aflame and bombed while an audience attended a performance.

Leigh hurled a hatchet towards Asquith, which narrowly missed, instead cutting Irish MP John Redmond on the ear.

The suffragettes invented the letter bomb, a device intended to kill or injure the recipient, and an increasing number began to be posted.

On 6 February five postmen were burned, four severely, in Dundee after handling a phosphorus suffragette letter bomb addressed to Asquith.

On 19 February, there was a suffragette bomb attack on Lloyd George's house, Pinfold Manor, with two bombs planted perhaps by Emily Davison. Only one exploded, seriously damaging the building but causing no injuries. The explosion occurred shortly before the arrival of workmen at the house, and the crude nature of the timer – a candle – meant the bomb had been likely to explode while the men were present.

Or do you agree with bombing theatres, homes etc where people are present? Throwing hatchets at people?

I also disagree with the stone-throwing etc campaigns, they also endangered people's lives, as did telegraph cutting, which is often presented as more benign.

Surely you don't think they had no option but to do these things?

TooBigForMyBoots · 15/03/2026 03:17

Surely you don't think they had no option but to do these things?

Had women been given the fair ŕights they asked for, no violence would have happened. Indeed, when WWI happened, suffragists.and suffragettes put the fight for women's rights aside for the good of the nation and got stuck in. No doubt hoping their physical and mental contribution would help their argument and prove their worth to men. Commonsense stuff.🤷‍♀️

But no. That didn't happen.🤦‍♀️

What option do you think women should have taken @Carla786 ?

Carla786 · 15/03/2026 03:27

TooBigForMyBoots · 15/03/2026 03:17

Surely you don't think they had no option but to do these things?

Had women been given the fair ŕights they asked for, no violence would have happened. Indeed, when WWI happened, suffragists.and suffragettes put the fight for women's rights aside for the good of the nation and got stuck in. No doubt hoping their physical and mental contribution would help their argument and prove their worth to men. Commonsense stuff.🤷‍♀️

But no. That didn't happen.🤦‍♀️

What option do you think women should have taken @Carla786 ?

Edited

I don't think bombing civilians is ever justified.

By your logic, the IRA could say, 'Well, if the Protestants had given Catholics fair treatment, this wouldn't have happened. We had no choice but to bomb civilians.'

Do you think the IRA were justified? If not, why do you apply a different standard to the suffragettes?

I'm sorry, but I also don't understand what you mean by 'that didn't happen'. Right after WW1, women did at least partially get the vote, and the War was widely acknowledged to have been a major contributing factor.

TooBigForMyBoots · 15/03/2026 03:50

Carla786 · 15/03/2026 03:27

I don't think bombing civilians is ever justified.

By your logic, the IRA could say, 'Well, if the Protestants had given Catholics fair treatment, this wouldn't have happened. We had no choice but to bomb civilians.'

Do you think the IRA were justified? If not, why do you apply a different standard to the suffragettes?

I'm sorry, but I also don't understand what you mean by 'that didn't happen'. Right after WW1, women did at least partially get the vote, and the War was widely acknowledged to have been a major contributing factor.

You keep repeating yourself, but you don't answer the question: what do you think suffragettes and suffragists should have done to gain us the vote?

Carla786 · 15/03/2026 04:00

TooBigForMyBoots · 15/03/2026 03:50

You keep repeating yourself, but you don't answer the question: what do you think suffragettes and suffragists should have done to gain us the vote?

Well, I've said which actions I disagree with. I approve of actions like chaining to railings etc which didn't harm anyone physically, and the non-violent efforts of suffragists (and many suffragettes).

Are you saying that bombing civilian-heavy places like houses and churches were their only options?

And even if that were the only option to win women the vote, that wouldn't be morally right. It is never morally right to take civilian life in that kind of situation.

Do you think it is?

It wouldn't have been right for the IRA to bomb civilians, even if that were their only chance of success, either.

Carla786 · 15/03/2026 04:02

TooBigForMyBoots · 15/03/2026 03:50

You keep repeating yourself, but you don't answer the question: what do you think suffragettes and suffragists should have done to gain us the vote?

Moreover, is there strong evidence for your claim that extreme violence like attempts to bomb homes or theatres was what won women the vote?

I'm pretty certain that suffragette militancy (stone-throwing etc) did help keep female suffrage on the agenda.

But I don't think it's credible that attempted terrorist attacks on theatres etc helped ensure women got the vote. If anything, there's quite a lot of evidence that heavily violent tactics delayed it.

TooBigForMyBoots · 15/03/2026 04:22

I think the suffragettes and suffragists did what they had to and im grateful.
I have the vote because of them.

They should never have had to resort to violence, but oppression is violence. I am grateful they fought it and won. I wish their suffering and everyone else's didn't happen.

When women ask for equal, human rights, the only reasonable answer is yes, of course. Possibly followed by an apology that it wasn't done sooner. Women asked and were told "No". Women then proved themselves worthy. But still told "No".

I will not condemn the women who fought and paid a high price for my right to vote.

TooBigForMyBoots · 15/03/2026 04:24

Carla786 · 15/03/2026 04:02

Moreover, is there strong evidence for your claim that extreme violence like attempts to bomb homes or theatres was what won women the vote?

I'm pretty certain that suffragette militancy (stone-throwing etc) did help keep female suffrage on the agenda.

But I don't think it's credible that attempted terrorist attacks on theatres etc helped ensure women got the vote. If anything, there's quite a lot of evidence that heavily violent tactics delayed it.

Aye, all them women throwing stones and exploding stuff. You'd have a point if men just listened to women and acted in our interests.

But they didn't. They still don't.🤷‍♀️

TooBigForMyBoots · 15/03/2026 04:32

And I dont see you offering any alternative solution.

Carla786 · 15/03/2026 04:48

TooBigForMyBoots · 15/03/2026 04:22

I think the suffragettes and suffragists did what they had to and im grateful.
I have the vote because of them.

They should never have had to resort to violence, but oppression is violence. I am grateful they fought it and won. I wish their suffering and everyone else's didn't happen.

When women ask for equal, human rights, the only reasonable answer is yes, of course. Possibly followed by an apology that it wasn't done sooner. Women asked and were told "No". Women then proved themselves worthy. But still told "No".

I will not condemn the women who fought and paid a high price for my right to vote.

'Proved themselves worthy'- are you referring to WW1? Or before?

Carla786 · 15/03/2026 04:50

TooBigForMyBoots · 15/03/2026 04:32

And I dont see you offering any alternative solution.

They shouldn't have threatened civilian lives. I don't think bomb threats etc are what won the vote, anyway.

And even if there were no alternative (which I don't believe), it's never morally right yo threaten civilian lives

TooBigForMyBoots · 15/03/2026 04:51

Carla786 · 15/03/2026 04:48

'Proved themselves worthy'- are you referring to WW1? Or before?

Does it matter? Women have always been worthy and equal to men.

Carla786 · 15/03/2026 05:48

TooBigForMyBoots · 15/03/2026 04:51

Does it matter? Women have always been worthy and equal to men.

Definitely!

LadyLavenderUrchin · 15/03/2026 08:12

when someone is not able to offer an alternative solution to something that resulted in loss, it doesn't mean that what happened was the best solution. No idea how they should have built a bridge that collapses. i can still think it was not done the best way

OhamIreally · 15/03/2026 11:12

GaIadriel · 15/03/2026 00:35

I watched an interesting debate recently where a guy was debating with a load of feminist guests on his show. He asked the hypothetical question as to whether the people that will be expected to give their lives in the outbreak of war should have more political say than those that wouldn't be expected to fight.

He made the point that it's a morally difficult situation when a demographic can vote in parties/politicians that might start a war but won't be expected to fight in that war themselves. It gave me pause for thought tbh.

I'm absolutely not suggesting that women shouldn't have the vote but the guy had a point - he said "how would you feel if men got two votes?" This was in the US where every man is mandated to sign up for the draft (Selective Service).

Of course, feminists usually argue that it's men that start the wars, but I think it needs to be looked at with a bit more nuance. I'd hardly blame the men of Ukraine for defending their country against the Russians, for example. It benefits all Ukrainians. And whenever I've seen it discussed it seems that the majority of women absolutely don't want to be part of the draft.

I'd imagine this attitude would've been even more prevalent in the time of WW1/WW2.

Edited

Interesting point. I wonder if by the same token that given only women can get pregnant and bear children that men should be excluded from voting on laws that affect the reproductive rights of women?

MrsChristmasHasResigned · 15/03/2026 12:07

OhamIreally · 15/03/2026 11:12

Interesting point. I wonder if by the same token that given only women can get pregnant and bear children that men should be excluded from voting on laws that affect the reproductive rights of women?

Thank you!!!

The war thing is always trotted out as the ultimate bastion of protecting male privilege (even though there are people on this thread who are willfully blind to the fact that exists).

For the majority of the time, the majority of the world is not at war. If you feel that war and the ability to go to war is the most important consideration of a society, I would say that is a very gendered view.

As for only men being drafted - that disregards the contribution of the women who, for example during WW2, drove ambulances, nursed the wounded, delivered planes and made the munitions that were used. They were also at risk constantly. That also comes from a time when war was done in a particular way - flying a drone is a very different level of physical exertion than crouching in a ditch full of mud near a front line.

Lets not also forget that some of the reason more women dont serve is the misogyny rife in the armed services. I had a friend who worked for the red cross in another country. A female soldier was raped in the camp that soldiers went to just before deployment. The comment from the commanding officer - he (the rapist) probably just wanted to get some before he was going to the war zone.

The Royal Navy would not allow women to serve at sea until relatively recently. That was not just about facilities - it was also because VAWG was (and is) a very real threat.

category12 · 15/03/2026 14:10

OhamIreally · 15/03/2026 11:12

Interesting point. I wonder if by the same token that given only women can get pregnant and bear children that men should be excluded from voting on laws that affect the reproductive rights of women?

He made the point that it's a morally difficult situation when a demographic can vote in parties/politicians that might start a war but won't be expected to fight in that war themselves. It gave me pause for thought tbh.

So ... when men get too old to go to war or if they're deemed unfit to serve, then they shouldn't get a vote either.

War doesn't just affect one demographic anyway - I think the civilians who are likely to get displaced, blown up & killed or economically affected should have more say over whether there's war than a group of men.

And whenever I've seen it discussed it seems that the majority of women absolutely don't want to be part of the draft.

And are most men terribly keen to be conscripted and give up their normal lives to risk death & go to war? 😒🙄

category12 · 15/03/2026 14:12

Sorry, quote was accidental.

LadyLavenderUrchin · 15/03/2026 14:15

i am learning a lot about war times in this thread. draft or no draft, re: war times and more rights for women: it is worth thinking about how us demanding and fighting for more rights for ourselves would have meant fuck all if there weren’t men who actively helped the cause. Imagine if men as a whole just refused. What would we have done, overpower them in a fist fight?

OhamIreally · 15/03/2026 14:52

Referring again to Philippa Gregory’s Normal Women which posits that the government of the day conceded it was inevitable that working class men would have to be given the vote on their return from fighting in the First World War but that it was anathema to the property owning classes that these men would be “above” the women of the property owning classes and so that’s why the vote was given to a subsection of women.

GaIadriel · 15/03/2026 15:33

Carla786 · 15/03/2026 02:11

Yes, I support the suffragists and the many suffragettes who didn't engage in that kind of murderous behaviour, but the figures at the top, and several below, were dangerous criminals .

I think that's a fair summation.

GaIadriel · 15/03/2026 15:41

category12 · 15/03/2026 14:10

He made the point that it's a morally difficult situation when a demographic can vote in parties/politicians that might start a war but won't be expected to fight in that war themselves. It gave me pause for thought tbh.

So ... when men get too old to go to war or if they're deemed unfit to serve, then they shouldn't get a vote either.

War doesn't just affect one demographic anyway - I think the civilians who are likely to get displaced, blown up & killed or economically affected should have more say over whether there's war than a group of men.

And whenever I've seen it discussed it seems that the majority of women absolutely don't want to be part of the draft.

And are most men terribly keen to be conscripted and give up their normal lives to risk death & go to war? 😒🙄

And are most men terribly keen to be conscripted and give up their normal lives to risk death & go to war? 😒🙄

Of course not. That's the point!

But I agree that reproductive rights should be the domain of women. The issue seems partly the view that after inception it's a life, so abortion is murder etc. Which I don't really agree with, but that's maybe because I don't really see it as a sentient being at that point.

Whether a man should have to support a child for 18 years if his partner lies about being on the pill (as happened to a good mate of mine) is another matter though, given that men who lie about using birth control can get sent to prison. But that's another discussion.

I do think it's a fair point that civilians who are affected by war get a say, although of course there are many factors here. If it's a case of men getting sent off to the Middle East rather than a Ukraine type situation it's different. Most US civilians aren't hugely affected by the Iran war I'd imagine.

GaIadriel · 15/03/2026 15:45

MrsChristmasHasResigned · 15/03/2026 12:07

Thank you!!!

The war thing is always trotted out as the ultimate bastion of protecting male privilege (even though there are people on this thread who are willfully blind to the fact that exists).

For the majority of the time, the majority of the world is not at war. If you feel that war and the ability to go to war is the most important consideration of a society, I would say that is a very gendered view.

As for only men being drafted - that disregards the contribution of the women who, for example during WW2, drove ambulances, nursed the wounded, delivered planes and made the munitions that were used. They were also at risk constantly. That also comes from a time when war was done in a particular way - flying a drone is a very different level of physical exertion than crouching in a ditch full of mud near a front line.

Lets not also forget that some of the reason more women dont serve is the misogyny rife in the armed services. I had a friend who worked for the red cross in another country. A female soldier was raped in the camp that soldiers went to just before deployment. The comment from the commanding officer - he (the rapist) probably just wanted to get some before he was going to the war zone.

The Royal Navy would not allow women to serve at sea until relatively recently. That was not just about facilities - it was also because VAWG was (and is) a very real threat.

If you feel that war and the ability to go to war is the most important consideration of a society, I would say that is a very gendered view.

I guarantee to you that if sons/brothers/husbands/fathers started getting sent off en masse and many not returning it would quickly become the country's biggest current issue.

And without diminishing women's contributions, dying in agony in a ditch with a bullet lodged in your gut is generally worse than performing nursing duties, even if the latter may be traumatising too.

MrsChristmasHasResigned · 15/03/2026 15:57

GaIadriel · 15/03/2026 15:45

If you feel that war and the ability to go to war is the most important consideration of a society, I would say that is a very gendered view.

I guarantee to you that if sons/brothers/husbands/fathers started getting sent off en masse and many not returning it would quickly become the country's biggest current issue.

And without diminishing women's contributions, dying in agony in a ditch with a bullet lodged in your gut is generally worse than performing nursing duties, even if the latter may be traumatising too.

Edited

Plenty of women die in agony in war. Your arguments are completely spurious.

category12 · 15/03/2026 16:10

GaIadriel · 15/03/2026 15:41

And are most men terribly keen to be conscripted and give up their normal lives to risk death & go to war? 😒🙄

Of course not. That's the point!

But I agree that reproductive rights should be the domain of women. The issue seems partly the view that after inception it's a life, so abortion is murder etc. Which I don't really agree with, but that's maybe because I don't really see it as a sentient being at that point.

Whether a man should have to support a child for 18 years if his partner lies about being on the pill (as happened to a good mate of mine) is another matter though, given that men who lie about using birth control can get sent to prison. But that's another discussion.

I do think it's a fair point that civilians who are affected by war get a say, although of course there are many factors here. If it's a case of men getting sent off to the Middle East rather than a Ukraine type situation it's different. Most US civilians aren't hugely affected by the Iran war I'd imagine.

It isn't a point scored that women are against being drafted, if most men are also against being drafted. It just means people don't like being drafted. And it's not like the US government that created the draft was made up of women's voices.

I do think it's a fair point that civilians who are affected by war get a say, although of course there are many factors here. If it's a case of men getting sent off to the Middle East rather than a Ukraine type situation it's different.

So civilians should only get the vote during wartime if they're being bombed themselves, otherwise it should be just for young fit men that can be sent to other countries to "liberate" them/their oil? 😂