Is MN feeding unhealthy attitudes towards men?

[Grtscott]

Some threads I've read this morning have helped me to realise that my thinking about men has changed since joining MN. And not in a good way.

There's an undertone that men need to do things the woman's way, or it's wrong. That men should be grateful for any sex that women are willing to give in a long term relationship, even if that peters out to no sex at all.

Men are seen to be babies who can't do anything for themselves, and need to have someone pre plan and organise their lives, but god forbid they fall into the pattern of behaviour of expecting their female partner to do these things for them, as that's what they've always done.

This thinking is observable to a greater or lesser extent across the boards.

I've also recognised where this thinking has affected the way I think about my wonderful man, and sometimes in things I've said to him or actions towards him. I need to watch this in future.

I'm concerned that the general thinking about men on this website can't be good for society if this is the way women think, and are encouraged to think by others.

If women treat men this way collectively and have low expectations around them, no wonder the bar is getting lower.

I think this is another good example of ideology not always translating well to reality.
I completely get that rejecting short, quiet, shy, unsuccessful men perpetuates toxic masculinity, and so is something feminists should in theory be 'against'.
However we didn't create toxic masculinity, so if in practice this means women being duty bound to date short, quiet, shy, unsuccessful men in order to smash gender stereotypes...well, it does rather smack of women being asked to throw the game to compensate for men's own goal.

I genuinely don’t even get why we need to be against it. Everybody had things that attract them and repel them. As long as nobody is harmed then who cares about what people find attractive?

It is just SO weird to me!

I am not going to be with men I am not attracted to to smash the patriarchy!

It’s also another case of women carrying men’s water for them. Men never police each others preferences. Most men (for example) have height preferences yet no man would ever comment on it.

I think the idea is that we are attracted to tall, outgoing, confident men because the patriarchal society has convinced us that men should be strong leaders, and women weak and fragile and in need of protection, and that these ideas are to our detriment because they keep us in a subordinate position.
However, my view is that the only people who really suffer from this particular manifestation of patriarchy are men who don't fit the masculine ideal, and I'm not overly concerned about that in all honesty.
Partly because the impact is exaggerated. Short men do get dates, they just maybe have a smaller dating pool than tall ones, and can't get any woman they want.
Partly because I think its a bit of a cheek to set up a society in a way that benefits some men then ask women to make sure that the men it doesn't benefit don't lose out.

I was reading it from about the other posters replying. But never mind, we've moved along.

Height was never a dealbreaker for me - my late husband was shorter than I am. I am more about shared values, shared interests and so on. But we are all allowed to set those boundaries. No man and no woman owes any other person a date, sex or a relationship.

Surely I am allowed to not want to date bisexual men. I also don't want to date anyone who isn't hard working and ambitious. Why is this an issue?

This is the same misunderstanding that always crops up on those threads and I'm never sure how wilful it is.

No one is saying anyone should date someone they don't want to. Literally no one ever says that.

It's the way in which men who don't fit the masculine ideal are referred to - with contempt, disgust, "ick" etc.

A man who is not attracted to an overweight woman, says nothing negative about that and simply does not date them - nothing wrong with that. A man who feels the need to talk loudly and constantly about overweight women with contempt? You know that's a red flag.

The way MN talks about short men, low-earning men and bisexual men? Massive fucking red flags all the way down.

Men talk about how icky women are all the time. In public and on the internet, personally directed at anyone who doesn't appeal to them.
I don't think this is a particular failing of MN.

It is not a red flag to not want to date bisexual men or men who dont have any ambition because this often results in STDs, being screwed over or having men babies in the house. It is a bright green flag to have standards and think things through.

Do those male dominated websites get such a loud voice as MN does in the national media though?

I've returned to find 5 DMs from people saying they agree with me. They choose not to post on some threads, including this one, as they are fed up of being jumped on by other posters if they try to stand against the all men are arseholes rhetoric.

Solidarity ladies ✊🏼

What exactly do you want from this thread? Kudos for not being like other girls? A pat on the back for the brotherhood? Men to be eternally grateful for taking their side?

I am a bloke on MN - I have wide experience of forums and MN is not especially different to any other - most people on here are decent people who respect all others (male / female) and reserve judgement for actions of individuals, not being foolish enough to assume that one person's actions defines the whole sex etc. There are a lot of very wise women (and hopefully some men!) on here, and they do not come across as anti-man...

There are of course also some people who perhaps gravitate to the more foolish / illogical approach of assumption / poor logic / lack of coherency / stereotyping... who might well assume that all men are lumped together.... - just ignore those posters...

The reality is that as a bunch men haven't exactly covered themselves in glory across the centuries, and continue to still have some generic traits and characteristics which can be seen as stereotypes - but it is not all men by any means and the decent folks on here know that

Have never yet seen ' all men are arseholes" on MN, and I have been here since 2004, I think. And yes, male dominated sites like Reddit or 4 chan do get a huge voice.

It's so odd- in a world where VAWG is a huge issue- to pat yourself on the back for saying " all men are not arseholes" and do a clenched fist. We know that.

I'm surprised that only five people agree with you, I expected a lot more. It does sound like Mumsnet is the wrong place for them (and you) though, if they are spending time mainly on threads about men. There is so much else going on here as well that they seem to have missed.

Do you think that male dominated websites need a louder voice? What is it you think we are not hearing about men in the media?

Also wondering why you name-changed for your OP.

And the kind of men who do that are twats. Something I've told them in person and online.

No, I'm not willfully misunderstanding. However, just as misandry isn't the equal opposite to misogyny, nor do I think we can just flip the sexes when it comes to commenting on appearance and frame women as just as much of a problem as men in this regard.
For one thing, the number of women who prioritise appearance in men over other traits such as decency and good character is pretty small. On the 'ick' threads it's nearly always even, if not out weighed, by posters telling the woman off for being shallow.
For another, in our society a man's appearance is far less important than a woman's. Men can 'get away with' being conventionally unattractive, short, old much more easily than women. Appearance doesn't define them.
In what way do you think not wanting to date a bi sexual or low earning man is a 'massive red flag'? What about a woman does it flag up in your opinion?

I’ve only ever been involved with good and caring men, so I just ignore most of it. Base your views on your own experiences.

Men have had it their own way for millennia,now it's about time they started to realise that it's not always all about them.

The "ick" threads are mostly not about appearance (see: low earning, bisexuality). They're about a masculine ideal just as much as MRA threads about women's appearances are about a feminine ideal.

And again it is the way in which men who fall short of that ideal are talked about, not an individual woman's preference. I personally am not attracted to ginger men. I don't go around talking about that or trying to justify that - I simply don't sleep with them. If I posted online or said out loud that ginger men give me the ick, then I would be a massive twat - and that is what the red flag would be. (See the poster a few above you who implied that bisexual men are riddled with STDs, for instance, and who equated "low-earning" with "lacking ambition".)

I'm not a fan of negative stereotypes about low earning people, or those based on sexuality either. However I'm not inclined to see this as a sex based issue, as in something women (because they are women) do to men (because they are men). Rather something more privileged people do to the less privileged, and heterosexual people do to people who aren't heterosexual. So prejudice, yes. A sign of sexism of women towards men, no. Because the 'ick' isn't to do with their maleness, its to do with their class/wealth/sexuality. A different type of ism.

I, too. And part of the dilemma parents of sons navigate is how to bring them up against the tide of social conditioning they encounter in the wider world. I find this site useful reading in that respect.

We don't raise our children in a vacuum. But we do have responsibilities. VAWG is at epidemic proportions. 2-3 women a week are murdered at the hands of men, usually as a result of intimate partner violence. IMO, anyone shouting the odds against allegedly 'man-hating' mumsnet is deliberately closing their eyes to the salient facts.

These men, these abusers, are someone's beloved sons. And there's a frighteningly high number of them. It should give pause for thought rather than instigating an immediate pushback against anyone pointing out these unpleasant, uncomfortable truths.

Love the screen handle, BTW!

That's a really good point actually, and I hadn't looked at it like that. Partly because those threads tend to have a strong "men vs women" framework inherent in them, but yes: as well as being a default women's site, MN is default heteronormative and affluent as well. Intersectionality!

Namechanged for this thread due to sadsacks who go back and check if the poster has posted before, and if so, what they've said.

I've had 5 DMs, yes. I'm not sure that says anything besides 5 people who don't feel they can post their views on a public thread because their opinions go against the grain. I was surprised to find any if I'm honest. People should feel free to post their thoughts directly to the thread but their prior experience of other posters has seemingly left them uncomfortable to do so.

A website like Reddit or Pistonheads doesn't have a figurehead like Justine is for MN. I suspect those sites don't have the opportunity to interview/post questions to government ministers on their forums like MN do, although as a non user of both, I can't say that as a certainty.

And do we think its ok?

Are we teaching our children that is ok?

And if not (which of course not), why would we do this ourselves (nominal we obviously) about the opposite sex.

I agree with the OP, I think some attitudes to men are horrible here - dismissive, patronising and prejudiced. Some men are toxic. So are some women. Deal with them as individuals. I know lots of lovely men, and lovely women too. I don't stay involved with humans who are horrid, whatever their sex.