Women on Mumsnet

[BunnyInTheRavine]

I'm on maternity leave and have been using Mumsnet since the beginning of my leave.
I have been quite shocked at the way that women speak to one another on this platform. For context I'm 38 and was dragged up by older brother so throughout my life have often been quite blokey for want of a better word. In my 20's and 30's due to my work I have worked with people often quite a lot younger than me, and the best thing I have learnt from the younger women is non judgement and to raise each other up! It's been wonderful. I'm so thankful that my line of work enables me to be able to learn from younger generations ( I'm not suggesting they don't have faults, they can also be overtly judgemental, but when it comes to this one topic I find them great) their bringing up of women is truly fab!
So I guess it's
Yanbu- women on Mumsnet seem to appear quite harsh/ haven't learnt to raise each other up yet!
Aibu- women on Mumsnet feel they are in a safe space so say exactly how they feel no matter if it seems harsh or not.

We all use generalisations and statistics to inform our decisions as to how we treat people though. This is why car insurance premiums are higher for young men than middle aged women and why the majority of people would be more uncomfortable about a single man approaching their child than a woman with children of her own. This is why men don't fear women to the extent they fear other men.
Yes, we should judge people on a case by case basis wherever possible, but we also look at patterns of behaviour amongst groups to assess risk.
The statement you don't come across on here is a direct quote from the poster in a comment they addressed to you, so there it is, and that's what I challenged.
And no, it isn't as bad as the other way round, it's worse. Because if someone said they'd never known a woman behave as atrociously as men do, their comment would be both believable and supported by the facts.
Its really about "not all men, but almost always a man" which I don't think anyone can make an evidenced argument to dispute. Its true, its fair and it acknowledges that there are good men.

We all use generalisations and statistics to inform our decisions as to how we treat people though
And we do so to discriminate against individuals, and that's very wrong and dangerous.

An example. A 12 years old girl asks her mum to go to a sleep over with a friend of hers. The sleep over is at her dad. You say no. The girl says 'but you let me go two weeks ago at her mum' and you think or say ' yes but men are more likely to SA , so it's okay at her mum but not at her dad'.

Now 12 year old boy asks his dad to go to a sleep over at his friend. The sleep over is at a black family. Dad says no. The boy says 'but you let me stay at my other friend's house last week' and dad thinks or says 'yes but black people are 4 times more likely to be the victim of a homicide than white people, so it's okay to stay with a white family but not a black one.

You are using statistics to make your decision. Does it make it right?

Suggest you ask HQ or search like I did. I found them after reading about it and googling a few years back. I'm sure you are up to finding the latest iteration.

No idea what the OP meant by "raised" however its both rational and sensible for any disadvantaged group to gather and provide mutual support - which is how MN started.

The fact that men commit more atrocities shouldn't mean that every men should be treated as if they are guilty whilst women are exempt of any judgement. You can't treat a whole group of people based on a percentage that is lower than 1%. It's a completely flowed argument

Its entirely rational and sensible to approach any member of the group which commits the overwhelming majority of violent offences and the massively overwhelming majority of sexual offences with caution and suspicion until convinced otherwise.

The idea that less than 1% of men commit violent or sexual assaults on women is laughable.

However I don't think you are here in good faith to discuss the behaviour of men so I'll leave you to go googling for those stats - just like I did.

Its really about "not all men, but almost always a man" which I don't think anyone can make an evidenced argument to dispute. Its true, its fair and it acknowledges that there are good men
Almost always men within a very very tiny percentage. This is where you are misguided with your use of statistics. 90% vs 10% of 0.00001 is hardly any different. Totally different to 90% Vs 10% of 100.

You want statistics? Here you go: the overall crime rate in the UK is 7.2% of population with serious crime representating a TINY fraction of that total. Source: crimerate.co.uk

So the UK population is overall safe from serious crime, whether exposed to male or female perpetrators.

Its entirely rational and sensible to approach any member of the group which commits the overwhelming majority of violent offences and the massively overwhelming majority of sexual offences with caution and suspicion until convinced otherwise
Then your view is just plain sexist. If you are okay with that, that is your choice.

Important to mention though that sex is a protected characteristic and discrimination based on sex is illegal, both ways.

A risk assessment involves considering likelihood of harm, including all relevant variables.
So in your two examples, how likely is it that a child is going to be sexually assaulted? Estimates are 9% of children in the UK are victims. Add in a male (men commit over 90% of child sexual assaults) in a home environment and a child who would be particularly vulnerable, undressed, in bed, no other adult present, and the risk increases further. And while it's far more likely the man won't sexually assault the child, the statistical risk may still be unacceptable.
Compare with how likely is it that a white child will be murdered while staying in the home of a black family. There are no records of this ever having happened in the UK. Therefore no link at all between the ethnicity of hosts and the likelihood of a white child being murdered.
To arrive at a risk, you would need to add in other variables, such as history of violence within the host family or history of the host family being targeted for attack. Their ethnicity alone creates no risk to your child, unlike the sex of the parent in the first example.

Estimates are 9% of children in the UK are victims
That's not what nspcc claims. Also most SA crime are committed by family members. When committed by strangers, it's more likely to be online.

A child is much more at risk in their own home.

You are sadly using statistics wrongly to suit your narrative and that's where the danger lies.

How many children are abused within step families (married or not)

This is a rhetorical question

Again, the use of statistics in every day life doesn't work the way you spell it.

Do you calculate the risk of death when you get in a taxi? Do you refuse to go in a taxi if the driver is under 30 year old? Statistically, you are more at risk than if the driver is 40 years old.

Thankfully, the risk remains very very low, so you get in the taxi and enjoy your evening out.

The point remains that treating people differently on the basis of sex, age, race, when the unfavourable outcome is extremely low is... discrimination.

We're not allowed to troll hunt, but if we report a thread it still stands (the OP is given the 'benefit of the doubt'. Engagement probs).
Many many OPs, especially on AIBU are made up. So often times the only recourse for genuine posters is to be a bit snippy with the OP to kind of make a point that we know they are talking absolute shite. Of course, a lot of replies are also trolling, so it kind of becomes a dog wagging its own tail.
It's all v meta around here.

9% is the ONS figure arrived at by surveying adults and obtaining data on all childhood prevalence. The NSPCC figure of 5% is based on research with children aged 11 to 17 and records active and recent cases, so misses the cases occurring prior to the age of 11 and the cases not reported by a child until adulthood.
Family members are the perpetrators in 23-27% of cases compared with family friends/acquaintances in 37% of cases. So you are incorrect there. A father of a school friend would be classed as an acquaintance not a stranger so statistically poses a higher risk than a member of the child's family.
I think you are (sadly!) failing to fully research and understand the information available. Either to suit your narrative or because you are only looking at it superficially. Danger lies there too.

Family members are the perpetrators in 23-27% of cases compared with family friends/acquaintances in 37% of cases. So you are incorrect there
Statistics from ONS: emotional and physical abuse most commonly perpetrated by parents, and mothers not far behind to fathers. 29.4% Vs 25.6% for emotional and 45.6% Vs 37.2% for physical. So all that 'its almost all men' doesn't stack up.

1/3rd of sexual abuse was a stranger but mainly non contact sexual abuse, that is online.

Children being abused by their parents, mother AND father, is much more concerning as a social concern.

I think you are (sadly!) failing to fully research and understand the information available. Either to suit your narrative or because you are only looking at it superficially. Danger lies there too
I think I understand statistics quite well. For a start, I studied it at Uni. But that doesn't really matter. You are not commenting on the matter that a percentage of a tiny number remains a tiny number/difference and that's what it comes down to. You seem to completely fail to comprehend this concept.

You think I don't 'comprehend' that a percentage of a tiny number is a tiny number? I can assure you, I do.
What comment would you like me to make on that? I've already said the risk of a child being sexually assaulted by the father of a school friend is low. 3% of children will be sexually assaulted by an acquaintance or friend of the family, and obviously not all of those will be the father of a school friend at a sleepover, taking the percentage even lower. However its up to parents if they wish to take it.
I compared this risk with your other example which has zero statistical risk to demonstrate why they are different.

How on earth would you be able to tell if its older women and not younger women, and let's not pretend that mumsnet isn't infested with creepy men.

Your personal experience is entirely irrelevant and contradictory to the objective information we have access to though, isn't it? We all know that the atrocities committed by men far out weigh those by women. This is not a matter of opinion but of fact. So while your experience has given you a particular world view, it isn't reflective of reality
This is what you wrote higher up.

If you understand the concept that small percentage differences of tiny numbers are not statistically significant, you don't make statements as the one above and then claim them as fact.

However its up to parents if they wish to take it
And I don't disagree with this at all. However, it comes down to a personal choice, not one backed up by statistics in a way that makes that choice scientifically based.

You misunderstand. PP made the statement that they have never seen a man behave as atrociously as women do. Which unless they have no access to the world outside their bubble, cannot possibly be true. Because this would mean they had not seen any news reports of crimes committed by men and compared them with those committed by women. That they were in complete ignorance of the stats about which sex is many many times more likely to be the perpetrator in the most atrocious crimes in our society.
The stats relating to MVAWG and indeed male on male violence are neither tiny nor statistically insignificant. When compared with those on female violence, they are hugely important because the sex based pattern is very clear.
Its not how many men are responsible for crime that makes it male patterned, its how many crimes men are responsible for compared with women.

You misunderstand. PP made the statement that they have never seen a man behave as atrociously as women do. Which unless they have no access to the world outside their bubble, cannot possibly be true. Because this would mean they had not seen any news reports of crimes committed by men and compared them with those committed by women
But why respond by saying, no, men are the ones that commit atrocities.

It goes back to saying that men AND women are capable of committing atrocities, that yes, men commit more in total numbers, but that when you compare people who commit atrocities Vs people who never do, the difference between men and women is insignificant.

Therefore, let's not make it a male vs female issue, but a good vs evil people.

Take my advice, go into your settings and hide the 'AIBU' topic. All those threads are then hidden from 'active' so you don't get drawn into threads that turn into bunfights. You can still go on there, but only when you choose to do so.

I did that some time ago, and have a variety of other topics hidden as well, some which are of no interest to me anyway, and others which I find tiresome such as political stuff.

In my experience I have never seen women act as atrociously as men.

Ive never been raped by a woman. I’ve never feared for my life by a woman. I’ve never been groped by a woman. I’ve never been physically threatened by a woman. I’ve never been sexually harassed at work by a woman.

Ive experienced all the above from men.

What does that say about men then? “From my experience”.

Mumsnet moderation has become more laissez faire - they are much more likely to say "other posters are replying to this contradicting it." The mod guidelines have also changed - in particular what used to be considered slurs under mumsnet guidance on trans issues means that the Gender Critical forum is a cess pit, whereas before, transgender people were engaged with with some respect. The bar for racism and immigration appears to be much higher.

If its just a people issue and sex is irrelevant, what's your theory as to why men commit 90% of the most heinous crimes in our society? Coincidence?
Surely from a 'scientific' perspective such a huge disparity should be noted and explored?

Are you a woman BTW @Passaggressfedup?
Because if so I'm really interested in what leads you to post against the idea of women supporting each other when same sex support is recognised as being very beneficial. So much so that men are being encouraged to engage with other men in this way.
Also, there are few women who work as hard as you have to try to deny sex based offending patterns.
I'm genuinely curious as to whether you're an affronted man or a woman who feels men need you to defend them?
And no, I'm not 'accusing you of being a man' because we disagree. I know there are women who hold your views. It's the women I'm interested in.

Just because someone is the same sex as me, there is not automatic requirement for me to raise them up, whatever that means. If someone is being a bit of a twerp , I’ll challenge them.
There is a saying that goes something like “honesty without kindness is cruelty but kindness without honesty is avoidance”. No idea who said it or the exact wording but that’s what I recall.