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.

I am not here to "raise other women up"
I try not to offend for no good reason and have been banned often enough to carefully phrase things but anyone who wants validation that they are right no matter what or total support/agreement just because we both happen to have a Vagina is barking up the wrong tree

I hate all this “raise other women up” and “fix each others crowns” bollocks just because they’re female.

I’ll raise someone up and fix their crown if they deserve it, female or male.

I’ve met some truly awful men in my life, and some truly awful women. I’ve also met some amazing people from both sexes.

Why should I support someone because we just both happen to be of the same sex?

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?
I'm not going through explaining statistics again. This is just going around circles. If you don't get that 90% of 0.00001 is not massively more than 10% of 0.00001, then there is not point of me trying to explain it.

Are you a woman BTW
I am. A woman who don't think men as a whole ar much worse (or better) than women.

I'm not against women supporting other women. I'm against supporting anyone just because they happen to be one sex rather than the other. I don't care if you're male or female. I care that people stop hurting others.

As for our own experience shaping our views. The only person in my life that has raised a hand on me was my step mother. She slapped me once when I was 10 years old. Both my parents were against any form of physical punishment, in the 70s. No teacher ever touched me, no partner.

Did I grow up fearing women more than men? No. It was an issue with my step mum. If it had vee my step dad (who never even once raised his voice), it would have been a him problem.

So although all the evidence shows that men are much more likely to be violent and commit sexual abuse you are happy to ignore that because of your own personal experience?

I really struggle to know how to communicate with people who can’t see beyond themselves

So although all the evidence shows that men are much more likely to be violent and commit sexual abuse you are happy to ignore that because of your own personal experience?
I despair, I really do!
I'm trying one last time, but sadly, some people clearly can't get their heads around numbers, and I can't help that.

In 2025, 900,000 adults have been the victim of sexual assault in England and Wales which represents 1.9% of the population (ONS statistics for 2025). If you consider that 90% were assaulted by men and 10% by women, it makes it 810,000 by men and 90,000 by women.

This would mean that 1.71% population (including men too by the way) have been assaulted by men and 0.19% have been assaulted by women.

And you think that the difference between 1.71% and 0.19% justifies considering all men as potential sexual predators?

I didn't ask you to explain statistics to me. I've already told you i understand. And as I am not the one of the two of us who has misread them on the thread and had to have research explained, it's a silly way to sidestep my question.
Which was, how do you explain that 90% of violent crime is committed by men whilst maintaining there is no sex based pattern?
Referencing the low percentage of both sexes who commit violent crime doesn't answer that. Your view that the low numbers make any pattern irrelevant is very...niche.
We have government departments devoted to addressing the issue of MVAWG and the chief of police himself referred to it as 'a national epidemic'. Do you think these people and their teams of advisers don't understand the stats because they didn't 'do them' at uni?

Which was, how do you explain that 90% of violent crime is committed by men whilst maintaining there is no sex based pattern?
You're arguing something I'm not disputing. I've never defended that men were less likely to commit a violent crime than women, or the same.

You are confusing two points of debate:
1- we need to understand why men are more violent than women. Even then, there are subtleties because whereas the difference is more significant when it comes to sexual abuse, it's much less the case when it comes to emotional and physical abuse towards children. But this is not what this thread is about though.

The other point of debate is whether women should systematically root for women against men. This is where the significance of number comes into it. Because when the numbers are overall very low, it does not warrant making generalisations about sexes.

If 1.71% of women in the UK dye their hair bright green, but only 0.19% of men do, are you going to conclude that most women like to have strange colour hair? Does this mean there is a sex based pattern?

Do you think these people and their teams of advisers don't understand the stats because they didn't 'do them' at uni?
Again, confusing two issues. They focus on tackling violence. The 1.9% of people affected by sexual violence.

I don't think these people and agencies are encouraging women to raise other women up against men.

Is the only alternative to blowing smoke up people’s arses to be rude and snipey? Is it not possible to have intelligent, thoughtful debate/conversation without being a dick?

These agencies have made clear statements of concern about MALE violence. Yes, they want to tackle all violence, but they have explicitly named male violence as the cause for concern. They are investing resources into understanding why it is at epidemic levels, what is happening to boys and men to cause this and are targeting preventative strategies at male people.
Are you seriously arguing they have this wrong, that there is so little difference in offending rates that this is all a big mistake?
And moving the goal posts again I see. I didn't say they were encouraging women to raise each other up against men. You've added the last two words from the incel playbook. Raising women up is done for women. Not against men.

Alternatively, as it's known as a site for predominantly women and parents so again women it attracts more trolls than 4Chan, Reddit and The Daily Mail comment section.

I am in my fifties and far from a be kind people-pleaser. I am fine with blunt and harsh truths. But there is an unpleasant streak on here. And people primed to find fault with the OP. I am pretty un-offendable and confident these days. But when I was less so in my 20s etc, I would have struggled to have these comments directed at me.

There is gratuitous nastiness at times on here. It is disingenuous to deny it. It’s not a race to the bottom to be as bad as Reddit.

I once happened upon a thread where the poster was being challenged. But it was being done in a fun, humourous, but direct way. The whole tone was helpful, warm but clear. And then I saw the date. It was 2014. Maybe things were different then.

Quite. It’s a skill I guess. To challenge, sometimes passionately, without using snide digs and personal insults.

Are you seriously arguing they have this wrong, that there is so little difference in offending rates that this is all a big mistake?
You know perfectly well that this not what I'm saying and you're the one moving the goal posts. I keep trying to go back to OP original message about whether it's reasonable to lift women up just because women should indiscriminately support other women. You're the one that took the discussion to government departments and MVAWG.

You're exhibiting a perfect example of straw man fallacy by insisting I am arguing with the intention of these agencies when I've written a few times that I didn't disagree with what they were doing, nor disagreed that men commit more serious crime.

It is just not what this thread is about!

This is what we call a fallacy of relative privation.

🙄

But do you not see that you are also falling into the mean girl trap when you assert that women who end up with crap men have only themselves to blame? I don't believe that any woman goes out of her way to find a crap man, which seems to indicate that the men concerned are either adept at hiding their crapiness or only become crappy once they are confronted with the realities of adulting and parenting, by which time it's too late. I think you are also being nastily judgemental.

Men (and women, shock horrot) are totally to blame for their actions and if they are crap they are to blame for that, and if they are crap after the first child why keep on having them

If a person is so bad yet you stay and constantly complain about them, what are people to say ''you have a great one there"? yes I am sure wondering why people stay with a crap partner breaks some ''girl code'' or whatever but seriously, if the signs were ther from the beginning, maybe wake up and take notice is a good suggestion?

If this is judgemental, then it is judgemental

Oh dear, you sound very young and I think you have a lot to learn - even when everything in the garden looks lovely, fate has a nasty way of inconveniently tossing you a curve ball and suddenly, things aren't so lovely after all. And sadly, the choice is no longer ours to make.

Yawn 😴🫩🙄

No shit, OP. Some replies are like written by teenage girls trying to be edgy. It is boring actually. I wouldn't take any comment here personally. You have no idea if the person is an actual idiot or just a malicious bore in real life.

Ooh is it time for the weekly ‘everyone on MN is soooooo mean’ post? Don’t forget the ‘why are non parents on here’ and ‘why are men on here’.

If anyone crosses the line they can be reported/deleted/banned but outside of that, people tend to be more honest on here.

Can you explain why women automatically have to raise each other up?

Is that like a race to the bottom or a Straw Man? Genuine question ,since I've not heard that expression before.

Anyway, I think it's a valid point, because no way would I venture into those places to tell people they are mean, because I know the sort of responses I would get. It's obviously implied that spaces that attract men or just anyone, will most likely be horrendous. But what's to stop Mumsnet being inhabited by Russian bots similar types? People are too cozy on here, like it's a coffee morning with their friends.

It doesn't break any 'girl code'. We are discussing adult women and their relationships, not teens. The only etiquette it breaks is the one that says if you have no understanding of a subject, it's best not to wade in with your judgement. Because if you can't see that bad relationships occur for any other reason than a woman's poor choices, you don't have the understanding to contribute usefully and anything you say will be unhelpful to the person seeking help.

Fallacy of Privation is basically an argument where person A criticises a subject, then person B dismisses their argument as not important because another (usually unrelated) subject is worse.

@LeaderBeei like that expression, thanks for explaining. And that's exactly what I see here a lot. I remember a poster frustrated because her adult DD was stuck behind a crash for 6 hours. It was a fatal incident that shut down a motorway. She made valid points about adequate exits off motorways and how emergencies were dealt with. Plus who wouldn't be stressed off their head stuck 6 hours in a car regardless of what happened. However she got torn to shreds by posters who say she was lucky her daughter was still with her but someone else's child had died.