In thinking we don't actually need Men to diminish, bully, abuse and curtail our rights as women when we seem capable of doing it between ourselves.

[MitsubishiWarrioress]

To be honest, I am fairly subdued on Mumsnet and avoid AIBU. My life philosophy gets me through pretty well without a great deal of confrontation and I mostly achieve what I need and want with major organisations, banks etc with this attitude.

The cheer to fight on MN, (which IS in my opinion, a slice of life, and not just words on a screen (an excuse which seems to be used increasingly to make offensive and inflammatory comments)), seems to be cried almost daily.

The thick vein of Misandry overwhelms and alarms me, and it concerns me that we are raising boys with such negative opinions of their own sex that it is almost inevitable that bad behaviour and treatment of women will follow because, they have such low expectations of themselves within society.

This argument is often used to excuse women making bad choices, and yet is not applicable to men in a lot of instances.

I think there should be far less focus on the feminism aspect of equality and a drive to aspire to greater humanity.

I was bullied consistantly through school, by girls 95% of the time, and I do not hold that this was primarily as a result of male pressure.
The truth is, that some women are not very nice, just as with some men.

I have witnessed posters making quiet comments about something they have done for their men, but avoiding the general site because of the flaming they will get.

So that is 'choice' is it?

Apologising for admitting they are happy with their lot because they will be accused of 'smugness'. I have lost the count of how many times such a post will prompt the [vom] response.

I have nothing against debate, 'cheery' banter, and the passion with which differences of opinions are often aired, but sometimes the vitriolic attacks on fellow women is perhaps just as indicative of the undermining of our own sex as many of the issues in society. Because I presume not many posters have men standing over their shoulders telling them what to type.

I despair. I really do.

You see I'm sympathetic to elephant's POV on the evolution thing.

This whole "men are like this and women are like that" thing, I really hate it. Even if say the majority of women do show a certain trait - I have never seen written anywhere what the majority is. 99%? Or 51% I don't think that men and women are so wildly different.

But then maybe i would say that - I did a BBC quiz thing that someone posted on here about male brain/female brain, and got the same score as the average for the men. My DH was more "female" than me. But neither of us are freaks, surely. I think there is a very wide range of behaviors in both sexes, and a lot of crossover. And that the jury is out as to how much differences are caused by society anyway.

Things like "women have innate curturing skills". But I know loads of women who are rubbish at being stereotypical nurterer, and loads of men who are excellent at it. So where does that leave us?

As for the exams favouring one or the other - how much is project and how much exam now? If it is 50% coursework and 50% exam then surely that is fair? What is it these days (I have no idea).

What interests me, particularly, is the number of threads recently that are exploring the whole issue of feminism. I think, personally, that this can only be a good thing.

I have to take issue with this statement though:

"I think there should be far less focus on the feminism aspect of equality and a drive to aspire to greater humanity"

because I don't see the two as being mutually exclusive. Why can't we aspire to both?

There is a lot of bitchiness on MN. I think it reflects the human condition.

Some people are just not very nice. On MN we are mainly women, ergo most of these bitchy people will be women.

I hate the way some people come on to threads and throw around insults, rather than get involved in the discussion, or proffer help if it's needed. And I have to say, I equally despair when people post like porcamiseria has done, dismissing the OP. This is both patronising and unhelpful.

If people don't want to take part in a debate, then don't post. Why make such fatuous posts?

MW - I'm not sure I understood all of your post, but I think it has raised some really fundamental issues.

Good post!

ISNT beleive it or not I agree with a lot of what you are saying (I too am amle of brain, but I also score v high on tests such as the AQ one that predict asd)

However, I do remember from my psychology days that in females there is differnetial brain development around communicationa reas and men have spatial areas emphasised (I ahvent studied it for 5 years so perhaps out of date); clearly thsi sint univerdal- DS2 is dyspraxic and has the spatial skills of a rapidly melting jelly- but is what research seems to show.

And right now it is the best explamnation we have for the ways things like asd (sometimes thought to be down to a pre birth overdose of testosterone, though only one theoiry of many, and often referred to as extreme maleness) present in females compared to males.

Have a school run to do but if (not sure if I have the time) I can will find a link or two later

Psych / ASD research is of course only best guess from what we know, nobody in science would question that

I really dont understand this thread tbh.

Yes there are sometimes (frequently?) pretty ugly exchanges and attitudes on display here. And yes we are mainly women..... I cant deduce anything from that though, I've seen far far worse on less female-centric forums.

Just for starters, think of all the disgusting Facebook groups that get discussed on here...

Natasha Walter's new book is good on how little good evidence there is for a lot of the alleged differences between male and female brains... Very good too on how Nuts magazine / ladette culture is not really empowering for young women...

Agree the thesis of this thread seems confused...

I'm not sure that there is a 'thick vein of misandry' on MN.

I think that a lot of women on MN post about men/their DPs without first engaging brain, and some posts that were intended to be lighthearted get misinterpreted.

But it's all averages isn't it clarissimo.

So women might have more developed communication areas on average - but what does that actually mean? Are we talking 99% of women or 51% of women? These things always just say "majority" "average".

Also, I read a thing ages ago about how black cab drivers have a huge

I'm a woman because I've got certain sexual organs, other than that, I'm an indvidual and that's how I like be treated. I don't want to be limited by my gender, prejudged or pigeon holed.

I'm a feminist if that means a belief in personal freedom for everyone. I can't see how we can achieve real equality of choice unless it's available to us all.

I think it's a very interesting topic and I think I totally get where you're coming from MW. Great post.

blouseenthusiast I might have to put my money where my mouth is and get a copy of a book about all this! thanks for the recommendation

Yes I will get that book too, as I say am out of touch on the pure psychbit

I think the theory is supposedly teh testosterone eff3ects in the uterus and how much people are exposed to but its a bit of a controverdial one and applies only to some ASD (as does everything we are realising)- the chap who does all that side is Baron-Cohen at teh autism reseach centre (brotehr of sasha) and his stuff is easy to find online, as is the AQ test

I agree with Clarissimo, there is a difference between boys and girls about energy levels, which is not to do with learned behaviour. I think it is hormonal. It is the presence of testosterone that dictates the energy levels. All of us have testosterone at varying levels. It is a bell curve, some girls have more than some boys, but as a whole on the bell curve, boys have more of it and are therefore more energetic.

I don't understand what this thread is meant to be about.

'I think there should be far less focus on the feminism aspect of equality and a drive to aspire to greater humanity.'

Lots of people seem to be agreeing with that comment. Would the OP or anyone else like to explain what it means?

I am interpreting it as meaning that we should want to make society better for everyone, and not just women. I don't think the two things are mutually exclusive. Making life better for women does make the whole of society more harmonious. I am not gay but improvements in rights for gay people has made society far better and made me feel far happier because society feels more balanced and more diverse. So I am not sure why women attempting to receive parity with men should make the world less humane.

I was at school with sacha baron-cohen.

curryfreak, I think my point would be that boys and girls have different emotional needs and yet in general they are being met with the same response, which in a lot of instances, suits girls better. The existance of these sites, agony columns, the predominance of women being likely to seek counselling/therapy, indicates that the talking approach generally suits women.

When my son had emotional problems, he would not talk about it and it manifested itself in highly aggressive behaviour. His school said he was being manipulative and whilst there was an element of that, I couldn't get anyone to agree with me, that for a 9-11 yr old boy to be going to that extent to get attention was a cry for help. There were a number of boys presenting similar behaviour, and from what I am aware, most of them had family issues. I think there is in many, but not all boys a natural physical energy which is the thing that blows under pressure. However this is often translated as being a sign of trouble making, My daughter gets highly emotional when she is under stress, my son gets physically aggressive. IME many boys need a physical channel for that expression of anger which unchecked can become self destructive, or externally desTructive.

Of the children that I am aware of in the village having problems, there is almost a clearly drawn line between how it manifests itself behaviourally in girls and boys. You simply can not treat them the same. (some of this information came to me from an indiscreet social worker)

Ben10..
''I don't uderstand why young girls think poncing about in barely there clothes, getting so drunk you vomit/fall asleep outside/sleep with random guy cos your too drunk to make achoice etc is being a femenist. '' I completely agree.. I wonder if this is what the suffragettes strove for.

Yes there are a number of ideas 'mashed together' ImSo. I'm so but I think that if I could express myself more coherently and succinctly, the interlinking of it all would make more sense.
Absolutely right about the disparity between male and female salaries.. but will equality see more women down mines, as dustmen, in quarries?

Because by degenderising equality, IMO the focus then becomes more about the important issue and can tackle both sides. Why not say 'OK, lets look at it from the other side's point of view'. There is a saying about spending a day in another persons shoes... but I think it has great relevance in problem solving.

If you go to the majority of local playgrounds, the boys will generally be involved in physical activity, where as the girls are mostly sitting on the swings texting and chatting..... I don't know if it is bollocks Elephant but it is never the less there to observe. Is it because girls are keener to be 'good'? Possibly so, they don't get the ''girls will be girls'' attitude in the same way that boys get the reverse.

I have no more time to reply for now. But am finding this interesting.

The active misandry on here is, in my experience as a male poster, only practised by a very, very small minority (who, when they engage with me, take objection to every single thing I say).

I'd say I've felt welcome on here, in general.

But what I have noticed is double standards - not misandry as such, but examples like this:

OP: My DH came home and moaned at me that I hadn't done enough cleaning. He said "What do you do all day?"
Responses on lines of:
What an arse!
How dare he?
Who does he think he is?
Doesn't he know looking after children is a full-time job?
Within 10 posts someone will have posted that story about the man coming home to chaos and the woman saying "I didn't do all that stuff today." You know the one. It was funny the first time. A bit. Maybe.

OP: When I go out and DH is at home with the kids I just get "babysitting." He doesn't do any tidying up. Yes, when I get in they're all in fine fettle, and they've been entertained, but there is washing-up everywhere, he hasn't done X, Y and Z...
Responses on lines of:
What an arse!
How dare he?
What a lazy git!
Why doesn't he pull his weight?

And so on.

I trust you see the problem.

claig, that's just another average though. On average boys have more testosterone than girls (I assume we're talking young children here - might not be a wild new finding for pubescant teens ).

Things like this often seem to be intrepreted to mean that pretty much all girls have less energy than pretty much all boys. What does it actually mean? Is it meaningful enough ie enough of a difference for enough people to mean that we should be treating the sexes so differently? And that girls who want to run around are really unusual, as are boys who like to sit and draw?

I just don't believe that the difference is that marked in small children, I really don't.

My DD is 2 BTW so that is my experience so far.

milly I don't really understand the OP either.

MW when I go somewhere with lots of toddlers, they are all running around just the same.

I think we need to define what we are talking about here - babies, young children, pubescent children, teens, young adults, adults. The older you get the more society has had time to exert an influence on the behaviour of each gender. I don't notice differences in babies or small children, personally. i do notice girls being put in restrictive clothing and boys beign shooed away from the play "make up table" though, and chidren approaching with books and the adult subconsciously swapping the one about fairy sparkles for one about trains, and vice versa...

yes I agree with you, it is a bell curve, with more boys on the right-hand higher end of the curve. But girls also appear on the right-hand end, but in fewer numbers. I'm not a statistician, but my guess is that if you looked at all the boys and girls in the country, then the difference would be quite marked. I think it means that boys and girls do have different behaviours. On the whole boys are generally more aggressive due to the testosterone. A problem can occur if people ignore these differences and expect all children to behave in a similar way. There is a bit of a tendency to think that aggressive or disruptive boys may have mental health issues because they don't fit the expected norm.

See ISNT I haven't seen theya re all teh same however mine (if you follow the baron-Choen) theory will be at the extreme given the asd

I wish we had this debate alst week; just started the sue palmer book 21st century boys and the intro is basically a restate of what I ahve said about evo LOL, will be interesting to find out ehr take (I have a ten year old with a referral for eating disorders so am interested in all that, it being a female thing normally, i/10 sufferers are males IIRC)

Her stats are interesting but cant tyyupe up atm as toddler latched on lo

(ISNT were you at school with his bro to? Fraid in my sad aspie-geek world he's far more celeb than Sacha, though that amrks me out as odd I know)

very odd indeed.

There are studies about exposure to testosterone aren't there? there's even something about finger length indicating nature of exposure in utero, I know nit worked for me but I am only one and haven't seen much elsewhre. I wll have a browse of the Uni research database though when I can see whats on there (book waiitng and small boys needing club penguin access atm)

I honestly do think there are differences, not in terms of potential or value- I want to make that triply clear- just as a boys are more likely to be X Y and Z, I do think it is testosterone based which will go back to evolution, anything we are goes back that far really, the fact we give birth at 9 months and have 2 legs and eyes in the front of our heads.... tisn inevitable

(And now shall curl up with a book that agrees with me and feel intelligent )

I agree Lenin

I've had a few in my time (inevitable I think), and I always look at them and think 'see I klnew you were a prat' (the one swearing at Dh every name going for being unemployed scrounger as I ahd mentioned he ahd depression except he ahd 2 jobs PMSL, and the one saying I was a jealous person as my children were gentically flawed- how quickly can you demonstrate you are an arse with comments like that?)

Thoroughly recommend the N Walter book, ISNT, - critique of the Baron Cohen stuff is very good, also discusses the tax drivers' brains. That bit gets bigger the longer they drive the taxi!