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.

In response to the OP, I was also bullied at school (an all girls school) and have generally held the view that "most" women are not very nice. That view has been reinforced by cliquey mother and baby groups and is currently being doubly reinforced by this website. Women seem to enjoy nothing better than making other women feel really pretty crap. I think I'm in need of another break from the bitch fest tbh.

I agree with ImSoNotTelling that you are mixing too many issues up. You are looking at it too pessimistically. You are extrapolating from some women's negative opinions of men and making it look like none of us care enough about men and that we are all indifferent to their needs.

I think men are different from women. I don't believe that bringing them up differently will change them significantly. You ask
"Why don't men cry for help? Why has education not given them the voice to ask for help?"
I think it's because that's the way men are. Men want to be independent, they will not ask for help because that would be a weakness. They will often not even go to the doctor, even if they know they have something wrong with them. All of this why don't men do things differently won't work, because that's not how they are.

I am not surprised that men have a higher suicide rate in every country on the planet. I am stunned that in China it is the other way round. I think it is the law of nature that men are more likely to commit suicide than women, just as it is more likely that men will take risks and die in high-speed car chases or in other life-threatening risky activities. I think that this is an in-built characteristic that will appear in many more men than women. I think it's also in-built that men will die earlier than women. I think this is nature's way because women are more valuable to nature than men, and men are more expendable.

One of the major reasons for male suicide is because these men feel failures. They feel they have no role or purpose in society. Their status is gone. Many of the men who commit suicide do it when unemployed or after losing their jobs, their homes, their businesses or their families. A sense of purposelessness and failure can lead them to suicide. This is because a purpose, role and status are of prime importance to men.

There is not much that can be done to solve this, apart from providing more jobs and opportunities so that these men can find a status and purpose. But our capitalist system is not going to ever change to provide these opportunities.

The problem is likely to get worse as more and more jobs are shipped abroad. We will eventually see the real effects of this in a huge rise in crime, because this is where many men will find the status that they need when no other opportunities are available to them.

It is not in the interests of the economic system to address these problems. They will only be addressed when the breakdown in society becomes so commonplace that it becomes inescapable and threatens to bring the entire house down.

'This is because a purpose, role and status are of prime importance to men.'

Yes. But I don't agree that's nature. I think it's more to do with nurture. Boys are raised to believe that success in life is dependent on a good job, a nice house, a nice car, a nice wife, nice kids and so on. If they don't get all that they feel like failures. Yes, men may be naturally more competitive than women (in some ways but not all) but I don't think the expression of that competitiveness in fiscal success is in any way genetic.

Maybe there will be a big crime wave. Maybe there will be a dramatic increase in the male suicide rate. Neither is good.

Many people believe it is nurture, but I think it is more to do with nature. Human beings are creatures of nature just like lions. Lions instinctively have to compete and fight for their place in the pride. With lions it is nature, not nurture. As humans our base instincts are animalistic, which is where our territorial instinct derives from. I think that just as lions are driven to compete for status, so are males. Which is why there is a greater emphasis on winners and losers in men's view of each other. I think there is some truth in the phrase "redundant male", a term which we don't really apply to women. I think that men are driven to create some sort of success or status in order to overcome this potential redundancy.

I think it is only a very small percentage of men who will commit suicide. The aggressive impulse in men will mean that the majority will choose crime and society as a whole will suffer.

There is a though provoking article in the Atlantic magazine about how the recession is causing family break up and leaving an indelible mark on a generation in the USA.

How a New Jobless Era Will Transform America.

It is quite a long article (4 pages) but the impact of tis recession is being played out largely through the lives of white men and quotes research by a female sociologist in the 1930s Depression.

"In her classic sociology of the Depression, The Unemployed Man and His Family, Mirra Komarovsky vividly describes how joblessness strained?and in many cases fundamentally altered?family relationships in the 1930s. During 1935 and 1936, Komarovsky and her research team interviewed the members of 59 white middle-class families in which the husband and father had been out of work for at least a year. Her research revealed deep psychological wounds. ?It is awful to be old and discarded at 40,? said one father. ?A man is not a man without work.? Another said plainly, ?During the depression I lost something. Maybe you call it self-respect, but in losing it I also lost the respect of my children, and I am afraid I am losing my wife.? Noted one woman of her husband, ?I still love him, but he doesn?t seem as ?big? a man.?"

Another piece of research also quoted says: " According to W. Bradford Wilcox, the director of the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia, the gender imbalance of the job losses in this recession is particularly noteworthy, and?when combined with the depth and duration of the jobs crisis?poses ?a profound challenge to marriage,? especially in lower-income communities. It may sound harsh, but in general, he says, ?if men can?t make a contribution financially, they don?t have much to offer.? Two-thirds of all divorces are legally initiated by women. Wilcox believes that over the next few years, we may see a long wave of divorces, washing no small number of discarded and dispirited men back into single adulthood."

The article also talks about domestic violence, the amount of housework men do and crime rates and the repurcussions on family. One of the best things I have read on the subject. It is not a 'men have a hard life, poor things' article but a statement of some pretty grim facts.

We'll also see a lot of men slaughtering their families because of job losses

Then aurely this is a great opportunity to move to alter our society so that men are able to exercise different work/life balances - many men would love the opportunity to spend more time at home with their children and if our working cultures enabled them to do so then maybe if they lose their jobs they will not feel so "redundant" - as the big problem is an outdated idea of men as "breadwinners" - extending their role to "family" as well would be positive for everyone surely.

Of course it wouldn't help the driven people for whom their work is their life, and who seem to be the ones who take really drastic action when things fall apart - but these people are mentally ill surely. The suicides and the people junglist is talking about.

But for your bog standard man in a normal job who is caring and pleasant it might be a huge help.

It would also help with this general perceived malaise that men don't know what their role is any more, where women are starting to earn reasonable money. If we can move towards a society where people are in partnerships where they can play to their strengths, and are allowed to do so, then surely we will be a happier society all round.

MW I think maybe it would be helpful if you picked one of your ideas and expored that, and then moved onto another, and then looked at whether they are linked, and so on. It would help clarify what we are looking at here and might help you to really draw your ideas together IYSWIM.

interesting article ABetaDad about how the economic crisis will transform American society.

"if men can?t make a contribution financially, they don?t have much to offer.?

this is harsh, but I think it is essentially true. I think it is a natural law tied up with the fact that males have less purpose than females in nature, and that males have to create their purpose. It is brutal but nature is often brutal.

As times get tougher and crime starts to rise, rights and freedoms will start to vanish. The credit bubble was deliberate with all of the taps turned full on, the subsequent turning off was inevitable. There are certain political ideologies that want exactly this, whose goals include destruction of the family and destruction of society in order to effect a transformation of society. The majority of people will suffer tremendously, but there will be gainers. Cui bono?

I've had both. New man husband and traditional husband (same guy of course!) They both come with problems. Benefits too of course but we are on problems here I think?

Bloody annoying to be advised by your new man husband what to do with a baby and how to feed it, I must say. In my experience.

I really am struggling for time to post today, so a quick response..

I think the link between my ideas is important if confusing ISNT, although yes maybe each issue could be discussed individually....

There is no denying the social issues that male aggression causes, but it would seem, given it's rise that the wrong solutions are being applied. I strongly believe that this is due to a lack of complete understanding as to why men respond aggressively when unhappy. And are more likely to successfully commit suicide.

(( There are many reports as to why it is recognised that particularly young womens suicide attempts are ''cries for help

''Attempted suicide
Suicide is rare under the age of 14, because young children lack the ability or understanding to act it out. Older children are much more likely to consider suicide impulsively. The Royal College of Psychiatrists has information especially for young people about suicide.

Younger women are more likely to resort to deliberate self-harm and attempted suicide, rather than suicide itself. At least 140,000 people in England and Wales attempt suicide every year, and this number is rising dramatically, particularly among the young.

This isn't failed suicide but rather a 'cry for help', and it's most common among teenage girls. It's a mistake not to take it seriously. Many repeatedly attempt suicide and about one in 100 will die by suicide within a year of an attempt, a suicide risk approximately 100 times that of the general population.'')

It is a known fact that imprisonment is highly likely to result in men reoffending.

It seems glaringly obvious to me that the whole system of dealing with the issues behind male emotional and physical violence is failing and that unless this is recognised and the whole system is changed, it won't improve notably. So yes I am pessimistic about it. The malaise is being given the wrong medicine and we still don't know why it isn't getting substantially better.. I actually feel so strongly about it I could swear.

I am not JUSTIFYING the behaviour over and above that of women but asking why it is so very easy to note that women behave in a certain way because of how they are treated but the same acknowledgement isn't made of men.

Saying that the socio economic climate will result in a rise of men killing their familes and then watching it happen is abhorrent. Address the issues that lead to men carrying out these crimes. Emotional impotence as a result of feeling that you have no purposeful role in society is not going to make for well balanced males. Have a system in place that caters for these issues and maybe then there will be a substancial reduction in crime. And yes, geared specifically towards male emotional needs.

I like abetadad's post. No it is not saying 'poor men' it is saying here is a problem, now how do we solve it.

And claig I completely disagree that it is predominantly nature. Having Transactional Analysis doesn't make me an expert but the indications that whilst the inherent nature is there, the way it is nurtured has an enormous impact on a persons state of mind. The two are so wrapped up in each other IMO that there is little basis for a nature versus nurture argument.

I also COMPLETELY agree with you on the human condition being still essentially animalistic, but if I offer my opinions about that we will have another strand.....

"if men can?t make a contribution financially, they don?t have much to offer.?

Just have to say I totally disagree with this.

We are not animals, although of course we follow certain instincts.

What about learning, arts, writing, reading, contributing to family life, caring for family members, experimentation, inventing, mechanics, gardening, running groups, attending groups, sharing experiences etc.

I mean that statement is just so ridiculous. Men don;t all off themselves the moment they retire and crumble into a heap. OK some do, but the majority find useful things to do in terms of all the things mentioned above and many many more.

Surely the aim is to elevate ourselves above our base instincts and apply ourselves to developing a decent society where individuals are encouraged and able to explore all the things that interest them.

This isn't the same as past societies. We don't go born, grow, work all the time, die. Not in this part of the world anyway. There is no need for men or women to be like this any more. We can free ourselves and in doing so become better and happier.

The v rich and the unemployed seem to manage to get along without feeling "redundant" - in the absence of paid work they simply find something else to do. Whether others approve of the things they do is beside the point. The point is they do it.

We are viewing our society in too narrow a way.

But there is a difference between retiring. where you have been valued and made a positive contribution and being made redundant surely? There is not the same feeling of rejection and undermined self worth.

I am not sure if the unemployed fill their lives with things to do.... I thought the reverse was the case.

MW thank you for that post. I can see you disagree with the stuff about anorexia and self harm and are using attempted suicide to show it but let's leave that for now.

I think I understand what you are saying. So men have problems, and for some reason when men have problems rather than seeking help and sorting it out, they do things which are extremely damaging to themselves, their families and society.

You are wondering why that is and what can be done to change it.

Is that right?

Then you are wondering if our current justice system is wrong, as so many people reoffend.
And why on this site, women are given so much more leeway than men with their behaviour.

yes?

For the first time in this thread I agree with MitsubishiWarrioress. It is a matter of worth and value. I agree that "financial contribution" is too restrictive, but I think it comes down to status again. On the whole men will seek status, so they are likely to go for jobs and roles that provide status, they don't necessarily have to have money attached to them.

I think MW is right that men are essentially looking for jobs that make them feel valued and make them feel that they have made a positive contribution. I disgaree with ImSoNotTelling's quote
"whether others approve of the things they do is beside the point".
I think it is precisely approval, respect and status that they are seeking in order to demonstrate their purpose.

In our current society things like caring for the family don't provide that status and therefore are not as highly valued by men. Also I think with men there is probably an element of competition needed in order to demonstrate how successful they are. They want to compete with other males and win, just like male animals in nature have to. Caring for the family doesn't allow them to compete against other men.

thinking about it more, that's probably why once a profession becomes female dominated, men vacate it. There was a time when men were secretaries, but when women entered that arena, men vacated it. I think the underlying reason is that men don't want to compete with women, they want to compete with men, in order to demonstrate that they are better than other men. I think this is an animal drive.

""whether others approve of the things they do is beside the point".
I think it is precisely approval, respect and status that they are seeking in order to demonstrate their purpose."

Sorry i didn't put that very well.

I meant that for eg v rich people spending their time hunting shooting and fishing, and whatever they get up to to pass the days, is disapproved of by many people who see them as the idle rich, but the idle rich don't care.

While at the other end of the scale people might indulge in going to the pub, gambling, petty crime, stuff like that to keep them occupied. Again, society may not approve.

I meant that people will usually find things to occupy themselves, whether society approves of the things they do with their time is beside the point. Of course their peers will approve as they are doing the same thing so that's fine IYSWIM.

So I totally disagree that paid employment is the be all and end all for men, and that without it they are worthless and redundant.

yes sorry I misunderstood your original point

I think paid employment is the safe way that society can control men. The dangers to society of men without work are enormous. Throughout history male energy had to be harnessed by putting men in armies etc. in order to prevent unemployed men from destroying society. Without useful employment, many men will find all the status that they need in being gangsters or bank robbers etc.

I've not thought of it that way. How interesting. Not true of all men though. But interesting.

What about all these ancient greek type societies where there were loads of people with no "work" as it was all being done by slaves?

or is it that societies can sustain a few people doing sod all and spending their time runimating on the issues of the day, as long as the majority are being kept very busy?

Or is it that if everyone has enough wealth, society has fewer problems?

Or is it a fundamental problem with the way capitalist societies are structured? I am inclined to go along with this one.

I really can't agree that all men are intrinsically competitive, possibly violent, needing to be breadwinners to give them a reason to exist. It comes back to this "men are like this and women are like that" stuff. Even if the majority of men are like that, my experience tells me it's not a huge majority, and many women exhibit extreme competitiveness.

We need to treat people as people, as groups of individuals. And address any problems from that angle. because as MW has been saying, none of this exists in isolation. If there is a problem with men in a certain community, then the whole community needs to be looked at, as none of this stuff happens in isolation.

*ruminating I'm not sure what runimating involves!

Did everyone get as well my point about things not happening in isolation

Was posting quickly between dishing up sunday lunch for mum's birthday, and going out!

And my dad played with the baby, while DH prepared dessert. They didn't appear to have a competitive meltdown at all, nor did they resort to fisticuffs

I think introducing "all those greek type societies" is a bit strange. Is that the only system you can think of? There were quite a lot of wars and sexual decadence in ancient times I think? My memory is as vague as yours on all these Greek type societies, plainly