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.

The highest status in Ancient Greece was given to the philosophers, artists, poets etc. and therefore men competed to gain that status. Trade and commerce was considered lower level, similar to how our aristocracy left trade to the merchant classes.

I think if everyone has enough wealth then society has fewest problems. This is why I think that true competitive capitalism, together with a welfare type framework, as opposed to monopolistic capitalism allows people to slowly break out of poverty. I think that many alternative systems are a trick on the public, and their aim is to keep the masses in poverty.

I think we need to understand the real natures and drives of human beings, and a lot of that derives from underlying animal instincts. Utopias which think that we are all the same are an abstract human invention to try to change nature.

I think that the underlying competitive drive in men is biological. In nature the majority of male animals compete to attract females. Men are not so different. That's probably why men are not interested in competing against women. They are driven to compete for women against men.

Absolutely get your point about things not happening in isolation and whilst we see things fro different angles slightly, I agree with your last post, especially the last paragraph. I admire your way of summing up a point ISNT. . I ought to limit my posts with a word count.

I am thinking of doing an OU course in child behaviour.....the poor tutors...
I think many men have a great need to be engaged in activity. My limited experience of boys/men being bored is that there energy quickly becomes negative if not occupied. Which is OK if they are naturally self motivating, but if they don't have that natural ability, (like my son) it can quickly escalate in to a cycle of emotional and actual destruction.
Personally I don't get or understand the concept of boredom.

With reference to my OP. I think I can accept that some people, and women as on here feel OK with being ''bitchy'' with each other. Maybe that stems from the female cycle of competitiveness, but I have to say I will always step away from it and whilst accepting it exists, do not understand the need for it. That popped up again because there is a thread about how you would like mumsnet to be and there were other mentions from posters about not liking that quality on here.

I have found engaging on this thread a very positive experience though and have probably expressed my opinions confidently in a way I have struggled to before, and have been that no one has resorted to some of the banter that AIBU can be known before......

It has been an odd but engaging thread.

Looking back on the various strands it seems to me that the message is that women 'bitch' and compete on a very basic level about their physical attractiveness, their child bearing and child rearing ability.

Meanwhile, men preen and compete at the basic level on the basis of their physical strength, their ability to sire children and provide (through their ability to earn) to bring them up.

Interesting that in times of economic stress women value men more who bring in money and men who lose their job also seem to lose their status and their opportunity to sire children. Humans still are animals really.

If there were more men on MN, perhaps there might be more preening. .

That has been said about me in person Abetadad!
And your last post is enormously insightful into the differing nature of the gender issues and to me could be key to addressing the problems that arise and how to reduce the personal and social damage that is done by them.

probonbon this is all new to me so my ideas are a bit random - my background is science and I am happy to admit that my knowledge of different societies and history is appalling. I was just thinking about the chaps swanning around in white doing thinking rather than fighting and trying to work out how that fitted in. It probably was a bit

But I am still sure that many men have more to them than their base instinctive desires. In fact I know it. If not then we've got really big problems.

It has been a good thread MW I am glad that you have got something out of it. I have too but as usual on these threads I reaise I still have a lot to think about before I really know what I make of it all!

Er, what ABetaDad? You read this whole wide-ranging and fascinating thread, and magically came up with a summary that concludes everything you already assumed about men and women's innate "nature"? (Apologies if I have jumped the gun and you were instead providing a digest of that article, or some other text.)

I agree with you MW, that some men cause a huge variety of problems to society, and that the current system isn't working. I am not sure that any known system has ever actually worked, in the sense of practically eliminating crime.

Where I disagree is in your perception that women, possibly due to our bitchy/nastiness, are at the root of these problems. I would ask along with ISNT, why not think about what makes these "bitchy" women the way we are? Maybe their dads hurt them? Maybe they were bullied? I don't understand why men get a (not-literal) get out of jail free card, because bad things happened to them. Bad things happen to lots of children and adults - they don't all go on to commit crime, abuse their partners or commit suicide. People say "abusers go on to abuse", but this is easily disproved when you think that the vast majority of victims of child abuse are girls, but men form the vast majority of abusers. Also, there are many men who have had difficult or horrendous upbringings and yet go on to be kind, compassionate, decent people.

Another thing to consider is that if society doesn't currently cope well with men's problems, that is a wonder given that this society has been built by (white wealthy) men to meet their needs. The schools kids go to, the houses we live in, the universities that educate our academics, the government and councils who make decisions that affect us, the films we watch and the games we play, the justice system and the prison situation. All have been devised, constructed and run by men, for men. Obviously there are women in all these areas now, but the infrastructure we are all living in is man-made. Women's problems, on the other hand, have been consistently ignored and downplayed. All I can say is write to some or all of the 84% of MPs who are men, maybe they can help.

spot on OP.
There are some regulars here who pitch in with nastyish stuff as a matter of course and seem to get patted on the back for it every time

If you think people are being nasty and personal, why not complain to MN? Posts are often removed, because unlike many talkboards it's well moderated and personal attacks are not allowed.

Could jasper or MW give me an example of the type of nastyish stuff? I don't want actual posts, but paraphrase perhaps.

Is "You sound like a silly woman" nastyish? Is "Your husband cheated on you, what a dickhead!" nastyish?

In expressing a concern that some of the issues with men can be attributed to deep emotional issues, I am NOT denying that the same situation exists for some women. But it seems to me that it is almost accepted that this is the case where with men, it sometimes comes across that it is simple their inherent nature that makes them that way.

In saying I understand why certain men in my life behaved the way they did, I am not justifying it. Being sexually abused was wrong. But that does not stop me from seeing that maybe they themselves had been given mixed messages that meant their sense of right and wrong was deeply disturbed.

I don't hate women. At all. and am a little sad that because I recognise that maybe there is another way to solve the issues that arise with men, I must therefore hate women.

I have no statistical evidence as such, but my life experience has shown me that men bottle up and repress far more than women do, and the damage that that does to anyone can be catastrophic. Finding a way to let boys/ men positively release those feelings might be a key to reducing fucked up men who then go on to, in turn, cause so much damage for society.

Examples of the type of nastyness Elephants.... It is not particularly the views that are expressed, I am extremely glad that there are very diverse views, but often they are expressed in a very personal attacking manner. Maybe people type without thinking and sure we can all do that, but it's prevalence sometimes seems to indicate that it is acceptable somehow and I disagree. I might be out of step but I see it as a seed that will just grow the more people think it is OK to express themselves by being offensive.

I think you can have a lively, multi opinionated debate without resorting to 'bitchyness', and to a certain extent, IMO if you do, you have lost the argument. As I mentioned before, I know it is not just me because on the how you would customise MN thread, other people commented on it. And I do know of posters who avoid the general boards because of it.
I am one, although I do flit from time to time.
There are sadly a number of posters that I avoid individually because I find their attitudes distasteful. I am sure they don't miss me though.

That society is a rich spectrum of personalities and ideas is fabulous, but there are aspects of it that are far from ideal and I think we are all beholden to question our own behaviours to prevent the spiralling that can happen once a touch of rot has set in.

And the thing is, I am overwhelmingly optimistic. I think humanity is outstanding and has the capability and potential to do the most mind blowing things. But the people I am magnetised towards overall share these thoughts in some way.

I guess I am a humanist and not a feminist though..and I am OK with that.

Elephants, there's a thread in the childbirth section, started by a young mum to be, 9 days overdue, worrying because she's just found out her partner won't be able to stay with her after she's had the baby, if it's not visiting hours.

Some of things said to her were pretty nastyish, IMO. It reads like an AIBU thread tbh.

In the main though, like MW has said, MN can be incredibly supportive and a wondeful place. I've mostly had the latter experiences and the tamoxifen thread in particular is just incredible.

Thanks for replying about the nastyness, MW and wubblybubbly. I checked out that thread and I see what you mean - sometimes the balance of opinion tips against the OP or another poster, and it can seem like bullying behaviour. Often it's the fast-moving threads that end up like this, so what looks like a massive series of women taking turns to respond negatively to the OP, is actually lots of people responding simultaneously. Sometimes it seems that the OP is trying to wind up the posters, often by refusing to respond to legitimate questions, or only responding to people who agree with them. Obviously we should all be nice at all times, but just as conversations in families will sometimes get irritable, the same thing happens here. I certainly DON'T think that any of this can reasonably be compared to "bullying, abusing, diminishing and curtailing [women's] rights" as your OP claims, though, MW. The former is arguing, the latter is damaging another person and denying them their human rights. Big difference.

Claig, WRT "They want to compete with other males and win" - yes but that's because men are automatically assumed to be superior as a group to women. That's why you et sports reporters saying things like "well, now a woman has won the world darts contest [or whatever] where's the glory in men bothering to play any more. It's not just that men value things, and women value different things. Men as a group place value in things that are exclusive to them. As someone said here, or possibly on another thread, this is why professions like teaching, secretarial work, librarians, academia, social work etc, although all very important, have become devalued as more women enter the job. It's not a coincidence that "women's work" is some of the lowest paid work there is.

"I doubt the fight for career equality will generate many women into feeling compelled to move into fields that are dangerous, unglamorous or endanger their health." (MW) Patriarchy however does have this result - it's called prostitution.

Sorry for the crap spelling/punctuation.

"In expressing a concern that some of the issues with men can be attributed to deep emotional issues, I am NOT denying that the same situation exists for some women. But it seems to me that it is almost accepted that this is the case where with men, it sometimes comes across that it is simple their inherent nature that makes them that way."

• In fact MW I see the exact opposite. Time after time when a man does something awful like killing his kids, it is blamed on his wife. In a case in the news today, his actions are attributed to the fact that his wife - they were separated - was doing internet dating. Never mind that he is a killer and she is just going about her business.

I don't see anyone blaming the man's wife for the death of the children. Yes, her alleged internet dating may have been a motive but that does not in any way imply blame.

ElephantsAndMiasmas, you raise some very good points which I think are right
"Men as a group place value in things that are exclusive to them" and that men
"want to compete with other males and win" - yes but that's because men are automatically assumed to be superior as a group to women".

I think this is right. I think the interesting question is why is this so? I am not fully convinced that it is to do with nurture, the way that we bring men up. I think it has more to do with how nature forms men. Men start off as female in the womb and only later develop male characteristics. Men are born of women and owe their very existence to their mothers. At a young age they begin to realise that they are different from their mothers and that they are not female. I think that possibly subconsciously the question then arises "what are they?" and the answer is not female. I think that men essentially subconsciously, by a process of nature rather than nurture, construct their role and purpose and masculinity, and it is constructed in opposition to the feminine. They essentially distinguish themselves from the feminine by developing what become known as masculine qualities e.g. strength, aggression, speed, power, force etc. They assign these qualities to masculinity and value them as goals to be aimed at in order to construct their male identity and to differentiate themselves from women. They admire what they consider to be female qualities such as beauty and grace, but they don't consider these as qualities of their own. They try to be superior in what they think are male qualities, because that is the identity that they have constructed. That is why so much is invested in these qualities, otherwise they cannot differentiate themselves from the female.

That is why they value things that are exclusive to men, precisely because these things are not female, and therefore validate their role and purpose as men. That is why they don't want to compete against women, because they run the risk of losing and that will invalidate their male identity. If they lose they fear they will be shown up as not being masculine. The male darts player doesn't want to play a woman because he runs the risk of losing. There is no glory in winning, because he feels he has to, otherwise his masculinity is diminished, but there will be humiliation if he loses, because he will then be shown up as not being masculine enough. It is the same when men vacate professions which start to become female. The males cannot demonstrate their masculinity if they compete against women. They can only demonstrate the extent of their masculine qualities by competing against other men.

I think that nature is at the heart of all this behaviour. Just as in nature, where male animals compete to attract females, men are also driven to compete against each other and to gain status in order to be noticed by women. I think that the reason that all this competition for women's favour happens in nature is that things really revolve around the female. The female is more valuable to nature than the male. The male has less purpose and needs therefore to create and demonstrate a purpose. I think the fact that males have less purpose is shown by their higher infant mortality and their propensity to die in risky situations and to die at an earlier age. I think the real reason that men don't want to shoot female enemy soldiers in a war or to see the guts of female comrades lying on a battlefield is that nature values women higher than men, mens' guts have a lesser value and men are more expendable. The extreme demonstration of the difference in the value that nature places on the male and female is shown in the praying mantis who eats her mate after copulation.

Men do this, men do that...

I'm a man. I work in childcare. I've worked with women for a decade or 2. I'm far from straight. I'm a tranny

All these description of men seem not to reflect what I am and how I behave at all.

I think you've got a very valid point TiggyD. The thing that gets my goat is being pigeonholed as a certain type of person on no other basis than I've got a womb. I think it's only fair that I judge everyone, including men, on their actions rather than what's in their knickers!

Strangely though, the most impressionable age of any human is said to be 0-5, and for the vast majority of us, that care is performed by women.

This is an observation, not a source of blame or criticism. This dominance of female nurturing continues generally until at least junior school, as I believe, forgive me if I am wrong TiggyD, that the biggest percentage of nursery care/ nannying/ child minding/ primary school teaching is done by women.

Maybe we all need re-educating on a huge scale to achieve equality that doesn't result in a swing of the pendulum to another form of discrimination.

I spent a huge amount of my very early years being left to my own devices while my Mother worked and my Father set up a business.

I think we just need to treat people as individuals rather than clumping them together in crude groups. I'm not a man, not a thirty-something, not a southerner, not middle classed. I'm me.

But I still don't see this.

"Strangely though, the most impressionable age of any human is said to be 0-5, and for the vast majority of us, that care is performed by women."

This totally devalues the efforts of my DH and all the men like him though. He works shifts, when he is not at work he changes nappies, plays, does painting, stories. He picks them up when they fall, showers them with love an affection. But he is not "nurturing" because he is a bloke? And I am, because i am a woman and here on mat leave, even though I am much less patient than him?

I hope that our children see us as equal, that if they get stung by a wasp either mummy or daddy will be able to kiss them better. So far it seems to be that way.

Men are not all distant neanderthals who are only interested in competing. I know some men like that. I know some women like that.

If we try to address the "problems of men" by assuming that they are all testosterone fuelled adrenaline junkies, who just want to shag as many women as they can and then fuck off, we're a. doing a great many men a huge disservice and b. going to fail all of the men who are not like that. And loads of men aren't like that.

You're right about not all men want to shag loads of women Imsonottelling. I tried it once and it was kind of gross. Unpleasantly slurpy.