At least three women have been murdered by men this week in the U.K.

[HoldingTheDoor]

There's also been an attempted murder of another woman and three children.

I am so fucking tired of reading about male violence against women and children.

Johanita Dogbey www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-65483270

Suzanne Henry www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-stoke-staffordshire-65491816

Maya Devi www.essexlive.news/news/essex-news/elderly-woman-found-dead-elm-8414418

Attempted murder of a woman and three children, currently unnamed www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cw5kpkpwylpo

I may have missed another victim . Apologies if so but I'm scared to look for fear that I'll read of another.

I am beyond done with this shit. I don't even have anything meaningful to say. I'm just way past disgusted.

People/Men just can't stop He-railing feminist threads can they? Even if it's about murdered women , perhaps especially when it's about murdered and abused women. I have no time for this shit. I wonder if they call up MND charities and ask why they apparently don't give a fuck about cancer or call the Cats Protection League and ask why they aren't doing more about the plight of dogs? They're always so quick to jump on threads about violence against women yet so slow to start their own threads about the murdered men that they're seemingly so concerned about.

I take my hat off to those of you who have the patience to argue with this misogynistic bullshit but I have none whatsoever. Especially after seeing the disgusting deleted comment earlier. I don't think they're really interested in learning anything. All they want to do is deflect from the very real problem of violence committed by men against women and children. I'm just choosing to ignore their sealioning, He-Railing attention seeking crap.

I remember reading that female perpetrated DV has risen at double the rate of men's in the last decade. However, that could theoretically mean that women have gone from something like 2000-4000 cases whilst men have gone from 15m-20m.

Obviously completely arbitrary made up figures just to make my point.

I suspect your numbers are probably in the right ballpark.

And RIP to Hayley Burke www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-65548121

And Georgina Dowey www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-65541999

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-65456183

Also to the 22 unknown women who were murdered in Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands. Interpol are trying to identify the victims with the help of the public. Hopefully we can one day give them the dignity of a name and find their murderers.

I think liking cats more than dogs is fine, but when it comes to humans I just don't understand the type of person that says things like "as a white person I prefer to focus on the issues faced by white people" and then tells POC to 'stop merailing' when they get exasperated.

Same with those who only want to only focus on one sex. How can you ever achieve gender equality if you don't look at both genders? Well, presuming that gender equality works both ways as it should.

hmm you say you're 'frequently frustrated with feminists', I believe you

I think your communication skills may not be quite as good as you think they are as the reason it's hard to respond to your 'points' is you only really make one. which I have already agreed with and the 'discussion' you want or seem to want to have isn't actually the conversation we were having but here goes

" It's easy to point to the common factor of men being violent. However, can we ask that Jewish men take collective responsibility for the holocaust? "

No this isn't right, it isn't even wrong.

"Can we ask that black men share responsibility for police violence against BME males?"

No this isn't right, it isn't even wrong.

"What about gay men and homophobic violence?"

No this isn't right, it isn't even wrong.

" It's all getting a bit too close to victim blaming for me at this stage (and I say that as somebody who isn't really fond of the term tbh)."

you appear to be arguing with yourself quite adequately did you honestly want us to join in?

"If we start from the accepted premise of men committing most violent acts, we still have to reconcile the fact that things like religion/political ideology/etc are generally far greater catalysts for violence. "

A greater catalyst than what precisely? again your point may well be crystal clear in your head but you aren't actually saying anything.

"Nobody has yet committed a genocide of women in the same way as there have for Jews, falun gong, and many other groups."

This is not right, it isn't even wrong.

"However, feminism often tries to tackle the issue of male violence without taking any of these issues into account,"

Many conversations do not include explicit declarations that genocide is bad, that does not mean that anyone talking doesn't think genocide is bad. It just means that that isn't the topic currently under discussion.

"which for me actually means it serves as more of a hindrance than a help in some cases."

This, as written, is meaningless. Who or what is it you imagine is being hindered and can you explain why you think that?

"And on a slightly more personal note I also just hate this victim mentality thing tbh."

As a person who hates hearing about victims of domestic violence and is often frustrated by feminists / women. I would recommend you find other corners of the internet to play in. You have a great many options to chose from.

"Men make up something like 3/4 of homicide victims but you rarely ever hear them saying things like they 'can barely watch the news'."

OK would you like thanks? Praise? You sound like Professor Higgins "why can't a woman be more like a man!"

"Of course, when somebody points out that men are actually by far the greatest victims of violence then the response is usually "oh, but who's perpetrating the violence?"

Why do you feel that you need to point this out to women/feminists is it that you believe they are unaware?

"The answer to that is....well, not the same men that are on the receiving end."

That is certainly true in some but not all cases. Sometimes perfectly lovely boys and young men are spontaneously attacked without warning. This is not a conversation about that. Just like it isn't a conversation about house prices, or cancer.

"That's the problem - you can lump all men together into some homegenous group"

I have already explicitly conceded your NAMALT point, unless you have another point your work here is done.

"but you can't simultaneously conflate victim and perpetrator without employing some weird manner of victim blaming whereby the gay male becomes collectively responsible for the violence being visited on his person."

more words which say not all men are like that - OK

OK, you've at least skim read the words.

So when feminists start these dramatic threads and shout from the rooftops that men should 'do something' about male violence, what does the non aggressive gay man do about the homophobic thug? What does a Sikh male do about National Front skinhead types? It's not a statement about NAMALT. It's a question. Are these men in the examples still collectively responsible for the hate directed at them?

"That's the problem - you can lump all men together into some homegenous group"

This is the opposite of what "analysing risk" is. I do feel like you're arguing against something you don't understand, or pretend not to understand.

what does the non aggressive gay man do about the homophobic thug? What does a Sikh male do about National Front skinhead types?

If you google "allyship" you may find that a good starting point. There are lots of training videos out there about what to do in escalating situations.

"and shout from the rooftops that men should 'do something'"

shout from the rooftops? really dude it's like half a dozen women having a chat in the quietest corner of mumsnet. Feel free to go back to ignoring us it really isn't hard to do.

#1. Women are responsible for what men do.

#3. Women speaking for themselves are exclusionary and selfish.

#5. Women and Feminism must be useful to men or they are worthless.

#11. Whatever women suffer from, it is worse when it happens to men.

#12. Women’s ability to recognize male behavior patterns is misandry.

#15. Men are the default human. Women are strange subhuman others.

It's not exactly a PhD level thesis is it though. 😂

It's the same as all these types of threads. Cherry picking of the very worst examples to be found (which you will find in a society numbering tens of millions of individuals) and then dramatic hand wringing statements about 'a constant barrage of hatred and violence against women and children'.

When in reality you're approximately four times more likely to choke to death on your dinner. But 'a constant barrage of new potatoes' doesn't sound quite as threatening.

Not that the individuals cases aren't genuinely harrowing but if my sister got murdered by some infinitely unlikely turn of events I'd probably look pretty dimly on somebody using the story to kick up a self indulgent drama on mumsnet tbh. I just don't think there's any need for it. It's trying to use a small proportion of violent criminal acts to create an issue that just doesn't exist.

OK, you've at least skim read the words.

Implies women are less intellectually involved in the conversation that they weren't interested in having in the first place

So when feminists start these dramatic threads and shout from the rooftops that men should 'do something' about male violence,

Uses lots of words that boil down to women are hysterical (yawn, give us a new one that ones a few thousand years out of date)

what does the non aggressive gay man do about the homophobic thug? What does a Sikh male do about National Front skinhead types?

Throw some random hypothetical senarios in as if they are a gotcha

It's not a statement about NAMALT. It's a question. Are these men in the examples still collectively responsible for the hate directed at them?

Demand answers to random questions in an attempt to detail the thread because you must be allowed to have your point listened to even if its not relvant

Well done, you've filled my bingo card at least tonight 🙄

I do wish the police would stop saying 'it's an isolated incident'. No it isn't. Two or three a week is not isolated, it's endemic.

And 'no further risk to the community' is also rubbish. It's happening to another woman in another house in another ordinary street before they've even taken down their crime scene tape.

It's not the police' fault. I recognise that, but in the UK today, the best way a woman can protect herself is to stay single. How sad is that?

It kind of is an isolated incident when you look at it in perspective, though. Thirty something people choke to death on their food a month and nobody is saying it's endemic. Without the media we'd almost certainly be completely oblivious.

In the Rosie Frankish case, Little had 17 previous convictions for 34 offenses, some involving violence. Yet the judge gave him a slap on the wrist, and accepted he felt remorse.

I'm not sure women's lives matter at all.

A constant barrage of new potatoes doesn't sound as threatening or significant or important because it isn't any of these things. It's sad, I'll give you that...

You seem to have lost sight of the fact that we're talking about men murdering women.

What could possibly cause you to equate an epidemic of murderous violence against members of a specific section of society by members of another section of society with self-inflicted death by choking?

What possible comparison could there be between the two?

Just to remind you, murder is a crime.

Covid was an epidemic. Not something that kills around 100 people a year.

Jesus Christ this breaks my heart and scares me!😭

It scares me when people try and whip others into a frenzy using factual hyperbole. Crimes against a small proportion of the population become 'an epidemic' and 'a constant barrage of hatred and violence', just like some people believe in the 'hordes of refugees storming our shores' etc.

Men may be the protected group who it's socially acceptable to hate right now but before that it was Jews, black people, homosexuals, etc. Always fuelled by mistruths and exaggeration.

Whether or not it is rare is beside the point. It happens. This week a woman threw her baby over a balcony. Kids are vulnerable to women. Women are vulnerable to men. I do not feel complicit in murder for being a woman. Men should not feel complicit for femicide for being men, bless they are the perpetrators.

Men are violent to women, they are violent to each other, they are violent to themselves. Male violence is a problem. This is not just for men to solve. Many violent men had terrible upbringings. There is a direct correlation. It’s the uncomfortable truth that incompetent mothers play a part in that. Whether they are directly responsible by inflicting violence or withdrawing affection or indirectly, for instance for failing to separate said son from a bad father or partner.

What we can be sure of is that a higher percentage of men will respond violently in stressful or negative situations than women. But not all. The fringes. The most violent people are always men. So yes safeguarding and perhaps an open discussion about the erosion of conscientiousness and morality in our communities might be a good place to start.

if ALL men are expected to reflect and participate in solving this, then so should all women.

This bears repetition. Thank you for the work you are doing.

Whether or not it is rare is beside the point. It happens.

Of course that's true on an indivuidual level but (a) I was challenging your use of the word 'many' and (b) as you go on to concede, violence is largely (not exclusively but largely) a male problem. if every women tonight stopped being violence or abusive to the end of time, how different would the world seem to you tomorrow? And if men did the same?

You seem to think that encouraging men to speak out means that women can have a break. After decades in this work - more latterly focusing on homicide - I can confidently state that my work world is full of women and very few men. And that absolutley isn't because I work in women-only services - across the civil service, police, probation, health etc etc etc - those that show up are 98% women ie whilst it may not be all women reflecting and participating it is women currently showing up. And in this world - do you know who abusive and violenct men are the least likely to listen to? Women. That's one of the key reasons why we need men to step up.

@Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g Thanks. There's precious little appreciation for what I do so thank you, Mostly it's having the same old conversations with people being quite cross with me!

Yes seconded. Biscuit seems to be close to seeing the point (but blinkered for reasons that I don't need to labour)

Male violence is not one homogenous thing, not all males pose equal risk, not all groups are at equal risk of male violence.

It makes perfect sense for gay men to pay more attention to homophobic beatings and murders. It is perfectly relatable that gay men would be rather more upset about a homophobic murder than the average man might be. It is not true that gay men would never know about homophobic violence if it wasn't reported in the media, because they talk to each other about it.

Women are not so very different. I would know about the risks men pose to women even if I'd never seen a story in the paper.

AnnieKenney Men may not listen to women, but they would have listened to their mothers throughout their childhood. So, females actually have the biggest influence over men period.

I'm sorry I'm not understanding some of your message. "You seem to think that encouraging men to speak out means that women can have a break." That's the opposite of what I'm saying. I say this is a societal problem and we all have a role to play in spotting and preventing pathalogical men whose brute strength make them more of a danger to everyone - even themselves - than pathalogical women.

Referencing "true on an individual level". When does 'individual' become 'collective'? One could argue that the 0.03% or whatever the agreed figure is - is way too high - but is still individualistic though.

And what IS the acceptable figure? Is the 0.003% of women who murder, neglect or abuse their kids okay because it's low enough? Try telling that to the kid.

We have to face up to the fact that testosterone leads some men to 'blow up' in ways that women don't - without writing off 49% of the population as psychopathic. They obviously have trouble with self-restraint, which women don't so much.

We also have to face up to the fact that oestroeon makes women choose - and stay - with toxic, dangerous partners who are a menace and a danger to their kids, without victim blaming.

The same failures within our communities and heirarchies are at the root of both male and female toxicity. The outcomes are different due to personality and sex based factors.