Just feeling really angry at all the murder, assault, rape of females that goes on

[BornStroppy]

I told my husband how horrible it is being part of a gender that is constantly attacked, murdered, etc. He had never thought about it. He doesn´t need to. So we have Tia Sharp, the lady who disappeard in London, an old lady in Scotland murdered by son´s friend, another one murdered in a taxi in Birmingham - this is just over two weeks.

I have one son, pregnant again and just hope its another boy to be honest.

Why is it OK? Apart from raising gentlemen, what the hell can we do? As a gender, we give birth, nurture, raise, care for them, and as a gender we are the ones who suffer at their hands.

its so depressing.

Women are encouraged to fear violence from strangers so they accept violence in the home or at least accept being owned by one man as the price they have to pay for protection by him against violence by other men.

(and yeah, yeah, Not Your Nigel etc. Plenty of men are not violent to their partners or sisters or daughers. Nice men do exist; I had a lovely non-violent father, I have a lovely non-violent brother, I have had relationships with decent men and I am raising a son. That doesn't mean I ignore the patriarchal construction of society.)

I agree completely, solid - and I think that the press have benefitted from reporting stranger violence against women as it can give people that cosy 'aren't we safe/lucky/sensible' vibe, keep women 'safely' at home ('better the devil you know', etc), and maintains nice, safe gender roles (heaven forfend that she should pop out for a few jars while he cooks the tea and looks after the kiddies). I also think it stems from very ancient and anachronistic cultural, religious and legal traditions of treating women as property ('don't forget your steering wheel lock and keep a close eye on yer bird...').
So that's all pretty shitty for women, obviously. (Oh, and it must keep licenced mini-cab drivers relatively safe from lean times. - but only a very sickened and sickly )
But still I can't help worrying about vulnerable boys. Maybe I am getting a bit 'what about the menz', I dunno. I just worry about them, that's all.

you aren't comparing like with like- the kind of violence men commit against women eg rape is 10x as harmful as a punch in a bar brawl between 2 men

men as a group are dangerous- why is there so much denial about this??

It's very obvious isn't it Margerykemp but also so incredibly painful to acknowledge.

The violence against men that's referred to upthread isn't generally committed by women, is it, Margery? So acknowledging that violence certainly isn't denying male violence.

And that's why gender stereotypes are so so damaging.

Someone gets attacked -
And boys are ashamed of themseves for being weak enough to let it happen
and girls are ashamed of themselves for being too provocative and letting it happen

meanwhile, the attacky bastard carries on, having inflicted physical damage, and society stiks the boot in by inflicting a certain type of self hating psychological damage.

Violence against women is a bad thing, and there is too much of it that goes on with impunity. There is plenty to be angry about.

But we dont need to hold onto spurious factoids about it being more common or worse than male-on-male violence in order to argue this.

Here is some more data - it is from US, 1994 but it doesnt look too different from the longer term.What it shows is that:

• Men experienced more violent crimes than women: (6.6 million versus 5 million).

• Strangers committed most of the violence against males (3.9 million), while persons whom the vic tims knew committed most of the vio lence against females (3 million).

• Women were 5 times more like to be victimised by a partner/ex/bf than men, and 14x more likely to be victims of sexual assault/rape

• Men were 4x more likely to be murdered than women. Where the murderer was identified it was someone known to the victim 75% of the time for men and 90% for women.

• In assaults, but not robberies, females were more likely than males to sustain an injury. When injured during a violent crime, male victims were more likely than female victims to be seriously hurt, including causing brain damage and disability.

I.e. men experience more violence, women experience more DV and sexual violence. women are more likely to be injured, men are more likely to be seriously injured or killed.

I remember thinking about this sort of thing during the riots last summer, when it was clear that nearly all the people who were acting violently in them were men. I kept thinking "why is nobody talking about the fact that virtually all of this violence is being done by men?" If any other identifiable social group was overwhelmingly the main perpetrator of that scale of disorder, we'd be talking about it.

Why are men (as a group) so violent? How the fuck does this happen? Sometimes I get so angry and depressed about it that I think living in all-women communes is not such a bad idea after all.

So many generalisations is unusual, even here, but good to know what others think. Please go off and research the demographic of all the beastly men in the riots, and then pop back and apologise to the 99% that you lumped in there with them. Many teachers, nurses, civil servants, even just any happily middle class employed people rioting? Thought not...
I don't know any man in my family life, social life or working life who is violent and I don't believe that is unusual for a minute. But please don't let the truth stop you from joining a commune, seriously.

Nobody on this thread has suggested that all or most men are violent. But what they have observed is that most violence is committed by men. I'm sure that this is an uncomfortable fact for many people, but feminism is not a cosy enterprise. Consciousness raising can be a painful process - it certainly has been for me.

With respect to the riots, my memory of the coverage last summer was that a lot of it focused on the fact that the rioters were young and socioeconomically disaffected - but the rioting was also gendered, and I don't remember seeing a piece anywhere that specifically talked about this. Why do disaffected men choose to riot when disaffected women, on the whole, do not?

In terms of why the media focuses more on terrible things that happen to women and girls/ risks to women I guess there is a certain amount of supply and demand to this.

I mean if the papers/TV report on a missing girl and a missing boy in the same way and the public responds with more interest in the girl, then the media responds to that with more.

Same with the different media/public response to middle class/working
class kids, and black and white kids in different ways.

The media responds to our prejudices and our prejudices are shaped by the media.... There is this fascination with peril for young girls. Which ends up with the OP and others thinking their daughters are more at risk e.g. from murder, when in fact the risk to their sons is 4x greater.

Is there a way to fight violence against women without playing in to the misperceptions that make girls and women (and parents) more afraid and overprotective than necessary?

I agree with pornmonkey - I don't know any men who are violent. When my DSs are in groups they are not remotely dangerous. Undoubtedly, there are terrible people in the world but we don't need to let them colour everything for us.
It is sad that OP feels that the situation is so bad she needs to have a boy, and I hope that she doesn't make him feel bad about the fact that he is male.
I expect that the rioters were male because they are the ones whose jobs, in heavy industry, have mainly gone so they are the most disaffected.
SGB probably has the best point that women are encouraged to fear violence from strangers and so they accept it at home as the price they pay for protection. There is very little danger from strangers - it is far likely to be someone you know. You only have to read MN to know that the message is constant, as in you can't leave an 8 yr old at home for 10 mins, you can't send them to the shop alone.In reality the risk is slight and what they should be taught is that they don't have to put up with anything that makes them uncomfortable from people they know.

I agree with Himalaya about media response.

Is there a way to fight violence against women without playing in to the misperceptions that make girls and women (and parents) more afraid and overprotective than necessary?

Yes there is - we could get a lot better at convicting and locking up the perpetrators. That would make a real, rather than just a perceived, difference to women's and girl's safety. It would certainly make me feel safer if I knew that the majority of rapists were not roaming free.

The majority of rapists are known to the women.

We need to get away from the terrific fear of strangers and concentrate on how to stay safe from the people that you know.

I expect that the rioters were male because they are the ones whose jobs, in heavy industry, have mainly gone so they are the most disaffected.

This isn't true though. The cuts have disproportionately affected women, both in terms of job losses and in terms of loss of services and benefit cuts.

Whether rapists are known to their victims or not, there will be less rape if they are locked up.

The useful stats above show men at risk from other men who are unknown to them and women at risk from men they know. So women are safer out than in their homes. Go out at night as a woman to save yourself from violence, in a sense is the message. And the message to 14 - 17 year old boys is stay in or go to safe places like the gym not the streets in the most dangerous bit of London

Men with no qualifications could get heavy labouring jobs that did at least use up their energy! No one wants them now-the world has moved on.

I guess aggression as a trait exists because we are a predator species and it has been a significant (perhaps necessary) element of our evolutionary success.

Arguably if we had exhibited no agression/propensity to violence at all we would have been a very passive, non-risk taking species and ultimately ended up as prey to the aggression of other creatures. Instead we survived because we could protect ourselves and displayed a sufficient 'killer instinct' to hunt and kill other animals for food and territory.

We have presumably also been the masters of our own development to to the extent that men in particular showing certain traits like physical strength and a willingness to use agression have been able to mate and pass on those characteristics.

In some societies (I'll try to avoid saying more 'developed' ones) we perhaps increasingly see those traits in a more negative light, preferring a gentler more cerebral approach. Ultimately for better or worse they are the characteristics that have brought our species to where it is today and it will take quite a feat of social engineering to hang on to the positive aspects whilst eliminating the negative ones.

But there were women, or at least young girls, participating in the riots. Most of the rioting was teenagers on a thieving spree, not organised disaffection. (I live in Croydon, I had to walk home pretty much through the riot and some of the people I saw yelling and egging each other on were definitely teenage girls).

Though I do remember Tweeting that what was needed in some of the more jumpy areas was for the women to come out and defend homes and businesses; in Eltham, where my DB and SIL live, they had the fucking EDL lolloping about looking for 'invaders' to duff up.

Sorry, I maybe wasn't clear: part of my problem is that citing from wiki is not a good idea, because (as quoted), it tends to be full of 'citation needed' annotations and, if references are there, you might as well look at those

The thing about Wikipedia is you know where the bodies are, when you look at special interest websites you don't. Google ranks sites on popularity, not accuracy (so sites pandering to belief groups usually score highly, those trying to be accurate often less so. Wikipedia thank heaves is always on Page 1).

This thread has got me thinking.I have both boys and girls.Up to now,my DH and I have been more concerned about the girls safety out at night,rather than the boys.But actually,the boys are more at risk of general violence.
I am also now thinking,that as a general rule,my boys,and other groups of boys I know,go out and about in larger groups than the girls.About eg 8 of them,whereas the girls maybe in groups of say 4.
And presumably this is why boys go around in large numbers socially,to keep themselves safer than they would otherwise be.

So women are safer out than in their homes. Go out at night as a woman to save yourself from violence, in a sense is the message

Paaaarty! as the new women's safety campaign - I like it :)

But I do wonder if the causality is the other way, ie because women are at home more, more happens at home - and if they went out you'd see a rise?