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.

SGM

Can I ask if you have changed your view that women (and children) are the vast majority of victims of violent crime, given the data?

If not, is there alternative data to support your assertion,or can you say where it comes from?

(I am a bit about "women and children" as a category, does seem a bit odd as the question was about whether the female gender is more often subjected to violence and murder etc... Why put them as one category - are children more feminine, or women more childlike?

From a purely statistical point of view women and children make up the vast majority of PEOPLE in the world)

Meow, whilst you are waiting for MNHQ's response, I would expect that your post was deleted for being against the spirit of the I Believe You campaign.

RadFems, like Creationists, are not great fans of science I've found.

Maybe the 'science' that you've found isn't all that reliable, worry!
(And clearly you're not much of a fan of Lynne Truss...)

Seriously, though, when you've finished revising basic grammar, why not re-think your definition of RadFem?

Oh, sorry, I'm meant to be being humourless.

Nothing funny here at all, moving along!

Seriously, though, when you've finished revising basic grammar, why not re-think your definition of RadFem?

I rate the Ad-Grammariam as an even better sign of a rampantly successful argument than the Ad-Hominem :)

Ad feminam, surely?

I think when you are claiming other people don't know what they're talking about, making silly digs about radical feminists, but strangely unable to provide any evidence to demonstrate any of your points properly, you've rather missed the boat on objecting to ad feminam.

Great post, Whisky4Tea.

the doctrine
i'm fairly sure i wouldnt have said anything agaisnt the 'i belive you' campaign, i think it's a great idea.
i've received an answer but it was just the standard reply 'we dont allow goading, personal attacks, advertising or anything that maybe libel'
sent another back now asking for a more precise explanation of which part of my post broke the guidlines, waiting again now.

meow, you are being disingenuous. You knew it was off when you said it, or you wouldn't have prefaced the comment with 'sorry, but'.

I think comments that offer an apology for male violence towards women, and do so by implicating women, should not stand, and I think it does fly in the face of I Believe You. A big part of that campaign is focussed on getting people to see why explaining away rape is a terrible response to rape survivors, and I think it's very hard to discuss male violence from the perspective of wanting to explain it, without coming across as if you're explaining it away.

www.mumsnet.com/campaigns/we-believe-you-campaign-rape-myths-busted

Meow, try myth number 2, substituting the word rape, a form of violence, with the more general word violence.

I think comments that offer an apology for male violence towards women, and do so by implicating women, should not stand

I objected to the censorship of that post and wanted an explanation, the MNHQ explanation for its removal was about the overly generalised way it was expressed, so it's removal:

(i) had nothing to do with male to male violence as a form of sexual selection per se, and

(ii) nothing to do with the "we believe you" campaign.

My exposition of the same point stood, so fwiw I think expressing it thus works:

I'd express it more that alpha males get to select more/better females, so that means the males will fight to determine dominance over other males. All species do it, not just humans

....

Of course humans have developed more than animals so young men also use wit, art, music, wealth, brains, personality etc to compete, but violence is still an often used option - especially among frustrated young men who have [few] other skills

What it does mean is that young males trying to establish their status are fairly dangerous to other (mainly young) males

worry, are you saying that an alpha male must also be a violent male?

I don't understand your post whatme.

I have no idea why MNHQ removed the post (other than what they said, which I assume is true), and my post was my views, not theirs. Obviously.

worry, are you saying that an alpha male must also be a violent male?

No, I am saying they can be. And so can males trying to establish some form of Alpha male status.

I am also saying that Human males have developed a far larger repertoire of staus-creating behavours instead of violence, but they are not equally available to all males..

There have also been some studies which seem to show that young men's willingness to indulge in activities which carry a level of personal risk increases in the presence of females. Violence is one form of risky activity, particularly when it takes place between men.

It raises interesting questions about the impact of a female observer on the behaviour of young men particularly although I'm aware that just putting that out there as an interesting issue might be seen by some as trying to push responsibility from the men to the observer herself (which isn't the intention).

Oh, yes, I think both men and women show off for each other - there's no need for a study there!

But I would distinguish between risky behaviour, and violence.

'I am also saying that Human males have developed a far larger repertoire of staus-creating behavours instead of violence, but they are not equally available to all males..'

What ... so some males, poor things, just don't have the correct status-creating behaviours 'available' so they must resort to violence?

What possible evidence could you have for this?

So what you are saying is that the men and woman are are violent as one another to their partners except the woman are convicted at a far fewer rate and their sentencing is far lower than that of a man.

Sorry, novack, who are you asking?

I don't think it is unreasonable to say that violence, or the threat of violence is one strategy some men use for asserting what they consider to be higher status over other men. There must be all sorts of reasons why this happens. In less stable societies where violence from others is an ever present threat there must be an element of an arms race, of people outdoing one another in order to ensure that they are not a victim and to lay claim to rewards that apparently come when you are top of the pile (sex, money, "respect"). Even if you are not actively violent it has to be there as a threat to encourage others to move to weaker prey. If you are at the bottom in that sort of society those rewards are harder to get, and if you do get them someone else will take them from you.

Unfortunately that sort of survival of the fittest society has defined life on Earth for far longer than the more mutually cooperative, law abiding society that we are still struggling to create. The more a society develops and the more that individuals feel they have a stake in it the less likely they are to indulge in risky activities like violence. A less chaotic society also grants status to people who show other talents that go beyond hitting other people.

There will always be people who don't have those talents though, and if they live in a environment where they see that violence can still grant them access to rewards (sex, money, "respect") they are otherwise unable to claim by more socially acceptable means it will remain for them as a tempting option.

Presumably only when the risk always far out weighs any possible reward will these guys stop seeing violence as a valid strategy for getting on in life. It has to be seen to be unsuccessful- no sex, no money, no respect. If we could reach that point, but without losing any of the desire to compete and survive in the wider world (which is arguably the useful face of channeled agression) then our society would be in a much happier place.

What ... so some males, poor things, just don't have the correct status-creating behaviours 'available' so they must resort to violence? What possible evidence could you have for this?

Are you for real?

I repeat: What possible evidene could you have for this?

Bluegrass,for some reason,the man who was leader of the IMF,I forget his name,keeps coming to mind.He was in a position of a lot of power,but still got arrested for attempted rape,if I remember correctly.
Not sure what I am saying tbh,but I dont think violence is just limited to those who feel socially excluded.

Mind you,he may be an exception to your rule.