Addressing the elephants

[Apileofballyhoo]

When I was at school I never thought there were jobs I couldn't do because I was female. But there were many things I couldn't do because I was female.

Seeing the realities of motherhood is what really opened my eyes. Firstly with my siblings and sisters-in-law and then with my own child.

So what are the solutions? I think child care should be paid for by the state, at a rate per child. If you're caring for your own child the state should pay you.

Interestingly on the elephant thread - double standards about sex and the fear of walking alone at night didn't come up. Maybe they aren't elephants as we do discuss them? DH often goes for a walk late in evening/when it's dark and it never occurred to him that I'd be afraid to do this until I pointed it out (we live in a small rural town in Ireland) while we were discussing TRAs.

Anyway, any other suggestions/solutions/ perfect world isms?

What are the double standards about walking alone? You shouldn't be any more scared than your DH as he's 4x more likely to be attacked by a stranger.

What are the double standards about walking alone? You shouldn't be any more scared than your DH as he's 4x more likely to be attacked by a stranger.

For a kick off if the DH is attacked no one will be asking why he was out on his own at night/ what he was wearing/ had he been drinking etc.

That didn't take long!

For a kick off if the DH is attacked no one will be asking why he was out on his own at night/ what he was wearing/ had he been drinking etc.

Indeed. One of the many differences between men and women and one of the reasons why I do not go out as much as I used to.

One of the other reasons is childcare. I'm negotiating a better way at home but it seems to be a given that as the man works more/earns more he needs more time off from duties at home. I'm only finally getting a more balanced life since I went back to work.

If you include sexual assaults her DH isn't 4x more likely to be attacked than a woman. I've been followed quite a few times by men late at night. I don't expect this happens to men routinely. It's a myth that women are attacked less, DV takes up the largest proportion of police time too.

On a work night out recently, I moved my car from the long stay carpark to short stay for the evening so that I only had a short walk to the car at the end of the night.

My Male colleagues didn't feel the need to do this and saved themselves £3. Not a fortune admittedly, but a cost men don't even have to consider.

For a kick off if the DH is attacked no one will be asking why he was out on his own at night/what he was wearing/ had he been drinking etc.

No, they wouldn't because violence against men isn't taken as seriously - they wouldn't be looking for 'a reason'.

The things you mention above are afterthoughts - I'd rather face a much lower likelihood of being attacked in the first place. Men understand this as most men know what it's like to be punched in the face whilst the large majority of women don't.

Do you honestly think the questions I posed are asked because people take attacks against women more seriously than those against men??

The questions aren't asked to find a "reason" for the attack, they are used to victim blame.

Yeah, I can well imagine the prosecution trying to undermine the victim, and this is likely the case in many other areas too - e.g. when people are painted as violent thugs after injuring a burglar who surprised then in their own home etc. Definitely not right.

However, men are statistically much more likely to be attacked/murdered and are the principle victims of violence, yet it's always emphasised to young boys that it's wrong to hit girls. Most often when the topic arises on here people just say "meh, male violence innit", but the male victim is still no more at fault than the female victim just because he was attacked by a member of his own sex.

One of my best mates was in an abusive relationship and he told me that when she'd start punching him in public people would always ask her if she was ok, never him.

BjornAgain81
No, they wouldn't because violence against men isn't taken as seriously - they wouldn't be looking for 'a reason'
Violence against men comes with a script "Man was attacked by mad/bad person"
Violence against women comes with a script "She did something mad/bad to provoke it".

Both types of violence are treated equally seriously or not depending on the police force.

I'd rather face a much lower likelihood of being attacked in the first place
Women are not less likely to be attacked. Attacks against women are far more likely to be sexually motivated and even then they're blamed for doing something wrong themselves so it's dismissed. Women however, are far more likely to be attacked/killed in their own home by their male partner than men are so DV is starting to be taken more seriously but again it depends on the local force.

The only case where the statistical evidence is true, that men are attacked more frequently, is street muggings. Men are targeted by muggers bc they believe men are more likely to be carrying cash, an expensive phone, watch etc.

Women are subjected to different types of attacks far more frequently.

However, men are statistically much more likely to be attacked/murdered and are the principle victims of violence
Men are more likely to be involved in violent situations for example gang / drug related incidents.
Men outside of gangs are very rarely attacked by strangers.

yet it's always emphasised to young boys that it's wrong to hit girls
Because it is wrong.

men are statistically much more likely to be attacked/murdered and are the principle victims of violence, yet it's always emphasised to young boys that it's wrong to hit girls.

Funny way to put it. It sounds like you are saying that the attacks on men are coming from women and therefore it's wrong to tell boys not to hit girls.

It is men who are primarily violent towards women&girls and other men. Hence the name Male Violence. This also makes it men's problem to solve. Women cannot solve a male behaviour problem.

yet it's always emphasised to young boys that it's wrong to hit girls

Because it is wrong.

Surely it's wrong to hit anyone? So all children should be raised to not hit anyone else, regardless of sex, it shouldn't be that boys are told it's wrong to hit girls but that it's wrong to hit anyone and girls should be told the same.

Girls on the whole seem to understand that message. 2 men a week are not being killed by woman.
Strangely enough I would bet my house on the fact that the women on this thread told their daughters it was wrong to hit if they did that.
God the energy we expend on what about the men .

I think an element of WATM is pretty much inevitable when analysing feminism from a neutral perspective as feminism is pretty much WATW.

feminism is pretty much WATW.
No, it isn't. Feminism is not about butting into every conversation going about men's mental health, prostate cancer etc etc and going WATW.
It's about starting a fresh conversation about women, keeping women and girls front and centre and not tagged on as an also-ran.

Completely different thing.

Strangely enough I would bet my house on the fact that the women on this thread told their daughters it was wrong to hit if they did that.

Strangely enough I told both of my children - a boy and a girl - that it is wrong to hit regardless of the sex of the person you are hitting. Also strangely enough it was my dd who used to repeatedly hit her brother and cousin because they wouldn't play with her.

One could argue that examining something from a feminist perspective is often to consider it from a viewpoint outside of the dominant patriarchal perspective.

On a board like this, the perspective seems largely a radfem one, so by WATMing you are effectively considering the issue from what is the 'other' perspective in instance, like feminists often do.

I do think there are parallels, and the phrase WATM is only really seen in feminist discussions.

in this instance that should've been...