A rational fear of men?

[RoyalCorgi]

I'm just posting this as an observation.

I've been on Twitter this morning, and one of the first things I saw was a link to an article in the Guardian by a mental health nurse about helping people who suffer from paranoia. It was titled: '''A patient thinks her landlord will stab her': my job as a mental health nurse"

A few tweets below that was linking to a story in the Mirror: 'I'm scared my killer ex will murder our daughter'

The Mirror link was tweeted by the Victims' Commissioner for London, with this comment: "The family courts, for too long, have allowed abusers access to their victim & allowed abuse to continue via proceedings & unsafe child contact orders. Time to shut down this state sanctioned abuse once and for all & fully protect those at serious risk of harm."

I was just struck by the juxtaposition.

I've already said that it's reasonable to fear men, especially as a fellow man. My argument is that life isn't easy for men. Don't forget that the view on here isn't representative of most women, the majority of whom aren't self identifying feminists. Most women want to spend their life with a man.

Sorry but that's bollocks.

See, even our language implies that something worthy of derision = male.

My argument is that life isn't easy for men.

Yes, but that isn't the topic at hand.

Plus you are assuming I 'self identify' as a feminist, which I don't I have an interest in some aspects of feminism, and I am quite happy spending my life with a man. I am 'most' women.

OP I looked on Twitter for that link

It is depressing reading. I suppose it stems from the idea that parental contact is essential?

www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/scared-killer-ex-murder-daughter-19114859.amp?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sharebar&__twitter_impression=true

See, even our language implies that something worthy of derision = male.

Good grief, our language has a plethora of derogatory words based on genitalia both male and female, you fanny.

Ok, I wasn't 100% serious about that...

Anyway, goodnight to you all. I don't agree with much of what you say but I respect your opinions and your lived experiences.

See, even our language implies that something worthy of derision = male.

Give it up mate, there are many many more insults named after female genitalia than male. Go and dry your tears with someone else's petticoats.

Frogs
I think the point is that both women and men are entitled to a rational fear of men,

The most common perpetrators of homicide in the UK are 80% men, sexual crime 98% men, most crimes committed are majority male perps, and as an extra mass shootings in America are 100% male perps. I haven't even started on prostitution and child abuse stats.

I don't think anyone including feminists are saying all men have it easy, but men shouldn't take offense or be hurt when women are weary of them, and they shouldn't be called names like "feminazi" "man haterz" etc for pointing out facts.

first on the lifeboats

Wow.

A man genuinely angy that Women and children were suggested in the 19th century to be allowed first onto lifeboats, because men are stronger and not likely to be pregnant and aren't expected to care for children and are better swimmers bc of their streamline physiology and anyway lifeboats policy has changed a lot since The Titanic fucksake and there is no maritime law that actually has a "women and childen first" policy but it's interesting you are still angry about that.

1852 to be precise.

A man today, still upset about a code of conduct policy on boats suggested in 1852, that has never been written into law or even followed through in practice.

Amazing

Yes it's rational. Men are much stronger, more likely to have an obsession with weapons, more likely to attack someone than a woman is.
I've also had men I totally trusted grab my rear end, out of nowhere, making me realize they weren't as kind and decent as they appeared to be. Women would get attacked a hell of a lot more if they weren't so cautious around strange men and always trying to avoid them.

Frogs--I've never believed men have it easier than women. The issue isn't really about who's suffering more, but the societal treatment of men as if they're more important than women, and should get all the power at the top.

In many religious families here in the US, girls are told they must obey their future husbands, men are the natural leaders of the world, and women should focus on being humble, and submissive.

The boys in these families were physically abused even more than their sisters, mainly because they were expected to be tough and handle the abuse better. Can't have wimpy guys ruling the world after all. Girls are more likely to be abused to "keep them in their place". Be a sweet, good little girl and you won't have to be punished.

The war thing is bollocks too - women die in wars started by men, but for hundreds of years weren't allowed to fight in them, despite being killed in them. Rape is finally acknowledged as a weapon of war. And all the time, the dangerous ones, the ones to watch out for are - men

More bollocks is that men in the USA are still conscripted while women escape that. Well, technically true, but the last conscription happened in 1973, and MRAs forced through a court case earlier this year that said that women must sign for the draft too because it violated the 14th Amendment, so we shall see what happens with that. Really, using the draft to suggest that men have it worse than women is MRA 101, but only if they haven't actually looked into it.

So, yeah. We see you.

I'm not sure this conversation is going anywhere productive anymore, but aren't us men like 75% of homicide victims? How many 'low level' incidents does it take to equal the ultimate cost of having your life ended?

That's not how statistics work at all. That men make up 75% of homicide victims puts men as a sex class at higher risk of being murdered. It does not however put them at higher risk of experiencing violence overall. Historically, violent crimes against women are underreported and -recorded.

For instance, the Crime Survey for England and Wales 2017 estimated that 61% of victims of violent crimes were male, 39% female. However, the Home Office Data Hub actually showed that 53% of violence against the person offences had female victims and 47% males. The reason for that discrepancy lies in the fact that the CSEW underreports domestic violence incidents.

Or take rape cases - we know from the recorded statistics that nine out of ten victims of rape are female and that nine out of ten victims of the most serious sexual crimes are female. We also know from crime surveys that the majority of sexual crimes go unreported - estimates vary, but generally speaking serious sexual violence, such as rape, is more likely to be reported but is estimated to be reported only in 15% of cases.

And it isn't that men are less likely to report - both sexes are at least equally reluctant. (Although as regards domestic violence, I have seen data that suggests that men report more often, are taken more seriously more often, get to court more often and succeed more often than women.)

What that means in practice is that a huge chunk of violent crime against women never shows up in the statistics because it isn't reported and that missing data is then obviously missing from the figures used to calculate risk.

Don't forget that the view on here isn't representative of most women, the majority of whom aren't self identifying feminists. Most women want to spend their life with a man.

Wanting to spend your life with a man does not prevent a woman from being a feminist. What an absurd notion.

And the view on Mumsnet, not just FWR, is that women have a right to live their lives free from male violence. That is assuredly not just a majority view on here, that is a universal view among 3.8 billion women and girls worldwide. Because fear of male violence is an almost universal female experience, and it is entirely rational given the relentless persistence of male violence against us over the last ten thousand years or so.

What FWR does, what the relationship boards and a number of others do that most women cannot get in real life, is to provide the analysis and knowledge necessary to understand the nature of male violence against women and children, the dynamics of abusive relationships, many of the tools we need to protect ourselves and our children and it signposts women to where they can find help if necessary.

You're full of it, frogs

Feminists aren't going to lie down and say 'well, men are mean to men too, maybe I should just be happy with my lot'
Feminism is about the liberation of women from under patriarchy. If you want to mobilise the men to sort their shit out, more power to you, but we're busy over here and not interested in the poor men too routine.

DonnaQuixote that's the one I meant; thank you.

What I get from that, and from what CharlieParley details, is that there's unconscious sexism built into the way we categorise violence and collect data about it, which results in a minimisation of official recognition of violence against women and girls.

The way we ask the question means we're amplifying men's responses and ignoring women's, in other words.

The insistence that men have it worse is an illusion created by the biased way in which the data is collected and interpreted.

More bollocks is that men in the USA are still conscripted while women escape that. Well, technically true, but the last conscription happened in 1973.

Well, I'd be pretty miffed as a young American male if I had to sign over the authority for the government to theoretically send me to die in a Middle Eastern hellhole, just so I could get access to the same federal grants my sister would get for free (and also to avoid potential imprisonment).

Amazingly, the government fought the case against it and tried to keep it in place. Instituitional sexism if ever I've seen it!

Women are now allowed in combat, so this decision is long overdue. After decades of sex discrimination against men in the Selective Service, the courts have finally found it unconstitutional to force only men to register. Even without a draft, men still face prison, fines, and denial of federal loans for not registering or for not updating the government of their whereabouts. Since women will be required to register with the Selective Service, they should face the same repercussions as men for any noncompliance.

Why a Judge Ruled the Males-Only Military Draft Unconstitutional

www.google.com/amp/s/www.popularmechanics.com/military/amp26519034/us-military-draft-men-only/

Instituitional sexism if ever I've seen it!

Nawww, bless.

Any more pathetic MRA dog whistle bullshit to post, or are you done now?

It's easy to dismiss it as MRA talk (yawn) but you can be assured that if women had to live with the possibility of being uprooted and sent to fight the Taliban or equivalent there'd be a hell of a lot more moaning.

Being shot at or maybe captured and tortured/burnt alive certainly seems a bit scarier than the possibility of encountering a transwoman doing their makeup in the bathroom. 🤷‍♀️

We're predominantly English women here. The US draft is pretty low down the list of concerns.

Encountering burly heterosexual fetishists in enclosed spaces is much more likely than any of us being set on fire by the Taliban. I vote we save our worries for the more likely of these two options.

Oh wait, we already are.

Frogs why are you so insistent that we spend our time worrying about things happening to men on the other side of the world rather than women on our back doorstep?

It's all seething out now, isn't it Frogs.

Are you American? Why are you fixating on such a random thing? Or expecting us to?

It's easy to dismiss it as MRA talk (yawn) but you can be assured that if women had to live with the possibility of being uprooted and sent to fight the Taliban or equivalent there'd be a hell of a lot more moaning

You are literally unaware of the raping that goes on when men invade other countries aren't you? Like, totally irrelevant to you. The reason they don't want women in the army is because they might get pulled up on the raping and murder they commit, all boys together.

They want to have the ability to do what they want, when they want it, to whoever they want.

And let's remember that war is because men still think that fighting, maiming, wounding and killing each other is still - millennia on - the best way to resolve conflicts.

The best way to exert their religion, their right to land, their dominance over others, etc, etc.

You want the wars, you go and fight in them. And/or don't be surprised when some people aren't so keen to sign up for the raping, pillaging and mass slaughter.

You want the wars, you go and fight in them.

I don't think many of us men actually want wars - I certainly don't. My guess is that in America most boys sign up to be able to access federal grants for education etc and to avoid social stigma/legal repercussions.
Hopefully they won't ever get drafted but I wouldn't put it past the government tbh if political relations went south and war became a reality. I wouldn't want to be at the mercy of Trump's ego!

The reason they don't want women in the army is because they might get pulled up on the raping and murder they commit, all boys together.

Or, as often happens, the male soldiers rape the female soldiers on their own side. The reason why men vote for politicians who won't back female drafting is because they can foresee their own daughters and sisters being called up and know what their male "comrades" will do to them.

Women serving in the Red Army during WW2 condoned the widespread rape of (estimated 2m) German women and girls by Russian male soldiers. I wonder what would the men would have done to a female comrade who tried to oppose such barbarism?