Looking at men differently now I know too much?

[clingfilmed]

In recent years I've seen so much in the news and online about men's abuse and violence towards women. A man who looks totally normal and pleasant and is perhaps in many ways a good man might still be going home and creating fake AI nudes of women he knows or watching extreme porn or abusing his wife or kids or using prostitutes or cam girls or has a fetish that degrades and dehumanises women or is a complete misogynist.

There is a post on the relationships board now where a married man is hoping that just because a mum of his sons friend has been friendly towards him she might fancy him and be up for it.

Then looking at many of the men I know day to day how they talk to and interact with their wives and families is depressing to see, almost like they don't care at all.

I know its not every man, I know some men who I do think are good. I do look back to the rose tinted days of my teens when I would idealise boys and think they were so amazing and now knowing what I do about general trends and some men in particular its quite a disappointment.

And of course the good old "no true scotsman" fallacy. No woman could ever possibly disagree with a feminist, ergo they must be male.

The narrative just doesn't add up to me, and when I see the types of people pushing it, it all makes sense. It's just like the "forriners taking our jobs" bunch, whose arguments also don't stand up to scrutiny.

The narrative is that the poor oppressed women give up their careers so that the privileged men can dodge 'the real work' (as another poster put it) and experience the great privilege of spending their days in meetings.

Except in reality men are killing themselves at 3x the rate of women, with 'work stress', 'financial stress', and 'fear of failing to provide for the family' being identified by suicide orgs as the most common stress factors for men.

And then you come onto a forum like mumsnet with an overwhelming amount of mothers and SAHMs. A forum where posters aren't afraid to speak their mind. And you read post after post by women saying they "feel so privileged to be ably to stay at home and indulge their hobbies due to hubby working 80 hours a week".

Does hubby feel the same way working twice as many hours as most people or is he just putting on a brave face and trying to look after his family? 🤔

It makes no sense that the privileged ones would be killing themselves in such high numbers, with the supposed privilege being the biggest cause of stress, whilst the oppressed women are joyously posting about how lucky they feel to be able to escape office drudgery and indulge their social life and hobbies.

As a previous poster has suggested, Gad, why don't you just try a little bit of square dancing.

when I see the types of people pushing it

I thought ad homs were beyond the pale?

And you read post after post by women saying they "feel so privileged to be ably to stay at home and indulge their hobbies due to hubby working 80 hours a week".

I really don't think I've ever seen such a post. But, tbf, this could be a kind of confirmation bias - what you're more likely to click on v. what I am? I certainly acknowledge such women exist - but I'd also say that they're a very privileged minority indeed, and think it would be hard to argue otherwise, even if only in the light of wealth distribution in the UK!

I also think it's hard to argue that patriarchy doesn't contribute to the financial pressures you see men experiencing and their challenges managing associated emotions. Our society has been shaped, and is largely still run, by males; they created the very economic systems and ideological constructs of masculinity that led to this. And feminism challenges that system to the benefit of all. Yes, its focus is (the clue's in the name) on how patriarchy harms women, and its priority has been winning women greater bodily and financial autonomy. I think it's hard to argue against this focus, either, without sounding like you genuinely see women as second-class citizens.

I acknowledge that this - terrifyingly recent - shift towards equality, has of course complicated this situation somewhat. No longer do we have the trope of the happy housewife and hardworking hubby, each with their respective role idealised in rosy-cheeked advertising propaganda. In this context, women enjoying the privilege of a life of leisure have the potential to create strong feelings on both sides of the debate. But to argue that the way through this interim period of rebalancing and reshaping society to value men and women equally is to uphold old patriarchal values and stereotypes like those lazy, grifting ladies-who-lunch, which are only applicable to a privileged minority in any case, feels tenuous at best.

You use the word narrative, yet are fundamentally reiterating your own narrative in your posts. I'm honestly not seeing much evolution in them - recent responses to some fairly subtle counter-arguments tend just to repeat suicide stats and anecdotal refs to a minority of privileged women. And your tone can be pretty sarkily dismissive. Hence Datun's cynicism...

It's less cynicism, Cat, and more just reading the posts.

I can remember all sorts of denigrating adjectives applied to women from Gad. And I did start to look, but it was too depressing.

Sooo many posts about women moaning, wanging on, being kept, living off men, plus minimisation of male violence (30,000 dogs! 😁), and a complete denial of male privilege.

I wouldn't mind, but it's so common on here, you could almost set your clock by it.

A good number of the wives of the men described here will be among those busy leisure-lunching - it's the kind of demographic Gad's referencing, which includes the star-studded upper echelons, but also just wealthy, well-connected professionals. Such wives would also likely be under associated pressure (a point I wanted to make earlier about Gad's set of MN quotes) to curate their perfect leisure-lives on social media...

I recognise, that this will inevitably invite comments about female partners' potential complicity, but think it's pretty key to note that 1) this would be yet another detour from the subject of this thread - the men (women aren't responsible for their partners' actions); and 2) the gist of the article is really how proactively closeted from women these men's secret lives and proclivities were/are.

https://www.thetimes.com/article/3c43b881-0f36-43bf-a32b-66fcba2b44ac?shareToken=b062e64ca800a9fb4a31da2ea933ee14

Cocklodgers don't post on Mumsnet.

Try Reddit, 4chan, and Steam chat.

You miss my point, possibly on purpose, that it is a very risky life choice for her, not so much him, even if he's the one working. He's the one with the financial and physical power.

Privilege doesn't mean that every minute of your life is great. It means that, compared to others who are less privileged, you have power and autonomy to change your situation and safety within it.

My job has been hell for twelve months and is getting worse. Nonetheless, I have the power and autonomy to search for another job and the safety of knowing that I'm not at risk of redundancy in the next six months or longer

Men working 80 hours a week have the power to beat and rape their kept wives and withold money from them. They have the autonomy to file for divorce. They have the safety of knowing that their wives are physically weaker. They choose to keep these women as a kind of pet because they like having regular sex and not having to hoover. This isn't something I've made up, it's something that a sparkie I used to know told me.

This attitude of keeping a WIFE, a "washing, ironing, fucking, etc" pet, is expressed by abusers about their victims. The only difference is that the non-abusive men choose not to abuse their pets.

People also quote the Gang Of Four book like holy scripture when describing software design patterns, because, like the Rules Of Misogyny, it's accurate.

And unlike the list of very lucky ladies who lunch, it's not cherry-picked from a handful of rare experiences.

"It's been doing the rounds forever" doesn't mke it bad or good. Use your own judgement, like I did about RoM.

No, I didn't miss your point. I replied to it at length in my post where I talked about how many good things come with an element of risk. One sibling spends their inheritance on chasing their dreams, whilst the other saves it as a safety net.

Depending on the individual circumstances they encounter, the first sibling may end up having a great life and pitying the other for not doing so out of fear. Or they may end up broke with no financial independence and regret taking the risk.

I don't think you can profess something to be true because a sparkie told you it once. 😂 I hear all sorts of bollocks onsite.

Thanks for actually replying sincerely.

I agree that it's hard to disagree with feminists without looking like you think women are second class citizens. It's not that I don't support equality. It's the individuals the ideology often seems to attract. Kinda like how supporting men's rights is a seemingly innocuous thing but MRAs signify something entirely different and much less benign.

I don't dislike women at all. I dislike people that play victim whilst simultaneously trying to minimise the issues faced by others. Pushing the idea that men are privileged to shoulder the financial burden is a good example. It's only one side of coin and it's seemingly also the financial burden that's their biggest cause of stress.

And I've no doubt the women I've quoted are privileged. However, I'm fairly sure that they're greater in numbers than the male CEO's we often hear about. Spouse murderers are extremely rare too at around 100 per year out of 33m men, but again this doesn't mean it's not worth discussing.

I just dislike when feminists speak for women as a whole. They certainly don't speak for me, which is likely why they always try and claim anybody that disagrees with them is a man. And statistically they don't speak for women in general.

It'd annoy me less if they acknowledged they hold a particular ideological stance rather than pretending to be the mouthpiece for all women. Especially when they use the argument that "oh, you just don't realise you're a feminist. You must be if you care about equality".

I guess all Americans must be Trump supporters because who wouldn't want America to be great? We must all be MRAs because who wouldn't want equality for both sexes? Etc etc.

Hm. Thank you to you, too, although I do sense some somewhat layered (barbed?) comments here.

Thanks for actually replying sincerely.

This does imply this has been unusual in this thread (and perhaps too on my part)? I think most posters have replied at least as sincerely as yourself, and quite often rather more so...

I agree that it's hard to disagree with feminists without looking like you think women are second class citizens. It's not that I don't support equality. It's the individuals the ideology often seems to attract. Kinda like how supporting men's rights is a seemingly innocuous thing but MRAs signify something entirely different and much less benign.

The "kinda like... MRAs" analogy honestly doesn't come across well. The MRA ideology of systematic abuse and subjugation of women is so far removed from feminists' campaigns to protect women from the same, I honestly find the association above somewhat offensive.

I dislike people that play victim whilst simultaneously trying to minimise the issues faced by others.

Agree. But I think each side in this thread has the potential to perceive the other side as doing just this!

Pushing the idea that men are privileged to shoulder the financial burden is a good example. It's only one side of coin and it's seemingly also the financial burden that's their biggest cause of stress.

Entirely agree with your second sentence. The thing is, it doesn't automatically negate the first. Both can - somewhat paradoxically, OK - be true. I'd argue that autonomy is, arguably, everything; what it means to be human, really! And an independent source of income, however meagre (and physical strength) enable it.

And I've no doubt the women I've quoted are privileged. However, I'm fairly sure that they're greater in numbers than the male CEO's we often hear about. Spouse murderers are extremely rare too at around 100 per year out of 33m men, but again this doesn't mean it's not worth discussing.

Another rather curious equivalence drawn here, between ladies-who-lunch and murderous husbands. Besides the obvious disparities(!), I'd also say a very key point that undermines the whole analogy is that the murderous husbands represent the extreme end of a depressingly universal trend of male abuse of and violence against women... whereas the ladies-who-lunch are an exception as opposed to a rule; most women nowadays work their socks off in the dual roles of homemaker and worker (interesting, isn't it, how the word "worker", by definition, implicitly excludes homemaking - that's the patriarchal value system right there, embedded in our language...)

I just dislike when feminists speak for women as a whole. They certainly don't speak for me, which is likely why they always try and claim anybody that disagrees with them is a man. And statistically they don't speak for women in general. It'd annoy me less if they acknowledged they hold a particular ideological stance rather than pretending to be the mouthpiece for all women. Especially when they use the argument that "oh, you just don't realise you're a feminist. You must be if you care about equality".

But any "ideology", if we're to take that to mean a political movement, speaks for "the people" as a whole - it is, really by definition, advocating what its proponents believe will make the world a better place (to be at grave risk of naive idealism!) I don't let Conservative "ideology" upset me particularly, or "Communist". It's the far less benign ones for which I reserve my ire eg. misogyny; and my feminism seeks to counter what I see as destructive forces of this nature. Your strength of feeling on this issue does seem to suggest that you view feminism less as an understandable attempt to address women's long-standing oppression - to counter ideologies which impinge on women's autonomy and well-being - and more as a proactively pernicious movement in its own right. I honestly can't see this.

I guess all Americans must be Trump supporters because who wouldn't want America to be great? We must all be MRAs because who wouldn't want equality for both sexes? Etc etc.

Another rather interesting equivalence. I do find it difficult to see how feminism can be aligned with nationalistic aggression and Tate's rhetoric of subjugation, and I don't really see any arguments of yours that justify this, excepting the strawman lapses into claiming that posters here simply don't care about men's suffering at all. One poster earlier (sorry, I forget who) suggested that you're citing what you think feminists think more than listening to their actual words in this regard. I do rather feel that's been the case in some of your responses to my posts.

One other thing... "Feminism"'s hugely complex and disparate - the different waves; the gender critical / radical / liberal feminist movements; grassroots v. academic (I'd argue your focus is more on the latter), all with different divisions & overlaps etc. It complicates things massively even to get into this (and I'mm really bad on feminist history and theory anyway!) so this is just by way of a brief disclaimer!

Catiette:
Another rather interesting equivalence. I do find it difficult to see how feminism can be aligned with nationalistic aggression and Tate's rhetoric of subjugation, and I don't really see any arguments of yours that justify this, excepting the strawman lapses into claiming that posters here simply don't care about men's suffering at all. One poster earlier (sorry, I forget who) suggested that you're citing what you think feminists think more than listening to their actual words in this regard. I do rather feel that's been the case in some of your responses to my posts.

@GaIadriel

I wanted to reiterate this point bc, almost from the beginning, I've felt like you're arguing with strawmen instead of what people here are saying, then getting angry at us about it. I had noticed it before but then in a reply to me, in which I'd said that men don't say anything to their friends about their casual misogyny, you replied something to the effect about how it was unreasonable for me to expect them to risk getting killed. It was so unrelated to what I'd said that I didn't know what to say except "if you're worried that your friends may kill you if you tell them you don't like something they're doing, you need different friends." (Fortunately, other posters addressed the disconnect between what I'd said and your reply.). I've seen you make up strawmen again and again ITT, including your presumptions about feminists. It's hard to have a meaningful conversation when the other side repeatedly mischaracterizes what's been said and, in some cases just makes shit up, as with your claims about feminists looking down on ladies who lunch.

Just browsed "tilting at windmills" memes and found this one, which I'm posting less bc of the above (although agreed!) - but more because, well... it's just glorious. I see these cartoons, and think, "Why couldn't I have thought of that?!" (But even if I had, I couldn't draw it, so...!)

Ah, heck, it's labelled "sensitive" again. You'll just have to wait, I've no doubt in unbearable suspense. 😅

Click for caption.

😍

Some trauma and dysfunction growing up made me subconsciously grade any man I met into one of two camps: dangerous or pathetic. This would keep me safe as I would then know how to behave around them (or remove myself).

Every so often I’d meet a man (could be a family member, uni housemate, colleague etc) who was neither dangerous nor pathetic. Those are the ones I am still friends with, I married the best one, and now I am doing my best to raise two teen boys to be the same. It makes it easier to have chosen a man to father them about whom I can say: if you’re ever unsure, just ask yourself “what would dad do?”, then do that.

The worst type of man is one who is both dangerous AND pathetic. They’re harder to spot…

I never sorted the women I met however, which lead to a couple of bad experiences where my loyalty / work ethic was taken advantage of by female bosses (think Miranda in Devil Wears Prada). I now apply my grading to all new humans lol!

I don't come across a lot of that : a lot of MN is pretty critical of SAHMs. Maybe I don't look on enough threads

We shouldn't let off the wives as whole yet. Clearly Sarah Ferguson seems to have been pretty chummy with Epstein, and she may not have been the only one. Surely many wives didn't know but sadly some may have & condoned it/turned a blind eye. Women aren't responsible for men's abuse, but they are responsible for their reaction if they know what is going on & ignore or even condone.

I don't think feminists in general are comparable to MRAs in general

I agree with you about playing down the positive flip side for 'ladies who lunch' with 80-hours working husbands though. It's horrible that so many men are under such financial pressure that death feels like a better option..😢

Totally agree (just wanted to preempt a derail from the rest of what I wrote).

I certainly think you are right to sort the women you meet. Women aren't harmless, just because we aren't physically violent. I am a cynic and I have been let down by both sexes. I don't find one better than another for general trustworthiness.

I get that. 👍

When Pat Craven is writing about how the perps she worked with in prisons referred to their victims as "CFC" for Cooking, Fucking, Cleaning and "WIFE" for Washing Ironing Fucking Etc, and that mention of "fucking" in both is looking a lot like what Mr Sparky is saying, I take it seriously.