The NAMALT/NAWALT claim imbalance

[singthing]

I'm starting this thread with a not very well thought out premise, so hopefully it makes sense by the time I post.

Essentially it feels like anytime there is a report about a bad man, we get one of 2 reactions:

1. NAMALT!!!!!!
2. Women are just as bad (or worse)

Yet, when there is a report about a bad woman, we don't see

1. NAWALT!!!!!!!
2. Men are just as bad (worse)

Why? Surely it is in women's interests to highlight that bad women are statistically a minority? Or are we just intellectual enough not to need that kneejerk reaction (or to point out that men are the vast majority of offenders)? Or what?

I think it is internalised misogyny - even amongst those of us who fight against it. When we see news of a bad woman, it keeps alive the 'women are just as bad' quarter-truth (some women may be just as bad, but generally in significantly fewer numbers).

I think it's because people think anecdotes are statistics.

'Smoking is bad for your health'
'Nonsense, my Uncle Fred smoked two packets a day and lived hale and hearty till he was 90!'

'Most violent crimes are carried out by men.'
'That's not true, there was a case in the local paper recently of a woman beating someone up'

Mixing up categories is another reason, e.g. using the term 'domestic abuse' instead of 'domestic violence', which hides the predominance of men as perpetrators of domestic violence.
More women appear in domestic abuse stats, which includes non-violent behaviours. All abuse is bad, and collecting stats on non-violent abuse is equally valid; but actual physical violence is a different category of abuse, which is overwhelmingly committed by men.

Or not disaggregating the sexual abuse of children from abuse in general - again, all abuse is bad, but sexual abuse is a different category of abuse, and one which is overwhelmingly committed by men.

In both these case, by blurring the categories, women can be made to appear to be 'as bad as men' or 'women do it too you know'.

I think it's best to let the clearly-categorised facts about men's and women's rates of offending do the talking.

Because deep down, even the most ardent supporters and defenders of men as a sex class know that the worst behaviours in our society are disproportionately shown by men.
When we discuss patterns of male bad behaviour, and they become uncomfortable, the only thing they have in response is to tell us its not all men, or try to persuade us the behaviour isn't sex based because they once knew a woman who...
In contrast when a woman behaves badly, we all know that she's not conforming to a sex based pattern, so to point out not all women is redundant. We know already she's the exception than the rule. And if we started to counter it with examples of men being just as bad or worse, well, we'd be here all week, wouldn't we?

When I meet these women irl they always have sons and also believe:
"life is so hard for men these days"
"Men can't flirt with women without being accused of rape" etc.
It is self interest that blinkers them.

@singthing By 'bad women' and 'bad men' do you mean violent women and men? I think everyone on this board would probably agree that of course men are more violent than women.

Thanks for the extra perspectives, food for thought.

I realised what I was trying to say was that male behaviour is actively sought to be excused; while female behaviour is actively sought to be condemned.

I agree that internalised misogyny (@AlexandraLeaving, @upstairsdownstairscardboardbox ) is def a big factor. We must not let the poor men take all the blame even if they are the ones doing the crimes.

@MarieDeGournay your anecdote point is also interesting. And (perhaps not unsurprisingly), when much of the argument is "not my Nigel... " so therefore not anyone's Nigel? Yours and @5128gap's point also about muddying the water of actual facts is very pertinent too.

@BruachAbhann I know what the stats are, I am not trying to validate that men are overall more dangerous than women - it was more my (possibly clearer) point at the top of this reply - bad men are generally treated more kindly than equivalently bad women. That Brock Turner rape case as just one example is a good example - he was the "promising athlete" with widespread sympathy for a potential ruined future - which I think he's now mostly enjoying. She was "asking for it" and caused him the potential damage! (or whatever pathetic blame they tried to lay on the victim)

I realised what I was trying to say was that male behaviour is actively sought to be excused; while female behaviour is actively sought to be condemned.

That's very well said, singthing, very succinct.

I see what you mean. I wonder is it that the prevalence of violent women is smaller and more shocking that a woman might commit a violent crime, like a sexual assault or child abuse? Maybe we expect more from women in a way and are more repulsed by seeing this kind of behaviour from a woman.

That doesn't explain why society should attempt to excuse it in men though.

This is a great article.

I’ve used these arguments myself.

https://whatwouldjesssay.substack.com/p/stop-asking-me-what-about-men

This is a great article.

I’ve used these arguments myself.

https://whatwouldjesssay.substack.com/p/stop-asking-me-what-about-men

Its uncomfortable for many to admit the enormous disparities between male and female behaviour.

We like to think we are equal. It's frightening to think that there are so many dangerous men out there.

'Most women have very little idea how much men hate them'

And many men feel defensive about male violence; take the stats personally.

This article is <chef's kiss> thank you!

It reminds me of the many times on any social network or platform like this, when A Man has complained about a tool, a service, a charity, an experience, ANYTHING that focuses on women.

I like to ask for details of the equivalent that they must surely have been involved with, set up, fundraised for, posted about before now. That I will GLADLY help support their cause too, the one that they did for themselves, how pleased I am he has shown initiative ahead of the topic being talked about now, but with a focus on women. And that I know he isn't just hanging round like a bloated beardy bro mosquito trying to suck the life out of women's effort.

There has never been anything but abuse crickets form that point on. They want all the benefits, all the focus, all the resources, all the solutions, but expect it handed on a plate. Kindly get fucked, Sir.

There is an excellent piece of standup by Daniel Sloss that does the rounds quite a lot. Each time I see it, what gets me the most is the total audience silence.

EDITED: this has a couple of swear words bleeped out, but also one oft the most poignant lines at the end cut, after the bit about warning signs, he says "and then he raped my friend... and that will be on me till the day I die"

Most of the bad "women" we see in the press are actually men

This is an excellent article, thank you for the link.

I thought that because she wrote movingly about her own family experience of male mental health etc struggles, and setting up a charity for men and leading it for 6 years, no one, no one could possibly accuse her of not caring about men..

Then I read the comments, and there it was: a whole bloody essay doing exactly that!

Nothing is good enough except total domination of every topic, it seems.

edited to add - and note that list of women's groups that have no male equivalents, which is apparently the fault of the women who formed all these women's groups, rather than the men who couldn't be bothered to organise an equivalent number of men's groups.

I find the trend you describe on MN threads, infuriating and alarming. Definitely internalised misogyny, ‘fawning’ as a developed stress response, and I think when women have experienced cruelty from their mother or a female figure in their life.

Thank you for that link - I read it, and about a thousand pennies dropped. The behaviour she describes - working to build support structures for women, and the men (and women!) coming in and saying “BUT WHAT ABOUT THE MENZ?!?” - it is identical to the behaviour of the TRAs in response to anyone ever doing anything exclusively for women. And of course it is the same behaviour - because they are exactly the same perpetrators. It’s not because they’re trans - it’s because they’re MEN. And if the world doesn’t centre them, then the world must be made to centre them.

It is just like this story:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5483804-a-south-african-feminist-and-the-consequences-of-queer-theory

I find it so fascinating that they never give a shiny shit about whatever subject it is, UNTIL women start speaking about it. It has never been on their radar, they have never cared about it. Only when women speak about how it affects them or what they have done to address it....

It's like they can't even let us have abuse or violence, they must have it too - and worse (cf #11, the rules of misogyny!)

Case in point to my premise:

There was a thread last night about men walking behind women and what they can do to make women feel safer. One of the very first replies is about how women can be just as threatening too. My god.

"Men, their rights, and nothing more; women, their rights, and nothing less"

[ a quote from Susan B Anthony, 19th century - still needs repeating in the 21st]

I agree with everything you said but I think it's also a fetisisation of/jealousy of other people's suffering. And TBF men also do this to men

E.g. Some men are soldiers. Some soldiers are injured in war or killed or traumatised.
Some men work very difficult and dangerous jobs. Some are underpaid. Some are unnecessarily exposed to risk (in the US such men are frequently immigrants).

Very well fed, safe podcasters, love to talk about how men take risks, die in battle, mythologise the warrior ethos etc. Sometimes in reaction to women talking about their problems. But sometimes it is just a fetisisation of (other) mens difficulties. And I get the Walter Mitty urge to escape your boring/frustrating life by daydreaming about being a fighter pilot or defeating zombies. But if you watch, it's started to turn into a real resentment that life isn't harder/less safe for them and somehow that makes them less manly. Bari Weiss wrote a rather vile article about this, where she effectively said men were turning right because the left had made life too safe/removed their opportunity to seek honour. Which ignores the fact life isn't safe for lots of men (and women) and they aren't skipping in joy at all the honour they are accruing. Plus any man who really wants to can join the French Foreign Legion or start skydiving

And it does turn into resentment. Either in projection- accusing women/other groups of trying to claim a "victim status" when they talk about their issues. Its because they genuinely do feel it's a status someone else has that they don't. Or President bone spurs himself insulting NATO soldiers/ calling American men killed in wars losers and suckers. It's a very toxic kind of jealousy. And it's not all men (hah NAMALT) but it clearly isn't just Trump. He is picking up on an existing impulse.

It probably isn't just men who think like this. But men are maybe more hierarchical/stays oroentated than women (socialised or genetic whatever) so more prone to think like this.

Sorry to get back on to the main point... As much as men might resent other men for having died in wars/fought in wars/suffered. Those types of men are always going to resent women more. Since they might accept a man being higher in a hierarchy (any hierarchy) than them. But never a woman. So take Trumps contempt for fallen male soldiers and multiply it by a 100 for any woman that has sacrificed anything it suffered anything.

And no. It's not all men. And I am sure some women do it too. Sigh.

A perfect microcosm of my theory - not all men, not my Nigel, women are worse and it's ultimately their fault anyway!

www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/5487518-to-just-not-understand-why-men-are-so-lazy

Something of a derail but I think it's relevant to danger-envy:

Every time I see one of those TV programmes where privileged and/or cosseted and/or well-to-do people willingly submit themselves to some kind of gruelling survival training course, I think of the millions of people around the world for whom life is a gruelling survival training course.

It's as if they crave a bit of risk and danger and suffering that
[a] gets filmed and broadcast and adds to their public image and
[b] ends when they've had enough.

Some women do these programmes as well but the overall tone is 'man up'.

Danger envy is the perfect term. Thank you.
I don't really have a problem with people doing risky things/pushing their boundaries if they aren't hurting anyone else. It's when they think that makes them superior to people who don't (TBF most extreme sports people are open about doing it for themselves) or if they think that puts them on the same level as people who don't have that choice/are choosing it for reasons other than excitement.
Eg my partner goes paintball ing and loves it. He isn't comparing himself to soldiers in Ukraine. That would be sick.

I think there's a difference between watching the John Wick films and secretly wishing you were just like him (many men). And genuinely feeling annoyed that no-one shot your dog. Or watching films about the Odyssey etc because they like the battle scenes, versus writing long screeds on how Western men need to return to the traditional warrior ethos that feminists took from them (basically Pete Hegseth).