Why do I get so irrationally angry at all these "poor men" threads?

[ImSoNotTelling]

In the last couple of days there have been a few threads about how difficult life is for boys, how our whole society is weighted against them, how they are set up to fail academically by a system weighted against them, how they are victims of violence, how no-one takes them seriously.

I understand that a lot of the protagonists on these threads have sons and are naturally worried about how things will play out for them in their lives, That is a given when you have children I think. You also want the best for them, for them to have all the advantages in life.

However this business about men being done down all the time, I just don;t see it.

For every one ad on teh telly with a man being incompetent at cleaning, I see 10 with a man in a sharp suit being successful, with loads of adoring women gazing at him.

I see images of men doing exciting physical activities, being powerful, swishing out of expensive cars, glanching at their expensive watches, exuding authority as they sweep down the road.

Most of our politicians are men, in the papers the vast majority of "experts" consulted are men.

Men will on average earn a lot more money than women over the course of their lifetime, even if the fact that many women go part time is factored out (sorry I've got no links). In fact women on average are earning less than men, in the same jobs, before they have even started their families. In my old industry the women earned 40% less than men.

So are boys and men in our society really having a terrible time, and we need to redress the balance? If we redress the balance, what does that actually mean? What do people who call for this want? For men to earn even more money than women in the same job? For more men to be decision makers?

I just get when I think about just how shit it is for women and girls, still, here and around the world, and yet we are all supposed to ignore that and accept that yes, men have it worse, let's forget abotu the girls (again) and concentrate on making everything even better for men.

Only, if a new problem arises that seems to affect mainly boys can we really in all conscience just leave them to it? If for example boys GCSE results suddenly start to fall dramatically and not just in relation to girls, does that not matter?

Imsonot - on all the big issues you raise, I share your views, and the ideas you mentioned in your op have occured to me too while I've been on mumsnet.

I think we need to be careful not to treat gender as the only binary linked to power in our society though. Arguably a white middle-class able-bodied, straight girl has more power and better prospects than a boy whose access to power is complicated by factors of class, race, physical ability or sexuality.

Most men have it better than women, without a doubt. My work as an academic has been about 20th century patriarchy in Ireland, the hideous excesses of which are in the news again today.

But part of my passionate belief that patriarchy is wrong, is made up of anger about the ways in which patriarchy does a disservice to the potential of boys and creates damaged men.

If I believed or taught otherwise, I would be reinforcing the notion that men are naturally rather than culturally predetermined to assert their dominance.

As mothers of boys we want to raise them to break the mould, but are doing so when they are being brought up alongside boys who are having conventional wisdom, and a conventional sense of their supremacy, confirmed at every turn.

How to help boys navigate that situation successfully is a legitimate focus for discussion on a parenting website.

As you say, we need to be very careful that we are not creating discussions where men are uncritically being given the status of 'new victim', or where their complex relationships to power become excuses for patriarchy's continuation.

"Toccata, why do you think that there are so many women who care about men's "issues", "

because we can multi-task

I think there is a lot of 'poor men' attitude as an undercurrent in society. For example, a lot of the threads on here, where men have cheated, aim their anger at the OW as if the man was this poor defenceless diddums who just followed his cock and what more could you expect. I can't bear that attitude.

but in terms of earning power, I know many more couples now than I did 10 years ago where the woman outearns the man. I think that is becoming a lot more common.

I still remember a thread on here ages ago where the OP had thrown a glass of water over her OH, and he was using threatening behaviour (OP chucked glass of water because of his behaviour).

I am still by how many woman said that it was ok what she'd done because of his behaviour.

I still stand by the fact that BOTH were in the wrong, if a woman shouts abuse at her OH and acts in a threatening manner he has no more right to throw a glass of water over her than she does him.

I am a woman, I have 3, mixed race, foreign surnamed boys. I will continue to fight for equality and understanding for issues for BOTH sides.

I know that my DS's are more likely to be victims of (non-sexual) violence, they're more likely to suffer from untreated mental health issues and more likely to commit suicide. They are more likely to be discriminated against when looking for work (because of their race and names), and they are extremely likely to come across women who treat them as if they are evil beings who need to be put in their place.

that does NOT however mean that I don't want to see women's (and children's - why is there no request for a children's rights topic?) rights supported, upheld and taken serously

What Dittany said.

The first Midwifery Act was passed in 1906, due to the work of a dedicated group of nurses, despite much resistance from the medical establishment (mainly men) because they would lose an income stream (1 guinea a time) if they no longer had to attend births. The statistics for maternal and infant death (across all classes) in 19th Century Britain are horrific (ref the midwife boks by Jennifer Worth). They improved steadily throughout the 20th Century but were still pretty horrendous during our mothers' and grandmothers' generation in the 50s, 60s and 70s compared to what they are now.

I won't even mention the humiliations associated with illegitimate births,'Churching' ceremonies or destitution (invariably ending up with workhouse admission for a poverty stricken woman and her children if she lost her husband).

We got the vote early in the 20th Century but it was a long fight.

The pill arrived in the 60s and if I remember corredtly only married women were allowed to be prescribed it originally.

Social history tells us that we don't get anything without fighting for it.

It may not be as bad as 100 or 200 years ago, but there is still some way to go to get proper equality.

I don't know dittany. It was just a hypothetical example.

Agree with RedLentil as well.

I am not worrying about the hypothetical problem. I am suggesting that it would be unreasonable not to worry about it regardless of what sex it affected mostly.

Some really fantastic posts here.

Orm you asked about a pot of "rights". It's more that there is a pot of money, a finite amount of newspaper column inches, a maximum amount of time for talking in parliament and so on. So what people decide are the problems that need talking about is important, and thus diversions do have a real impact in policy and so on. If we lose our focus things won't happen.

And of course I don't think that trying to better things for women should be at the expense of other disadvangted groups, and of course some disadvantaged groups are male. Where groups of disadvantaged males appear though, people usually react quite swiftly to try and do something about it, as groups of disadvantaged males generally cause more problems for society than other disadvantaged groups IYSWIM.

In my utopia, everyone would be able to choose to be whatever they wanted, and would be supported to do that, and would not be pressurised by society in one direction or another. Pay would be determined by competence and performance, not by "presenteeism", or golfing ability, or bargaining ability.

Workplaces would be flexible for people with responsibilities outside of work - maybe even for everyone would that make for a happier society? - and that would apply to both men and women.

And most importantly everyone would treat each other with a minimum amount of respect. That sounds a bit po-faced - but I mean that men should respect women enough not to laugh and joke about their breast size in front of them at work, that sort of thing. At this point someone will usually turn up and say "well women make fun of mens penis size as well", yes sometimes they do, but not normally in a gang, to their faces, in the middle of the workplace. And so on.

No, that's fine. I do seem what you mean. I guess my POV is coloured by my being a mother of boys as well as a girl. If I thought they my sons were struggling because of an issue that impacted mostly on them I would be very upset that it wasn't being addressed. Wouldn't you?

"And most importantly everyone would treat each other with a minimum amount of respect." Yes.

My use of the phrase 'pot of rights' was meant to stand for everything. Resources, attention, govt interest,the whole thing.

The thing is that these people are talking about boys as a whole, and how things are stacked against them.

They are not saying "boys without a male role model at home are having probems with x" or "adolescant boys who spend a lot of time on their computers are getting into trouble with Y" or "boys with aspergers syndrome face problems a and b in the schooling system". I have no beef with statements like that, of course wherever people are disadvantaged steps should be taken to assist them.

It is the idea that boys as a gender, and men as a gender, are experiencing discrimination and on such a scale that things need to be done to tackle it, which given finite rescources will mean that other areas get less. And I just don't agree that as a gender on the whole, men have it worse than other groups. I think other things need tackling first.

I think it's fair and balanced to state that boys are being disadvantaged by the education system and that men are also victims of domestic violence.

But the fact remains that where it counts - in the boardroom, in senior roles in politics, in corporate life, men outnumber women around 10:1. Men are wealthier and have more economic clout. In the interest of balance, let's not forget that men ultimately have much more power than women.

Yes that's the sort of thing.

Yes men are victims of domestic violence and there should be attempts to assist them.

Where my beef lies is when people are talking about women being victims of DV, and the majority of DV victims are women, and people come on and say "but men are victims of DV too and let's stop talking about women victims and talk about male ones instead and what should be done to help them". And then if people say that most DV victims are women they get accused of being sexist manhaters. That's what makes me Grrrrrr.

Oh yes totally behind you on that.

'Where my beef lies is when people are talking about women being victims of DV, and the majority of DV victims are women, and people come on and say "but men are victims of DV too and let's stop talking about women victims and talk about male ones instead and what should be done to help them".'

I'd be totally with you on that if I had ever seen it happen. I haven't so far. I have seen some people attempt to expand DV conversations from only about male-on-female DV to discussing male-on-female and female-on-male DV. But then people trying that tend to get vehemently shouted down and accused of being 'women-haters'.

I have had the most terrible example of this happening, on a thread with women discussing rape.

It does happen, and sometimes it is quite subtle, sometimes it is more overt. Once you have spotted it once, it's there quite a lot.

I have a son and a daughter. My son is quite miserable for quite a lot of the time. A lot of that may have something to do with the state of society and our children being some of the unhappiest in Europe It may have something to do with patriarchy. I am concerned about the fact that my son is unhappy and I do want him to be happier.

But I do not see how feminism is making my son unhappy, or how anything done by feminists in the past or present is contributing to that. How is reducing the number of women raped or beaten, or the effectiveness of women in the workplace going to make things worse for my son's future?

I think like, ISNT, I just don't get why trying to eradicate sexism somehow means I am ignoring the problems facing boys.

I also think that a lot more of the issues facing boys should be addressed by men, who after all have been in that position. I am possibly better at guiding my daughter through a sexist world because I have been through the process of going from girl to woman myself, but I don't know what it is like to be a boy.