Men’s violence against women and girls is a national emergency

[story]

And if pointed out to them those men almost certainly won't get that why when they do this they're so often met with pleasantries -"But she smiled back!" - and that it's not necessarily because women generally enjoy having their space invaded yet again by strangers demanding their emotional labour, and that the cost of not smiling back or whatever is the risk of verbal abuse or worse.

It’s so hard isn’t it.

They’d acted in keeping with expectations: paused their own conversation, allowed the men the space they demanded, found the right balance between cool and friendly, and waited til they went away.

And thus they behaved in keeping with the patriarchy.

The alternative: call the men on their behaviour….?

(My friend was vexed and cross with herself, she was asking me what she could have done differently, what would be safe, acceptable.)


So how is this problem challenged? How do those men to even begin to consider that their behaviour might be problematic?

Because it’s not necessarily that each and every man was a problem. Some people it’s just their way to stop and talk to anyone, everyone. It’s the pattern, the generalised pattern of men feeling entitled to approach women.


Do any men reading this recognise this in themselves, their friends? No need to reply, but I do wonder.

And do women reading this recognise this problem of upholding the system out of habit?




And also though…. Do we really want people not to approach each other?

Don’t know about you but I’d hate to see the end of flirting, strangers starting up conversations,

 

[equationgirl]

I honestly think a lot of men don't even realise it until you point it out to them.

This is very true. Also a lot of men don't like being told to change their behaviour.

 

[existentialist]

It’s so hard isn’t it.

They’d acted in keeping with expectations: paused their own conversation, allowed the men the space they demanded, found the right balance between cool and friendly, and waited til they went away.

And thus they behaved in keeping with the patriarchy.

The alternative: call the men on their behaviour….?

(My friend was vexed and cross with herself, she was asking me what she could have done differently, what would be safe, acceptable.)


So how is this problem challenged? How do those men to even begin to consider that their behaviour might be problematic?

Because it’s not necessarily that each and every man was a problem. Some people it’s just their way to stop and talk to anyone, everyone. It’s the pattern, the generalised pattern of men feeling entitled to approach women.


Do any men reading this recognise this in themselves, their friends? No need to reply, but I do wonder.

And do women reading this recognise this problem of upholding the system out of habit?




And also though…. Do we really want people not to approach each other?

Don’t know about you but I’d hate to see the end of flirting, strangers starting up conversations,

I think this is the sort of thing I might have done in the past - not with any predatory intent, but just part of being pleasant. Nowadays, if there was any eye contact from either of the women, I might smile and say "Hello", but I'd be waiting for the cue to interact rather than just ploughing on ahead. OTOH, sometimes people have commented to me that I seem quite diffident, so it's perfectly possible that I'm erring a little further than I need to on the side of caution. But I'd prefer that than have people thinking I was getting in their faces.

The bar thing is trickier - I think, if I am honest, it's quite likely that I, too, would have wanted to focus on sorting out the drinks error, and, again in all honesty, I'd feel a bit irritated at then being told I'd somehow been diminishing the role of my female companion. And it's not really a situation where it would be possible to put everything on pause while I discussed with my companion how she'd like me to deal with it - I was dealing with the barman anyway, it just makes sense to deal with any issues that arose with the transaction directly with the same person. So I'm not sure how I would have been able to do that any differently, without the luxury of hindsight and reflection.

And it will be different with different women. My current lady friend would absolutely expect me, if I were ordering the drinks, to sort out any errors on her behalf, and would probably be irritated with ME if I started down the "how do you want to handle this?" road. If SHE were ordering the drinks, I am absolutely sure she'd deal with it in the same way.

FWIW, if it were a man to whom the incorrect drink had been supplied, I'd probably handle it exactly the same way, too.

 

[existentialist]

This is very true. Also a lot of men don't like being told to change their behaviour.

It does depend, to some extent, on how it is done. But yes, I agree that there are plenty of men out there who would resent ANY attempt to challenge or check their behaviours, and I do think a lot of that comes down to "I won't be told how to behave by a WOMAN, dammit". Which is absolutely not OK.

 

[Santino]

I think this is the sort of thing I might have done in the past - not with any predatory intent, but just part of being pleasant.

Do you think perhaps this is what all those other men are thinking?

 

[story]

I think this is the sort of thing I might have done in the past - not with any predatory intent, but just part of being pleasant. Nowadays, if there was any eye contact from either of the women, I might smile and say "Hello", but I'd be waiting for the cue to interact rather than just ploughing on ahead. OTOH, sometimes people have commented to me that I seem quite diffident, so it's perfectly possible that I'm erring a little further than I need to on the side of caution. But I'd prefer that than have people thinking I was getting in their faces.

The bar thing is trickier - I think, if I am honest, it's quite likely that I, too, would have wanted to focus on sorting out the drinks error, and, again in all honesty, I'd feel a bit irritated at then being told I'd somehow been diminishing the role of my female companion. And it's not really a situation where it would be possible to put everything on pause while I discussed with my companion how she'd like me to deal with it - I was dealing with the barman anyway, it just makes sense to deal with any issues that arose with the transaction directly with the same person. So I'm not sure how I would have been able to do that any differently, without the luxury of hindsight and reflection.

And it will be different with different women. My current lady friend would absolutely expect me, if I were ordering the drinks, to sort out any errors on her behalf, and would probably be irritated with ME if I started down the "how do you want to handle this?" road. If SHE were ordering the drinks, I am absolutely sure she'd deal with it in the same way.

FWIW, if it were a man to whom the incorrect drink had been supplied, I'd probably handle it exactly the same way, too.

I think the point with the drink thing was that the woman was trying, to the point of actually waving her hands around and raising her voice, to intervene and add her voice to the conversation. As I say, I don’t know the details but if it had escalated to the point that the two men were literally exclusively focused on each other and excluding the woman, whose drink it was…. that seems territorial and rather than helpful, no?

They weren’t in a quiet pub they were in a bar with music, so I guess easier to get locked into each other and not hear the woman.

 

[story]

This is very true. Also a lot of men don't like being told to change their behaviour.

Tbf I’m not sure anyone likes being told to change their behaviour…



Some people handle that better than others, and that probably falls out generally along gender lines though.

 

[story]

Also, existentialist , while I understand that thing where some women really like it when the man takes the lead, and some women like it some of the time but not all the time, and all that is fraught with complications…

Isn’t this the stuff that does need to be examined, by men and by women, if we’re to unravel all this bullshit?

Why is it this way, why do I like it, why do I feel insulted if he doesn’t do it, if she shuns my efforts…. How do I observe and understand my own conditioning and expectations around the small stuff? How does that contribute to the big stuff?

Does it affect my expectations and behaviours elsewhere? In what ways?

What’s underneath the taking-charge thing and do we want to get rid of it altogether? If not why not?
If men want to be in the role of “protecter” what does that look like in a world where women are independent autonomous strong etc.




I know a couple who are perfectly happy in their very traditional gender roles. He’s the protector and provider, she’s the homemaker. They both can and do do each other’s work as and when necessary (injury, absence etc). I’ve never seen anything other than mutual love and respect between them. It looks very balanced and fair from the outside. I’ve known them for 30 years and neither one has ever confided anything worrying about the other, or about their relationship, other than the normal gripes. They understand it, they joke about it and they also talk seriously about it. They don’t assume this is right for everyone, they don’t use their situation as a benchmark for anyone else.

So if we’re theoretically working to dismantle the patriarchy, does that include encouraging this couple break down the dynamic that works so well between them?

 

[_Russ_]

.

Also, existentialist , while I understand that thing where some women really like it when the man takes the lead, and some women like it some of the time but not all the time, and all that is fraught with complications…

Isn’t this the stuff that does need to be examined, by men and by women, if we’re to unravel all this bullshit?

Why is it this way, why do I like it, why do I feel insulted if he doesn’t do it, if she shuns my efforts…. How do I observe and understand my own conditioning and expectations around the small stuff? How does that contribute to the big stuff?

Does it affect my expectations and behaviours elsewhere? In what ways?

What’s underneath the taking-charge thing and do we want to get rid of it altogether? If not why not?
If men want to be in the role of “protecter” what does that look like in a world where women are independent autonomous strong etc.




I know a couple who are perfectly happy in their very traditional gender roles. He’s the protector and provider, she’s the homemaker. They both can and do do each other’s work as and when necessary (injury, absence etc). I’ve never seen anything other than mutual love and respect between them. It looks very balanced and fair from the outside. I’ve known them for 30 years and neither one has ever confided anything worrying about the other, or about their relationship, other than the normal gripes. They understand it, they joke about it and they also talk seriously about it. They don’t assume this is right for everyone, they don’t use their situation as a benchmark for anyone else.

So if we’re theoretically working to dismantle the patriarchy, does that include encouraging this couple break down the dynamic that works so well between them?

Every once in a while someone makes sense, thanks for that post

 

[Sue]

I think the point with the drink thing was that the woman was trying, to the point of actually waving her hands around and raising her voice, to intervene and add her voice to the conversation. As I say, I don’t know the details but if it had escalated to the point that the two men were literally exclusively focused on each other and excluding the woman, whose drink it was…. that seems territorial and rather than helpful, no?

They weren’t in a quiet pub they were in a bar with music, so I guess easier to get locked into each other and not hear the woman.

Yes. If I were the woman in this scenario, could be I didn't really care about the mistake and was happy to go with what had been poured. Whatever, I'd be way more annoyed by the dick swinging and not being listened to than being served the wrong drink.

(And I've never, ever got into a quarrel with bar staff about being served the wrong drink. Normally it's enough to say, 'I ordered x and you've given me y. Would you mind changing it please?' or something similar. In fact this very thing happened last week and the barman apologised and changed it. So I do also wonder how this bloke approached the barman about his mistake.)

 

[ice-is-forming]

I wonder if because it was his shout- he ordered the drink, spoke to the bartender etc.. then it's natural that he considered it his battle. It may not have been any different if he'd ordered his dad a pint of larger, and got served a pint of bitter.

 

[quimcunx]

Tbf I’m not sure anyone likes being told to change their behaviour.

This. Its worth remembering that we are all the same species and the sexes/genders are more alike than we are different.

I'd quite like the phrase 'opposite sex' to fall out of use. We are not opposites. Even the most macho man and traditionally feminine woman are not opposites.

As individuals, we all live in a patriarchy, we all reinforce it sometimes and reject it sometimes, we are all diminished by it, we are all part of the problem, and all need to be part of the solution.

 

[Lotte]

Reading a thread on weedy middle-class liberal parents in Cambridge on Mumsnet and this post really freaked me out.

I'm firmly reporting from camp ND middle class university family with a scruffy-haired child - but I have to say, whilst our lot of 7-11yr olds are refusing to stop playing in the park despite the transition timer going off, they are not generally the group in the primary school sharing violent/sexualised content from the internet and using it to silence the girls in class and keep the boys in line as being "Chads, Giga-Chads or not-Chads" at break (which is one issue we have had primary school in Cambridge). I think there are several types of 'ineffectual parenting' in town!

No offence to men on here but reading this makes me so, so glad I don't have sons. Because I'd be terrified of my son absorbing this crap and turning on me. All the shite about Chads is bad enough coming from teens but from primary school age boys? Where are they finding it?

 

[Poot]

This. Its worth remembering that we are all the same species and the sexes/genders are more alike than we are different.

I'd quite like the phrase 'opposite sex' to fall out of use. We are not opposites. Even the most macho man and traditionally feminine woman are not opposites.

As individuals, we all live in a patriarchy, we all reinforce it sometimes and reject it sometimes, we are all diminished by it, we are all part of the problem, and all need to be part of the solution.

I feel like that's why it's so hurtful when a sexist thing is said. Because we all rub along together and we all feel a cameraderie. We have a laugh and then someone says something that draws attention to our differences. And suddenly all the fellow-feeling drains out like an overwhelmed Thames Water outfall. And I thought we were mates.

 

[quimcunx]

This drinks story reminds me of 'do as you would be done by' which is all very well as far as it goes but it's only very general or a starting point. How I want to be treated is not necessarily how you want to be treated.

It should be easy for any of us to say thanks but no thanks but so much of it is loaded with whatever our life experiences are. Ideally we should all be able to be direct and assertive, and accepting without feeling criticised or defensive. It's very difficult for many people to be direct and its easy to be upset or feel bullied by directness or annoyed by indirectness etc. Also bottling things up then having an outburst.

Eta point being you treat people how you think best but accept that they may say I rather you didn't, I'd prefer x not y and not feel defensive about it. Equally you say thanks for being thoughtful but really I'd rather you did x or y.

 

[Monkeygrinder's Organ]

What strikes me about the 'wrong drink' story is that this guy apparently got wrapped up in a quarrel with the barman about it. I mean I don't know, I wasn't there and maybe the barman was entirely at fault, but I've never been in a situation like that that required an argument to sort it out tbh.

 

[story]

.

Every once in a while someone makes sense, thanks for that post

What was it you especially liked about that post _Russ_ ?

 

[story]

The point about the drink thing was that the woman was trying to make herself heard, trying to tell the barman something about the transaction, and both the men were so locked into each other that even when she raised her voice and waved her arms about to get their attention, they didn’t see her.

If a bloke buys his dad a pint and his dad is then ignored, I’d wonder if ageism was involved.

But how often do blokes behave this way with each other? Two of them arguing and another raises his voice and raised his arms to get attention, would he be ignored and unnoticed? I’ve not seen that. Unless the arguing one is a psycho dickhead.

My mate isn’t a psycho dickhead.

He seemed to agree that the woman had a point. He was there and she spoke with him afterwards. He was trying to understand it better when he raised it with me. He wasn’t saying “she got it wrong! ” he was saying “She’s got a point, I think I got it wrong but I’m not sure in what way”.


The point of my post was that this man /some men are willing to think about it rather than automatically doubling down.

 

[emanymton]

The point about the drink thing was that the woman was trying to make herself heard, trying to tell the barman something about the transaction, and both the men were so locked into each other that even when she raised her voice and waved her arms about to get their attention, they didn’t see her.

If a bloke buys his dad a pint and his dad is then ignored, I’d wonder if ageism was involved.

Do blokes behave this way with each other? Two of them arguing and another raises his voice and raised his arms to get attention, would he be ignored and unnoticed?

My mate seemed to agree that the woman had a point. He was there and she spoke with him afterwards. He was trying to understand it better when he raised it with me. He wasn’t saying “she got it wrong! ” he was saying “She’s got a point, I think I got it wrong but I’m not sure in what way”.


The point of my post was that this man /some men are willing to think about it rather than automatically doubling down.

It's tricky, because anyone who gets overly agitated and annoyed by something like this would probably behave the same way, part of being like that is the narrowing of focus.

Is it more likely to be men who get into that state, quite possibly.

 

[zedr]

Reading a thread on weedy middle-class liberal parents in Cambridge on Mumsnet and this post really freaked me out.

No offence to men on here but reading this makes me so, so glad I don't have sons. Because I'd be terrified of my son absorbing this crap and turning on me. All the shite about Chads is bad enough coming from teens but from primary school age boys? Where are they finding it?

The classism in that quoted post is fucking gross. And I'd say the majority of kids I work with who've swallowed the nasty macho rhetoric fall into the "ND middle class university family with a scruffy-haired child" category. With a lot of this, education and class isn't the issue, it's how young people's use of the internet is facilitated and monitored (no internet/computers in private spaces) by adults.

I get your fear. Have seen some young people turn this rhetoric on their mothers and it's heartbreaking. Often we can tell it's coming from a place of fear and insecurity (one yp's mum had been given a very serious diagnosis and he began lashing out at her) but that doesn't make it any easier for the parents who have to live with it day to day.

 

[xenon]

What strikes me about the 'wrong drink' story is that this guy apparently got wrapped up in a quarrel with the barman about it. I mean I don't know, I wasn't there and maybe the barman was entirely at fault, but I've never been in a situation like that that required an argument to sort it out tbh.

Yep. Must admit when I read it, I got the sense he was just showing off, being the "big man" subconsciously in all likelyhood in front of his GF. As others have said, if you get the wrong drink, it's pretty trivial and drama free just to say sorry mate I ordered Z, this is Y in a calm manner. I don't know how it can escalate from there unless at least one party is being aggressive in their initial approach.

 

[xenon]

I've definitely been involved in an argument, heated situation where I've been focussing on the person I'm arguing with and blanking out anyone else. I mean not often, and not talking a fight situation here but I think that's pretty universal. Not to deny any patriarchial element in this instance. But as I say, what struck me is how did it even get to a shouty situation. Compicated to disentangle it all I spose.

 

[story]

What strikes me about the 'wrong drink' story is that this guy apparently got wrapped up in a quarrel with the barman about it. I mean I don't know, I wasn't there and maybe the barman was entirely at fault, but I've never been in a situation like that that required an argument to sort it out tbh.

The way it came across to me was that it was grandstanding. I asked him if he was doing that and he immediately said “ No!” and then later he said “well maybe a bit but…”

But anyways the current discussion just shows how tangled up it is, trying to work out what might have been happening.

In any event, whether it was grandstanding or aggressive dickheadishness (from my mate ir from the barman) or poor communication and jumping to conclusions… aren’t all of those just different facets of the bloke-ish bullshit we’re trying to parse?



(How do you spell bloke-ish….. Blokeish…. Blokish…)

 

[existentialist]

Also, existentialist , while I understand that thing where some women really like it when the man takes the lead, and some women like it some of the time but not all the time, and all that is fraught with complications…

Isn’t this the stuff that does need to be examined, by men and by women, if we’re to unravel all this bullshit?

Why is it this way, why do I like it, why do I feel insulted if he doesn’t do it, if she shuns my efforts…. How do I observe and understand my own conditioning and expectations around the small stuff? How does that contribute to the big stuff?

Does it affect my expectations and behaviours elsewhere? In what ways?

What’s underneath the taking-charge thing and do we want to get rid of it altogether? If not why not?
If men want to be in the role of “protecter” what does that look like in a world where women are independent autonomous strong etc.

I think it comes a lot down to "how", rather than "what". If that man's behaviour in the pub is being driven by some notion of being the "protector", then the intention is wrong - if, OTOH, he's just sorting out a problem, with no implicit agenda (allowing for the usual embedded patriarchal stuff which we can't assume he's conscious of), that's a different intention.

I know a couple who are perfectly happy in their very traditional gender roles. He’s the protector and provider, she’s the homemaker. They both can and do do each other’s work as and when necessary (injury, absence etc). I’ve never seen anything other than mutual love and respect between them. It looks very balanced and fair from the outside. I’ve known them for 30 years and neither one has ever confided anything worrying about the other, or about their relationship, other than the normal gripes. They understand it, they joke about it and they also talk seriously about it. They don’t assume this is right for everyone, they don’t use their situation as a benchmark for anyone else.

So if we’re theoretically working to dismantle the patriarchy, does that include encouraging this couple break down the dynamic that works so well between them?

And I think this seems to be similar - that couple have, apparently, chosen to adopt "traditional" gender roles, but it does seem to be a) a choice they have consciously made, or at least maintained, and b) they haven't put themselves into a state of dependency wrt the other - "[t]hey both can and do do each other’s work as and when necessary" - which suggests that they are quite carefully keeping any power dynamic or hierarchy out of their relationship.

The way it came across to me was that it was grandstanding. I asked him if he was doing that and he immediately said “ No!” and then later he said “well maybe a bit but…”

But anyways the current discussion just shows how tangled up it is, trying to work out what might have been happening.

In any event, whether it was grandstanding or aggressive dickheadishness (from my mate ir from the barman) or poor communication and jumping to conclusions… aren’t all of those just different facets of the bloke-ish bullshit we’re trying to parse?

While I think that you're right, semantically, I think there is a gulf of difference between grandstanding vs the poor communications thing, and it comes back down to intent. The grandstanding is proactive - it's setting the terms of the interaction; the communications thing is more likely reactive. Yer man was far likely to respond positively to the suggestion that yes, he could have handled things better than being told he's (for example) waving his dick around.

Some of the answers to this patriarchy thing are, I believe, only to be reached by coming alongside the behaviours, rather than setting out to confront them.

(How do you spell bloke-ish….. Blokeish…. Blokish…)

However you want to!

 

[kabbes]

I just want to say this.

I think it comes a lot down to "how", rather than "what". If that man's behaviour in the pub is being driven by some notion of being the "protector", then the intention is wrong - if, OTOH, he's just sorting out a problem, with no implicit agenda (allowing for the usual embedded patriarchal stuff which we can't assume he's conscious of), that's a different intention.

There’s always an implicit agenda. That’s kind of the point. The fact that it’s so implicit that it’s not even in the conscious awareness of the actor is not just sophistry, it’s crucial. This is the very nature of a common sense norm. We do them because that’s “how the world works”, not because we’re trying to “be” something. In fact, we do them at the very point we’re trying not to “be” something.

To put it another way, it’s the “usual patriarchal stuff” that we’re concerning ourselves with. That’s the important bit.

 

[_Russ_]

What was it you especially liked about that post _Russ_ ?

The story of the Couple apparently happy in their mutually chosen roles in the relationship. Its a point I don't remember being brought up often here though it must have been but most likely in the context of it it being seen and described simply as an unequal and oppressive power balance.

 

[kabbes]

The story of the Couple apparently happy in their mutually chosen roles in the relationship. Its a point I don't remember being brought up often here though it must have been but most likely in the context of it it being seen and described simply as an unequal and oppressive power balance.

These things are in no way inconsistent, though, which is the point that story was making. The fact that we all internalise the social relationships that we are born into is associated with two things: (1) we feel comfortable when a context conforms with those relationships; and (2) our performance of the relationships that we feel comfortable with is part of how their legitimacy and normalcy get reproduced. So the fact that Mr. and Mrs. Normal like their performance of normal is neither here nor there if it comes at the cost of reproducing a system that has come to be viewed as problematic. History is littered with familial systems that were embraced by those who enacted them at the time, but which we now view as being unacceptable in some way other

 

[JimW]

These things are in no way inconsistent, though, which is the point that story was making. The fact that we all internalise the social relationships that we are born into is associated with two things: (1) we feel comfortable when a context conforms with those relationships; and (2) our performance of the relationships that we feel comfortable with is part of how their legitimacy and normalcy get reproduced. So the fact that Mr. and Mrs. Normal like their performance of normal is neither here nor there if it comes at the cost of reproducing a system that has come to be viewed as problematic. History is littered with familial systems that were embraced by those who enacted them at the time, but which we now view as being unacceptable in some way other

Yes; trivial to state that a lot of good people live under bad systems or in bad times and behave as decently as the circumstances allow, a happy workplace under capitalism etc.

 

[Lotte]

The classism in that quoted post is fucking gross. And I'd say the majority of kids I work with who've swallowed the nasty macho rhetoric fall into the "ND middle class university family with a scruffy-haired child" category. With a lot of this, education and class isn't the issue, it's how young people's use of the internet is facilitated and monitored (no internet/computers in private spaces) by adults.

I get your fear. Have seen some young people turn this rhetoric on their mothers and it's heartbreaking. Often we can tell it's coming from a place of fear and insecurity (one yp's mum had been given a very serious diagnosis and he began lashing out at her) but that doesn't make it any easier for the parents who have to live with it day to day.

Yeah, misogyny transcends class. I have a brother and stepbrother and thank FUCK that neither of them were ever into this shit. But to have your own son suddenly decide he hates you because you're a woman...there are no words.

 

[elbows]

Reading a thread on weedy middle-class liberal parents in Cambridge on Mumsnet and this post really freaked me out.

No offence to men on here but reading this makes me so, so glad I don't have sons. Because I'd be terrified of my son absorbing this crap and turning on me. All the shite about Chads is bad enough coming from teens but from primary school age boys? Where are they finding it?

Stuff has always had some ways of trickling down into younger age groups. Even before the internet this happened, because a small percentage of kids were exposed to it via adults or older siblings etc. And it then it only takes one to spread the language and the ideas around to their peers. And children are incredibly receptive to new ideas and can run with them, or their own adapted, half-understood versions of them, very quickly. Obviously the internet has since increased the potential for spread and inappropriate exposure massively.

Theres probably ways to reduce it a bit but ultimately I dont think we can insulate primary school aged children from the things that go on and get said in broader society and older age groups of children. You have to try to eradicate it across society, and find other ways to blunt the shit, eg by trying to have sensible discussions about it. All the same some cruder responses may be required in terms of limiting the currently unhinged levels of social media content spread to younger age groups, even imperfect ones, but there is way too much indifference and enablement via certain facets of capitalism. There seems to have been a surrender on some of these fronts, from people that would otherwise be expected to wring their hands and say that something must be done. Perhaps they abdicate everything to the concept of personal responsibility within families, and thats not going to stop the toxic trickle down.