Male violence against women in the UK

[DynamicSpirit]

Not trying to directly challenge either of you about this, as I agree it is a grey area, but if a man was to approach you in the street (perhaps someone stronger/more imposing than you to simulate the difference here) and he was to sit down right next to you and flirt with you, or wolf whistle at you, would you feel uncomfortable?

Actually, there's no need to hypothesize... it's already happened to me! And no worries about you asking - it's a good question.

For background, I'm in a similar position to (IIRC) @Joel_F: I'm male but for some reason that I assume is to do with genetics, I have never been at all strong. As far as I'm concerned, for most of my life it's felt like basically every other man is physically stronger than me - along with the majority of women I've dated! (Does btw put a different perspective on things when you have a dominant culture that says all these women who are stronger than me need protecting, but I apparently don't - but even so I understand there are other differences and I fully support the need to make women feel safer). But anyway I'm digressing so.....

A year or so ago I was approached in the street by a man who tried to chat me up. Since I'm 100% heterosexual, and find the idea of getting into bed with another man somewhat repulsive (purely personal taste there, no moral judgement implied), I would imagine that's somewhat comparable to a heterosexual woman being approached by the most unattractive man imaginable. Despite that, my initial reaction was a sense that this was a compliment, mixed with some respect that the guy had the balls to actually approach me out of the blue, even though there was no way I would ever be interested. However, within about 20 seconds it was becoming evident that he was not willing to take 'no' for an answer, and my sense of respect quickly turned to extreme irritation and a desire to get away from him as quickly as I could - which if I recall correctly lead to me ending the conversation and leaving very abruptly. That experience seems to me to back up my view that initially approaching (provided it's done respectfully) isn't harassment, but continuing after the other person has indicated they are not interested typically would amount to harassment.

 

[southern442]

Actually, there's no need to hypothesize... it's already happened to me! And no worries about you asking - it's a good question.

For background, I'm in a similar position to (IIRC) @Joel_F: I'm male but for some reason that I assume is to do with genetics, I have never been at all strong. As far as I'm concerned, for most of my life it's felt like basically every other man is physically stronger than me - along with the majority of women I've dated! (Does btw put a different perspective on things when you have a dominant culture that says all these women who are stronger than me need protecting, but I apparently don't - but even so I understand there are other differences and I fully support the need to make women feel safer). But anyway I'm digressing so.....

A year or so ago I was approached in the street by a man who tried to chat me up. Since I'm 100% heterosexual, and find the idea of getting into bed with another man somewhat repulsive (purely personal taste there, no moral judgement implied), I would imagine that's somewhat comparable to a heterosexual woman being approached by the most unattractive man imaginable. Despite that, my initial reaction was a sense that this was a compliment, mixed with some respect that the guy had the balls to actually approach me out of the blue, even though there was no way I would ever be interested. However, within about 20 seconds it was becoming evident that he was not willing to take 'no' for an answer, and my sense of respect quickly turned to extreme irritation and a desire to get away from him as quickly as I could - which if I recall correctly lead to me ending the conversation and leaving very abruptly. That experience seems to me to back up my view that initially approaching (provided it's done respectfully) isn't harassment, but continuing after the other person has indicated they are not interested typically would amount to harassment.

I'm in a similar position to you, in the sense that I am not at all very well built and do not conform with society's male norms, this has caused me a bit of a puzzle with regards to gender identity etc but that's another story. Point is, I can sympathise with both you and perhaps (?) with females, as most men would quite easily physically overpower me. I have never been chatted up in the street but I have in a similar way by someone who I knew in a different setting. As a bisexual male, I'd say it is still equally as uncomfortable when this happens.

As far as what is it like for a woman, we won't ever know for sure. But I have a theory that men will always see certain women in a sexual way to some extent i.e. every woman is a potential mate, whereas women don't seem to be wired that way. I'm not a biologist but that is just my guess. But it is good that we both have an appreciation for how uncomfortable it can be.

Already happened many years ago. Several times. Strange looking man approached me in Finsbury Park, sat on same bench, even though all the others were empty. Very creepy. My reaction was to move away quickly (but I never said a word to him.)

Again, this is what we must assume that certain women feel like when they are approached by men. We are not all strange-looking obviously! But I think that there is always a feeling of unease when strangers try to talk to you in an unusual way that we must keep in mind, and from my experiences with female friends, men chatting them up in the street falls under that category. Perhaps in a bar or something it may be a little different, but as you have mentioned there is also a boundary in those types of situations too.

 

[OldNick]

Around 11 years ago I caught the hourly night bus in Bristol. It set off from its city centre stop and two lads who had missed it ran into the road to stop it. They hammered on the door and windscreen until the driver relented and let them on, complete with their kebabs.

They sat apart from each other towards the front, one sat next to a young woman. They were loud and drunk, throwing bits of their food at each other across the bus and taking the mickey out of each other. The one sat next to the woman started asking the woman about her evening, which quickly turned to what I would describe as harrassment, his mate laughing at her reaction to the uncomfortable, lewd line of questioning complete with crass suggestions on how she might like to engage with him back at his place.

It was clearly not on and a few of the other passengers told them to leave her alone. They objected to this and one visitor to the city (judging by his accent, he probably got off the same late train I had) decided enough was enough and got up to have a word and invite the two off the bus. They accepted this as a challenge and foolishly could not tell that this bloke was not messing about, however they refused to leave. And so the worst of the two offenders got a bloody nose for his trouble. The whole bus now had had enough (myself included) and started trying to bundle the two off the bus. They resisted.

The driver realising there was basically a riot on the bus stopped and called the police. We sat there and waited, the one with the bloody nose wailing about assault and how we were all going to get nicked. After a word with everybody the police decided the bus should continue minus the two 'lads', and that no further action would be taken.

Interesting story perhaps - but the fact is that the two lads didn't start hassling me or any other bloke with a spare seat next to him, they zeroed in on the pretty woman, who was obviously travelling alone. And they clearly had no issue with loudly asking sexual questions. They saw no problems with their behaviour in the context of society at the time. Making a woman visibly uncomfortable, publicly on a brightly lit bus with at least 10 witnesses and presumably CCTV, was acceptable to them, all a bit of a laugh perhaps (until it wasn't funny any more - a moment that only arrived for them after being physically assaulted).

Being under the influence wasn't a cause or excuse (I don't act that way when I've had a skinfull!), even if they were to say they'd never have acted that way while they were sober - the attitude is that it is acceptable that they can do or say whatever they like to a woman, and there is little she can or will do about it if she is alone. It is still there in younger men today.

 

[21C101]

Mobile Smartphones seem to have been a gamechanger in an unpleasant way (see link below).

Perhaps the likes of Mary Whitehouse and an official censor banning Lady Chatterleys Lover might be looked back on a little more kindly in the light of this.

I think it is fair to say that Mary Whitehouse, Harriet Harman and Jess Philips were all basically on the same side on this but had very different views on how the issue should be tackled.

The toxic truth about being a teenage girl today

Six UK-based teenage girls share their experiences of abuse as it's revealed a growing number of young girls are exhausted by the stream of sexual coercion from boys their own age.

mol.im

 

[WelshBluebird]

That experience seems to me to back up my view that initially approaching (provided it's done respectfully) isn't harassment, but continuing after the other person has indicated they are not interested typically would amount to harassment.

I guess my counter to that would be that if you had significant experience where pretty much every single time someone tries to chat you up they don't take no for an answer, you may not view the initial chatting up as innocently as you do right now as you would be thinking of what it has led to in the past.

 

[notlob.divad]

Some will regard me as an ancient dinosaur, but it is fact that most men enjoy looking at attractive women, and some of them may wish to express that comment to those women -- but that does not mean that the men wish to force themselves onto those women. Even the now maligned "wolf whistle" used to be regarded as just a comment about a woman being considered attractive.

Ask yourself whom used to regard it as such. I would argue that as historically it was overwhelmingly men who shaped the narrative, it was men who regarded the action as such and thus the interpretation of it has by no means ever been universal.

Secondly, in what way has it ever been right to make such a judgement, much less comment on it. I will not regard you as an ancient dinosaur because sadly this attitude is still far to prevelent amongst men in society. As a result you very well demonstrate the problem, even if you don't participate in this behaviour yourself.

Whilst this behaviour is prevelent in society amongst men whom in your words, may not desire to force themselves onto those women, it is also very prevelent in those who do. As a result the cloud of suspicion and thus potential threats, grows exponentially contributing to the perception of fear. Secondly, any man of the later catagory whom maybe part of or overhears what may wrongly be described by some as 'locker room banter' by the former catagory, may well miss-interpret this as a societal justification of their behaviour.

A year or so ago I was approached in the street by a man who tried to chat me up. Since I'm 100% heterosexual, and find the idea of getting into bed with another man somewhat repulsive (purely personal taste there, no moral judgement implied), I would imagine that's somewhat comparable to a heterosexual woman being approached by the most unattractive man imaginable. Despite that, my initial reaction was a sense that this was a compliment, mixed with some respect that the guy had the balls to actually approach me out of the blue, even though there was no way I would ever be interested. However, within about 20 seconds it was becoming evident that he was not willing to take 'no' for an answer, and my sense of respect quickly turned to extreme irritation and a desire to get away from him as quickly as I could - which if I recall correctly lead to me ending the conversation and leaving very abruptly. That experience seems to me to back up my view that initially approaching (provided it's done respectfully) isn't harassment, but continuing after the other person has indicated they are not interested typically would amount to harassment.

Now imagine that happened to you several times a year if not more frequently.

 

[hst43102]

Being under the influence wasn't a cause or excuse (I don't act that way when I've had a skinfull!), even if they were to say they'd never have acted that way while they were sober - the attitude is that it is acceptable that they can do or say whatever they like to a woman, and there is little she can or will do about it if she is alone. It is still there in younger men today.

That sounds unspeakably awful for everyone involved. I can't help thinking that these kind of "bad eggs", such as these two terrible young men, are a minority in society which may never be eliminated. Perhaps, as a society, we should instead move to isolate and stigmatize this kind of behaviour as you and the other man on the bus did? For example, those with extreme right-wing, nationalist views are pretty much excluded from any kind of discussions or decision making in modern Britain. Maybe we should do the same with these awful sexist beliefs?

 

[peters]

For example, those with extreme right-wing, nationalist views are pretty much excluded from any kind of discussions or decision making in modern Britain.

Since when? Apart from members of the BNP being banned from entering the civil service, I'm not aware of any extreme right wing ban. Following Jo Cox's murder by a right wing extremist, there were multiple right wing extremists who stood for the Batley and Spen parliamentary seat. Fortunately, very few people voted for those candidates.

 

[AlterEgo]

That sounds unspeakably awful for everyone involved. I can't help thinking that these kind of "bad eggs", such as these two terrible young men, are a minority in society which may never be eliminated. Perhaps, as a society, we should instead move to isolate and stigmatize this kind of behaviour as you and the other man on the bus did? For example, those with extreme right-wing, nationalist views are pretty much excluded from any kind of discussions or decision making in modern Britain. Maybe we should do the same with these awful sexist beliefs?

Gosh, two bad eggs, who sat next to a woman and harassed her.

It's good to see you finally saw a sexist thing, although you missed numerous glaring earlier posts.

For the avoidance of doubt, people who simultaneously dogwhistle that a) women and men are slaves to their biology, ooh isn't that awful, and b) suggest that all men deserve an equal chance of satisfying their sexual urges towards women, and also c) suggest that women need to compromise with men to ensure their safety ....are sexist and misogynist.

Two big issues here.

Firstly, the biological argument, which holds a little water (because it is at least true in essence and forms the basis of sex separation). Men do have certain privileges over women in the society in which we live. While we shouldn't infantilise women, we should recognise that women are overwhelmingly more vulnerable to male sexual violence, sexual harassment and unwanted attention. Men should speak up for women where it is necessary - and for those who don't think men should, and women can manage quite alright on their own - have a look at Clapham Common, where the demonstrators were women, were of almost no threat whatsoever to the police, and still got manhandled in a way that simply didn't happen at the BLM, "football lads" counters, or anti-lockdown protests where there were lots of men.

Men have biological urges, certainly. But the argument that these urges are natural holds no water at all. We live in a modern society and are not Neanderthals; people are expected to be able to control and master their urges. Lots of things for which there are natural urges, and which occur perfectly naturally in the human species are completely illegal and have been for a long time, such as murder. In any case, most sexual violence doesn't happen because the victim looked good, or sexy, or attractive, but simply because they are women and the perpetrator simply wished to exercise dominance and control over her.

The final nail in the coffin of the biological argument is around sexual proclivity. Increasingly, with sexual liberation, women have had a freer choice of male sexual partners. There's quite a lot of sex going on, but as women now aren't tied down into early relationships or marriages, increasingly they're having sex with a smaller pool of successful, attractive men with characteristics they desire. About a third of men, under 30 reported having no sex at all in 2018; that's tripled in the last ten years. Undoubtedly, many of the posters here will fit into that category. However, only 18% of women reported no sex in 2018, and their rate has remained relatively steady. As a cohort, young men are now subject exactly to the same sort of selection by biological process which was previously argued justified or explained harassment of women by men. Hence, it is not coherent to argue "uhh biology", because if you argue men should, or can, press women for attention because of their urges you must also argue for women's rights to firmly say No and to give her attention to partners she finds attractive. And, if you are one of those men who are not deemed to be attractive, successful, or biologically desirable, I'm afraid you won't get much sex or fulfilment. We must therefore discard biology as some sort of excuse and we can never ever suggest that all men deserve the chance to be sexually fulfilled by women.

The other argument is around the compromises being sought from women. I'm not entirely sure what sort of compromises it's being suggested they should make (not go out at night? have a chaperone? never open unwanted DMs? dress "modestly"?), but if it was any other group of people, like Jews, black people, or gay people, we would find it horrific to suggest those groups should make compromises on how they live their life to avoid violence, unwanted attention and harassment from other groups. A good acid test for any sort of position men take towards women and women's rights is to avoid homogenising women and think about whether you'd like your own mother to be subject to the treatment you're about to excuse. I really don't think my mother does need to make any compromises with "men" to ensure her safety at night or her freedom from harassment.

Finally, it has been dispiriting to see several posters claiming to have similar experiences to women simply because they're physically smaller. I can assure you that you need to listen to a lot more women and hear their experiences, and have a better understanding of how they are at a risk of a much different kind of threat to you.

In summary:

1) Biological urges never justify harassment
2) Women aren't vessels for male gratification
3) Women shouldn't need to compromise to ensure their safety
4) Men's experiences can never equate to women's experiences
5) Women are people who experience specific problems to which men have the greatest part of the solution

It is difficult to be a man. For sure, there has been an enormous change in how relationships are carried out between men and women in the digital age. And, it has not been advantageous to men, many of whom have been slow to adapt to what women actually want. But, the modification of behaviour needs to start with men - that's us - and our attitudes, instead of continuously exporting our own difficulties onto women for them to sort. We can start by calling out things which are clearly unfair and sexist, instead of pretending we didn't see them.

Finally, it may be worth reflecting on why none of our women members have posted, except one (whose post was removed because it contained a trigger word) who only popped onto the thread to say how awful some of the attitudes were.

 

[OldNick]

Perhaps, as a society, we should instead move to isolate and stigmatize this kind of behaviour as you and the other man on the bus did?

Being British I initially did little other than a fair amount of dirty looks in their direction, Hoping perhaps they'd sense the mood on the bus.

I think many people would be hesitant to get involved due to the escalation factor, fear of harm to themselves, employers taking a dim view of instigating something. CCTV not recording audio might make it hard to prove someone was verbally assaulting someone, and that you hadn't started it, etc. I would hope that most people would say something at some point though.

I did see a video on YouTube of a racist getting some justice handed out to them on the London Underground. Not sure if its still available or if the content is too aggressive for this forum, so I won't bother searching for it and linking.

 

[notlob.divad]

That sounds unspeakably awful for everyone involved. I can't help thinking that these kind of "bad eggs", such as these two terrible young men, are a minority in society which may never be eliminated. Perhaps, as a society, we should instead move to isolate and stigmatize this kind of behaviour as you and the other man on the bus did? For example, those with extreme right-wing, nationalist views are pretty much excluded from any kind of discussions or decision making in modern Britain. Maybe we should do the same with these awful sexist beliefs?

To achieve that, you first need to draw the rest of society away further away from that type of behaviour. You need to go from the current position; where there is a continum of behaviour a lot of which is deemed acceptable, with people all drawing their own individual line between what is and isn't acceptable and being able to justify that to themselves. You need to end in a position where there is a clear distinction and seperation between what is acceptable and not. However even that does not solve the issue, mearly sweeps it under the carpet and simply turns it into an "other people's problem"

Equally what you suggest with regards to Right Wing extremists, has on no way dealt with the wider issues of racism in the country. So whilst the BNP, NF, BF, may well be sidelined and in most cases their opinions vilified. We still have a member of parliment who can published newspaper articles that mainstream some of their views, (if not their solutions), and then get elected Prime Minister.

Gosh, two bad eggs, who sat next to a woman and harassed her.

It's good to see you finally saw a sexist thing, although you missed numerous glaring earlier posts.

For the avoidance of doubt, people who simultaneously dogwhistle that a) women and men are slaves to their biology, ooh isn't that awful, and b) suggest that all men deserve an equal chance of satisfying their sexual urges towards women, and also c) suggest that women need to compromise with men to ensure their safety ....are sexist and misogynist.

Two big issues here.

Firstly, the biological argument, which holds a little water (because it is at least true in essence and forms the basis of sex separation). Men do have certain privileges over women in the society in which we live. While we shouldn't infantilise women, we should recognise that women are overwhelmingly more vulnerable to male sexual violence, sexual harassment and unwanted attention. Men should speak up for women where it is necessary - and for those who don't think men should, and women can manage quite alright on their own - have a look at Clapham Common, where the demonstrators were women, were of almost no threat whatsoever to the police, and still got manhandled in a way that simply didn't happen at the BLM, "football lads" counters, or anti-lockdown protests where there were lots of men.

Men have biological urges, certainly. But the argument that these urges are natural holds no water at all. We live in a modern society and are not Neanderthals; people are expected to be able to control and master their urges. Lots of things for which there are natural urges, and which occur perfectly naturally in the human species are completely illegal and have been for a long time, such as murder. In any case, most sexual violence doesn't happen because the victim looked good, or sexy, or attractive, but simply because they are women and the perpetrator simply wished to exercise dominance and control over her.

The final nail in the coffin of the biological argument is around sexual proclivity. Increasingly, with sexual liberation, women have had a freer choice of male sexual partners. There's quite a lot of sex going on, but as women now aren't tied down into early relationships or marriages, increasingly they're having sex with a smaller pool of successful, attractive men with characteristics they desire. About a third of men, under 30 reported having no sex at all in 2018; that's tripled in the last ten years. Undoubtedly, many of the posters here will fit into that category. However, only 18% of women reported no sex in 2018, and their rate has remained relatively steady. As a cohort, young men are now subject exactly to the same sort of selection by biological process which was previously argued justified or explained harassment of women by men. Hence, it is not coherent to argue "uhh biology", because if you argue men should, or can, press women for attention because of their urges you must also argue for women's rights to firmly say No and to give her attention to partners she finds attractive. And, if you are one of those men who are not deemed to be attractive, successful, or biologically desirable, I'm afraid you won't get much sex or fulfilment. We must therefore discard biology as some sort of excuse and we can never ever suggest that all men deserve the chance to be sexually fulfilled by women.

The other argument is around the compromises being sought from women. I'm not entirely sure what sort of compromises it's being suggested they should make (not go out at night? have a chaperone? never open unwanted DMs? dress "modestly"?), but if it was any other group of people, like Jews, black people, or gay people, we would find it horrific to suggest those groups should make compromises on how they live their life to avoid violence, unwanted attention and harassment from other groups. A good acid test for any sort of position men take towards women and women's rights is to avoid homogenising women and think about whether you'd like your own mother to be subject to the treatment you're about to excuse. I really don't think my mother does need to make any compromises with "men" to ensure her safety at night or her freedom from harassment.

Finally, it has been dispiriting to see several posters claiming to have similar experiences to women simply because they're physically smaller. I can assure you that you need to listen to a lot more women and hear their experiences, and have a better understanding of how they are at a risk of a much different kind of threat to you.

In summary:

1) Biological urges never justify harassment
2) Women aren't vessels for male gratification
3) Women shouldn't need to compromise to ensure their safety
4) Men's experiences can never equate to women's experiences
5) Women are people who experience specific problems to which men have the greatest part of the solution

It is difficult to be a man. For sure, there has been an enormous change in how relationships are carried out between men and women in the digital age. And, it has not been advantageous to men, many of whom have been slow to adapt to what women actually want. But, the modification of behaviour needs to start with men - that's us - and our attitudes, instead of continuously exporting our own difficulties onto women for them to sort. We can start by calling out things which are clearly unfair and sexist, instead of pretending we didn't see them.

Finally, it may be worth reflecting on why none of our women members have posted, except one (whose post was removed because it contained a trigger word) who only popped onto the thread to say how awful some of the attitudes were.

Well said. 100% agree.

Another one for the record.
Anger as West Midlands police officer who attacked woman in street is not jailed Lawyer for PC Oliver Banfield, who grabbed Emma Homer by her neck, argued community service would be difficult for him
Apparently it would be difficult for him to work with criminals, failing to acknowledge that he is a criminal.

 

[Lucan]

Banning anonymous social media posts, with peoples real name published

So your name really is 21C101?

It is difficult to be a man. For sure, there has been an enormous change in how relationships are carried out between men and women in the digital age. And, it has not been advantageous to men, many of whom have been slow to adapt to what women actually want. But, the modification of behaviour needs to start with men

The digital age and the women's rights movement have not made one dent in the difficulties faced by PUAs (pick-up artists); in fact they find it easier by expanding the horizons they can scan. It has made it harder for the shyer and quieter sort of men as the "girl next door" no longer needs to look to them - because she is now getting, and in many cases delighting in, the attention of PUAs from far and wide. The modern age has also allowed fast and easy worldwide travel resulting in large scale sex tourism and trafficking which the PUAs are the most likely to have the stomach for.

Those who optimistically (in their eyes) hope for a brave new world in which "dinosaurs" (they probably include me*) have died out, are deluding themselves. While educated middle class women in the west achieve more and more rights, freedoms and perhaps protection, and increasingly turn their backs on men, things will get worse for women on a world-wide scale. I can see it becoming a norm that people will not marry or form partnerships, and men, depending on their inclination, either take the MGTOW route or rely on those sex tours and trafficked women.

* I have been descibed by women I have known as a "gentleman", and words like "kind" and "safe" have been used, and the idea of mis-treating women appals me. But those terms are not always seen or meant as compliments, as they are close to "boring" and "out-of date". Many younger women are notoriously more attracted to men who are bad, or at least act bad. It is a recurring theme in literature ("Pride and Predjudice", "Far from theMadding Crowd", "Great Expectations" etc), and we see it around us in real life (my niece, the woman who pen-friended and wanted to marry the convicted Yorkshire Ripper). I think it was Thomas Hardy who commented something like women suddenly turn from being flighty girls to being cautious matrons at a certain age. Women could make better choices themselves.

if the only choice of seats was to sit next to a slim woman or an overweight man, I would probably sit next to the woman

You are not Jeremy Thorpe then? I thought this thread could do with lightening up a bit :

 

[southern442]

Many younger women are notoriously more attracted to men who are bad, or at least act bad.

There is a WORLD of difference between the stereotypial 'bad boy' and a sexual predator. And I know plenty of young women (as a young man) and this suggestion has very little substance behind it and is a massive generalisation.

and we see it around us in real life (my niece, the woman who pen-friended and wanted to marry the convicted Yorkshire Ripper). I think it was Thomas Hardy who commented something like women suddenly turn from being flighty girls to being cautious matrons at a certain age. Women could make better choices themselves.

Forgive me if I have misunderstood this but are you trying to say that women take some of the blame for this type of behaviour because 'tHeSe dAYs' they are attracted to kidnappers, rapists and abusers? Because this is simply not true. As for your niece, I would suggest that if she genuinely wanted to marry the Yorkshire Ripper, she was probably exposed to some sort of trauma early on in life.

You put your words lightly but underneath this are some extremely misguided conclusions coming from what you say. Quite simply you do not seem to understand how women feel about these issues, I would not expect a man to but I would at least expect one to accept that they don't know how it feels.

Other than this you're really not making much of a point other than that it's women's fault for liking 'bad boys' but all of a sudden complaining when they are harassed, raped and abused. When will they learn?

 

[Lucan]

There is a WORLD of difference between the stereotypial 'bad boy' and a sexual predator.

I agree, but the thread title is actually about violence which does not necessarily have anything to do with sexuality. Some men regard their wife of GF simply as a captive victim to bully.

As for your niece, I would suggest that if she genuinely wanted to marry the Yorkshire Ripper,

Sorry, my poor wording, my niece was not the one who wanted to marry the Yorkshire Ripper, they were separate examples. This (link) is the latter . In fact I had never heard of this one, I had in mind one of some years ago so there has been more than one. My niece married a less spectacular bad guy.

Forgive me if I have misunderstood this but are you trying to say that women take some of the blame for this type of behaviour because 'tHeSe dAYs' they are attracted to kidnappers, rapists and abusers?

Why does a comment like mine, that many young women are attracted to guys who are (or just seem) bad, have to be interpreted that women somehow deserve to be, or are asking to be, abused? By "bad" here I am not talking about major crimes like kidnapping, I am talking about general and visible bad behaviour and inconsiderateness, like getting drunk, driving dangerously to show off, talking dirty and criticising their GF in company, and chatting up other women to "prove" they are also desirable to them.

If you have never seen this sort of bad behaviour by some men, and women somehow lapping it up, you have not been around much. As I said, literature is full of it as a theme : Lydia Bennet falling fell for Wickham in Pride and Prejudice but do you seriously believe that, because she included that sub-plot, Jane Austen thought that women deserved everything they got and men were not to blame?

 

[southern442]

I agree, but the thread title is actually about violence which does not necessarily have anything to do with sexuality. Some men regard their wife of GF simply as a captive victim to bully.

This is true, but again I don't believe that this is what any female wants. Yes, some like those men who are 'edgy' and emotionally unavailable, but nobody wants a man like one that you have described in that last sentence. And OK, you'll get the occasional person who has a few unusual kinks (a la 50 shades of grey) but someone like this does not want a bully for a partner, they want someone who loves them as any other partner would but who can also fulfil those fantasies in the bedroom. But that's another story, obviously.

Why does a comment like mine, that many young women are attracted to guys who are (or just seem) bad, have to be interpreted that women somehow deserve to be, or are asking to be, abused?

It does not HAVE to be interpreted that way, however this is a discussion about violence and harassment against women, and in that context, combined with using the phrase 'women must make better choices themselves' you must accept that that's what it sounds like. If this is not what you are saying, then what are you saying?

By "bad" here I am not talking about major crimes like kidnapping, I am talking about general and visible bad behaviour and inconsiderateness, like getting drunk, driving dangerously to show off, talking dirty and criticising their GF in company, and chatting up other women to "prove" they are also desirable to them.

The first two I can understand, that perhaps young women going through changes, much like young men of that age, are generally attracted to the thrill of 'edginess', and I haven't associated with many of those people but yes, they are there. However from my experience that is not what the majority of women come to realise they actually want, same with men. I struggled very much when it came to talking to girls when I was 12 or 13 because I just wasn't that type of guy, but by the time I was 17 or 18, I found that actually by that time there are a lot of women and men who would consider me attractive because of the same qualities that caused me to lack attention earlier on. So yes, there is that edgy mainstream ideal but there are a great deal of people, men and women, who come to reject that later on. As for the last two, I would say they are a bit of a stretch.

If you have never seen this sort of bad behaviour by some men, and women somehow lapping it up, you have not been around much. As I said, literature is full of it as a theme : Lydia Bennet falling fell for Wickham in Pride and Prejudice but do you seriously believe that, because she included that sub-plot, Jane Austen thought that women deserved everything they got and men were not to blame?

I ask again, what is the reason you bring this up? Some women fall for 'bad boys' but they do NOT fall for abuse etc. There is a difference as we have said, but women simply don't fall for those that will treat them as objects to abuse.

 

[Lucan]

what is the reason you bring this up? Some women fall for 'bad boys' but they do NOT fall for abuse etc. There is a difference as we have said, but women simply don't fall for those that will treat them as objects to abuse.

Watch from 4 - 6 minutes :

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Can someone please confirm for me that I am still at railforums.co.uk, and haven't accidentally stumbled onto r/incel?

TIA.

 

[Charlie2555]

This whole situation is very difficult, but I must confess being happy to see no one shutting down conversation due to them simply being men, and "Mansplaining" (Maybe because most/all posters are men?)

Having been the victim of three different abusive women, I naturally take a defensive stance when I see the notion that all men are responsible or should somehow make amends for the actions of a tiny minority, whilst also not believing all women should apologise for the actions of 'My' three.

I've seen various arguments about this, on various sites, and call me a cynic, but I've never really seen a practical solution put forward to the problem that some people assault some people. Some say we should teach men not to harass, assault and rape, but I very much doubt any sane boy or man actually thinks those acceptable?

The subject of 'Victim blaming' is contentious, as some might argue that it is simply self preservation in a world that is not, and never will be perfect. I would not accuse anyone of blaming me for having my wallet hanging out my pocket in a dark alleyway and it getting stolen, nor is it victim blaming if I knowingly walk through a notorious gang area at night time and get assaulted. Of course I did not deserve any of these hypothetical crimes, but we all must take steps to reduce our likelihood to falling victim to criminals, and to simply dismiss this as 'Victim blaming' will not solve the issue. Very unfortunately, a number of women are at risk from a number of men assaulting them in today's world, and to minimise said risk, everyone should take precautions against this.

I sympathise deeply with every person who has ever been victim of any form of crime, and I must say, I have been particularly appalled by this murder of a women, perhaps due to my inherent sexism that male on female murder is worse than male on male murder?

To echo a previous comment, I was not at all surprised to watch a video, 'What would you do' in America, where two scenarios with actors were played out in a public park, one with an aggressive boyfriend with his girlfriend, and vice versa. The aggressive male was countered by just about everyone who walked past, and the women was made safe and given supportive words by passers by of both genders.
With the role reversed, most walked on by, and a couple of women even acted out punches and gave smiles of encouragement to the abusive girlfriend, and those questioned said they thought the boyfriend must have deserved the girlfriend's anger and abuse.

What a difficult time we live in..

 

[WelshBluebird]

This whole situation is very difficult, but I must confess being happy to see no one shutting down conversation due to them simply being men, and "Mansplaining" (Maybe because most/all posters are men?)

I know you are talking about this specific thread, but it is important to note that mansplaining is a real issue despite you joking about it.
Women in professional settings are quite often taken less seriously especially it is a setting that is often male dominated (I see it all of the time in my industry).
Hell I've even seen examples of men trying to (incorrectly) correct women about the female anatomy when it comes to periods and the like.

Having been the victim of three different abusive women, I naturally take a defensive stance when I see the notion that all men are responsible or should somehow make amends for the actions of a tiny minority, whilst also not believing all women should apologise for the actions of 'My' three.

I've been the victim in an abusive relationship myself. I think the difference is that for men, it is generally quite rare to be abused by women. Certainly it happens, and it probably happens more than what some people think, but isn't as prevalent as

I've seen various arguments about this, on various sites, and call me a cynic, but I've never really seen a practical solution put forward to the problem that some people assault some people. Some say we should teach men not to harass, assault and rape, but I very much doubt any sane boy or man actually thinks those acceptable?

Those that commit the crimes clearly do think it is acceptable. And the question is how did they get to that point?
And the answer is quite often, it isn't just the things are illegal. There are lot of smaller gross but legal things that can lead someone down the path to becoming a criminal. Some of the pick up artist stuff or incel stuff that you see around absolutely can essentially groom young men into a very specific mindset (hell even some of the posts in this thread are getting very close to that with the talk of "men not being able to control their urges" etc).

The subject of 'Victim blaming' is contentious, as some might argue that it is simply self preservation in a world that is not, and never will be perfect. I would not accuse anyone of blaming me for having my wallet hanging out my pocket in a dark alleyway and it getting stolen, nor is it victim blaming if I knowingly walk through a notorious gang area at night time and get assaulted. Of course I did not deserve any of these hypothetical crimes, but we all must take steps to reduce our likelihood to falling victim to criminals, and to simply dismiss this as 'Victim blaming' will not solve the issue. Very unfortunately, a number of women are at risk from a number of men assaulting them in today's world, and to minimise said risk, everyone should take precautions against this.

I think there is a difference between taking sensible precautions and what women often have to do though.
You say about not walking through a "notorious gang area at night" but for a lot of women, that isn't what they are having it avoid. It is just walking through a normal part of town at night, it is saying no to the wrong man, it is having to keep an eye on your drink in bar at all times (and whilst yes this is sensible for anyone, women are much more likely to have their drink spiked), it is knowing when the guy who has just sat next to you on an empty bus is just a weirdo or when he is dangerous etc. There is a lot more that they have to put up with on top of just being sensible as you seem to think.

I'll let you in on a secret, as a 20 year old guy (so ten years ago now) I used to have pretty much your exact views. You know what changed? I actually started listening to my female friends.

 

[Geezertronic]

I know you are talking about this specific thread, but it is important to note that mansplaining is a real issue despite you joking about it.

I didn't see that OP make a joke, there's certainly no smiley face emoji, looked to be a genuine commentary. I'd be interested to see what you saw that I didn't that lead you to make that comment?

 

[southern442]

Watch from 4 - 6 minutes :

I refer the honourable gentleman to the comments I made previously!

Once again, just in case nobody read my messages or I'm dead and a ghost that you can't see, just because some women fall for 'bad boys' this does not(!!!!!) equate to women gravitating towards people who physically harass and abuse them. And it certainly does nothing to justify women being harassed and catcalled on the street.

Also she mentions women with self-esteem issues gravitating towards 'bad boys' which implies that in a situation where someone has good mental health, this wouldn't happen.

Yet again you have offered no explanation for any of this. You keep posting loose anecdotes and video evidence which all points towards a certain accusation that you are making towards women, but you never actually say it which means that when someone like myself calls you out on it you can plead innocence and said you weren't suggesting anything. Come on now, just say what you mean to say, or come to the terms with the fact that you may not have been thinking about this from the right perspective and reflect upon yourself and go.

Having been the victim of three different abusive women, I naturally take a defensive stance when I see the notion that all men are responsible or should somehow make amends for the actions of a tiny minority, whilst also not believing all women should apologise for the actions of 'My' three.

First of all let me mention that I have been in an extremely damaging relationship with a woman and also have been in a very toxic, psychologically abusive pseudo-relationship with a man, so I very much sympathise. In fact I used to have resentment for many social media posts towards 'toxic boyfriends' when it was in fact my girlfriend who gave me lasting issues, however as natural as this type of resentment is, it's also important to note that it's something that is flawed and something we should rise above.

I've seen various arguments about this, on various sites, and call me a cynic, but I've never really seen a practical solution put forward to the problem that some people assault some people. Some say we should teach men not to harass, assault and rape, but I very much doubt any sane boy or man actually thinks those acceptable?

This thread is quite long so I don't totally blame you for not reading back, but these points have been raised, and I will try to respond as concisely as I can:

Of course not all men are rapists and murderers of young girls. Not one single person is suggesting that, and if you think they are then you have gotten them wrong. But the simple fact of the matter is many, many women feel extremely unsafe whenever they are alone or with men for fear of sexual violence, and this is something that most men do not have to face. That is an inescapable fact and it cannot be denied. A very small amount of men actually rape and kidnap women, but when you expand your thinking just a little bit and consider other behaviours, such as following girls, cat calling, excessive staring, objectification and 'blurred lines' behaviour that one might find at a nightclub, the amount of men who are actively contributing to a feeling of unease for women becomes not such a small chunk. Even so, it's not the majority of men, BUT one angry shark doesn't mean you still want to go swimming with 99 others. It is the duty of a person to make another person feel comfortable and safe around their presence; in my eyes that is the morally right thing to do. So men must make it clear that this type of behaviour is not acceptable, and those who might be harassing women need to have a think and accept that they may be making women uncomfortable, and also take steps to discourage that type of behaviour amongst other males.

...but we all must take steps to reduce our likelihood to falling victim to criminals, and to simply dismiss this as 'Victim blaming' will not solve the issue. Very unfortunately, a number of women are at risk from a number of men assaulting them in today's world, and to minimise said risk, everyone should take precautions against this.

This has been going on for ages and ages. Sarah Everard did everything women have been told to do. She wore bright clothing, walked past CCTV cameras, went out at a (relatively) early time of evening to just pop to the shops, and she ended up as 'human remains'. So I ask you, what do women do when they have been told to do everything imaginable to deter sexual assault, and it still happens? What do you tell women who get catcalled in the middle of the day? What do you tell women who get honked at and wolf-whistled at and 'nice arse' shouted at them in the middle of the day along a main road? What steps must they take to avoid this type of behaviour?

Yes, one must take precautions, but there comes a point when you have to stop making suggestions to the victims and start making suggestions to the perpetrators.


As for female violence against men, that IS an issue, but it is a totally DIFFERENT issue. It's like if someone set your house on fire and I said 'but what about starving children in africa?' An extreme example, ok, but men's issues are not the same as women's issues, they are not less worthy of discussion but you can't discuss them both in the same place. (Plus I think you will find a lot of people who claim to care about men's issues only bring them up when women's issues are being discussed as a way of avoiding confrontation and they don't actually care about it any other time).

 

[westv]

If I find myself behind a woman when I am walking home after dark I try, if possible, to cross to the other side of the street so I don't pass too close.
Quite a few years ago I did this. The woman ahead then crossed over to the same side as me. I decided to cross back but then she crossed back to the same side as me. This went on once more before the ended up going in a different direction to me.