It is the job of men to challenge the culture that enables people like Weinstein

[Vicky.]

https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/life/as-men-its-our-job-to-challenge-the-culture-that-enables-people-like-harvey-weinstein

We men can talk and we can tweet all we like about Harvey Weinstein—and I think that, so long as we are finding ways to keep pressure on those who enabled him for so long, we need to. But we can also do something much more difficult, which is to look closest to home, and to our friends.

I think that men are afraid of calling out misogyny for a couple of reasons. One reason is that they fear they are misogynists themselves. Another reason is that they are worried about holding themselves out as beacons of virtue, so that when they fall short of these publicly announced standards they will receive a firestorm of criticism.

These reasons are connected, in that they both relate to how men view themselves, or want to be viewed. In other words, they have nothing to do with the horrors that women are currently enduring due to misogyny. Those fears are keeping the scaffolding of misogyny firmly in place, and it’s time many more of us overcame them, or at least tried to.

This article, written by a bloke has hit the nail on the head for me. What with this whole #metoo thing going on all over social media...and the fact that male sexual violence against women is an absolute epidemic with most women having experienced harassment/assault/rape at some stage in their lives...

Women have asked for ever for males to stop abusing us (as a class, not as individual people) and it hasn't worked. We have asked nicely, and not so nicely. And nothing changes.

I genuinely do think male people need to start doing as much as they can to call out misogynistic language and such. I do believe there are more 'nice guys' out there than bad ones, the problem seems to be, so many of the nice guys do not challenge the bad ones. For whatever reason.

To me this article is beautifully written. And highlights so many issues surrounding this epidemic.

Please, no focusing on 'not all men are like that' or 'females commit sexual violence too'. Everyone with half a brain knows this already. But to deny this is a very male problem, is pretty silly.

[Beso]

I can only really judge on how things are in my workplace, but i will try and not be biased.

Its tough for us men in the workplace knowing which of our female work collegues are up for a bit of casual sexism from both sides on a daily basis. Sharing cock pics in our group chats etc..luckily out of the 6 males and 4 females everyone is up for the banter.


If i saw anything untoward from someone though words would be had.

Thinking about it and listening to a lot of radio phone ins on this subject i would probably go out and protest about stopping the sleaze.

[Vicky.]

I can only really judge on how things are in my workplace, but i will try and not be biased.

Its tough for us men in the workplace knowing which of our female work collegues are up for a bit of casual sexism from both sides on a daily basis. Sharing cock pics in our group chats etc..luckily out of the 6 males and 4 females everyone is up for the banter.


If i saw anything untoward from someone though words would be had.

Thinking about it and listening to a lot of radio phone ins on this subject i would probably go out and protest about stopping the sleaze.
I would say in this situation, no casual sexism around newbies until you can 'work them out' so to speak

And probably no dick pics ever D:

Though obviously within friendship groups is a little different to towards random people :laugh:

I am glad you are one of the ones who calls out behaviour, or would do.

I genuinely do think that if all of the good guys started doing that, the rates of sexual assault and such would drop a fair bit, once men started realizing that no, its totally not acceptable to tell a stranger that they would like to 'smash your backdoors in' or to randomly grab her tits in a nightclub, or press up against them with an erection on the tube (all happened to me, all total strangers)

[GiRTh]

Yes. But many wont due to fear of not fitting in. The men involved in the Weinstein case should have done more. Brad Pitt apparently confronted Weinstein after his girlfriend Gwyneth Paltrow had been harassed and seth macfarlane told jokes clearly aimed at Weinstein while hosting the Oscars but its not enough. Apparently everybody knew. Until other men start to object to the 'Jack the lad' behaviour nothing will change

[Vicky.]

Yes. But many wont due to fear of not fitting in. The men involved in the Weinstein case should have done more. Brad Pitt apparently confronted Weinstein after his girlfriend Gwyneth Paltrow had been harassed and seth macfarlane told jokes clearly aimed at Weinstein while hosting the Oscars but its not enough. Apparently everybody knew. Until other men start to object to the 'Jack the lad' behaviour nothing will change

Yes. But we are repeatedly told (and I do believe this IS the case) that men who think that way are in the minority. So how would speaking out mean you are the misfit for doing so? Surely the others who are actually decent guys would effectively 'take your side'? Or do guys not really believe that misogynistic men are this minority, and instead fear that its more than that?

Not trying to be confrontational, and only using 'you' so the post makes sense :laugh:

[Beso]

I think drink may have had an impact in 2 of your experiences vicky, the third one though..ewww...seriously.

Here lies the problem i guess, a normal reaction should have been you turning to the biggest bloke on the train for help.

The worlds a mess, ive found myself walking behind women at night rushing home..you want to shout from about 20 yards away "dont be scared, im in a rush" but you know that would freak them out more.

.

[Shaun]

Ain't that the truth :wink:

[Vicky.]

I think drink may have had an impact in 2 of your experiences vicky, the third one though..ewww...seriously.

Here lies the problem i guess, a normal reaction should have been you turning to the biggest bloke on the train for help.



Why should I have to turn to the nearest big bloke for help on a train though? And I am sorry if this sounds paranoid, but how am I to know that this bloke I ask for help isn't also a sleazy pervert? Like this woman

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/girl-17-sexually-assaulted-twice-great-western-railways-newquay-plymouth-train-british-transport-a7905671.html



I don't think alcohol minimizes any of the behavior either. Its the attitude, that this is perfectly fine to do, more than the actual actions. If it wasn't widely accepted that its fine to grope women in clubs, or make vulgar comments to female strangers, then it would not happen anywhere near as often, drink or no drink.

The worlds a mess, ive found myself walking behind women at night rushing home..you want to shout from about 20 yards away "dont be scared, im in a rush" but you know that would freak them out more.

.

What my husband does in this situation (he is a big bloke) is he will cross the street so hes not directly behind her, or go a different way.

I know this should not be necessary, but in todays world where a lot of women are on high alert when alone (especially after dark) I do think its a fairly decent gesture.

I would never suggest that all blokes do this though. But I don't know the answer to it either. Women will not stop being scared of men until the violence against them by men stops :S

[Locke.]

Comes down to specific cases, I guess. In the Weinstein instance it isn't really anything to do with 'fitting in' its about them not wanting to have their entire careers and lives ruined by being blackballed from the industry. I think in the 'real' non-Hollywood world, when it comes to me and people I know personally, that in a regular work place/friend group/class/etc, people absolutely would call someone out if they were behaving inappropriately, both men and women.

[GiRTh]

Yes. But we are repeatedly told (and I do believe this IS the case) that men who think that way are in the minority. So how would speaking out mean you are the misfit for doing so? Surely the others who are actually decent guys would effectively 'take your side'? Or do guys not really believe that misogynistic men are this minority, and instead fear that its more than that?

Not trying to be confrontational, and only using 'you' so the post makes sense :laugh:Its not that there is a majority of men who think like that its just the environment does not discourage certain behaviour. It would take alot for one person to oppose that.

[Vicky.]

Its not that there is a majority of men who think like that its just the environment does not discourage certain behaviour. It would take alot for one person to oppose that.

Yeah I get that. It will be daunting for the first ones to start doing it. It will get easier though, as more men stand up saying basically..not in my name bro. I know that sounds corny as **** but I am sure you get what I mean there.

I am actually hopeful that change may start coming around soon

Toxic masculinity is bad for everyone tbh. Most normal men included.

[Beso]

Why should I have to turn to the nearest big bloke for help on a train though? And I am sorry if this sounds paranoid, but how am I to know that this bloke I ask for help isn't also a sleazy pervert? Like this woman



http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/girl-17-sexually-assaulted-twice-great-western-railways-newquay-plymouth-train-british-transport-a7905671.html



I don't think alcohol minimizes any of the behavior either. Its the attitude, that this is perfectly fine to do, more than the actual actions. If it wasn't widely accepted that its fine to grope women in clubs, or make vulgar comments to female strangers, then it would not happen anywhere near as often, drink or no drink.



What my husband does in this situation (he is a big bloke) is he will cross the street so hes not directly behind her, or go a different way.

I know this should not be necessary, but in todays world where a lot of women are on high alert when alone (especially after dark) I do think its a fairly decent gesture.

I would never suggest that all blokes do this though. But I don't know the answer to it either. Women will not stop being scared of men until the violence against them by men stops :S




You should never have to feel the need to look for help on a train, but you did unfortunatly. The sad fact is when it happened it seems you felt you couldnt ask a man fir assistance! I think you would be surprised if you asked. Or u would like to think you would...why did you feel you couldnt if thats the case?

I think most people would be horrified if they could watch live video of themselves drunk when sober. I also think nowadays most people frown upon that behaviour on a night out.


Funny thing with the scaring women, its always older women who sit next to me on buses and trains, good judges right there. So i will keep walking, breathing heavily as i pass.:joker:

I just pop into the pub til its quieter, tell the big fella he can do that.

[Vicky.]

You should never have to feel the need to look for help on a train, but you did unfortunatly. The sad fact is when it happened it seems you felt you couldnt ask a man fir assistance! I think you would be surprised if you asked. Or u would like to think you would...why did you feel you couldnt if thats the case?


I felt I could not ask a man for assistance, as there is a large chance they would just laugh, or say the pervert did not mean anything by it and was just genuinely squashed (he was not), or start chatting me up and refuse to give in, or assault me himself, or it may even turn out the perv is this guys friend...and then a combo of the above could happen.

It was never a conscious decision to not ask for help just because I shouldn't HAVE to.

Just like its not really a conscious decision to avoid certain areas. More (and this will likely sound ridiculous to a bloke, or to a woman who has never had reason to be scared yet) its a kind of...constant weighing up inside your head if the risk is worth it. Like, I have a 'danger radar'...and I assume a hell of a lot of females do too. I know many of my female friends do. This came as such a surprise to my husband and I will tell you how it came about too to try explain further

We were out walking the dog, years and years back. Was an absolutely lovely night so we ended up walking further than usual...mainly along well lit areas. When we came to a clearing...kind of a forest arch leading to the woods. Gavin went to march in, not a thought in the world. Going through my head was a risk assessment. It was dark, nighttime, secluded, perfect place for a perv or someone else to just wait for unsuspecting women, it was also quiet, pretty secluded, so noone would likely hear if there were any problems. The risk was not worth it, IMO. I refused to go any further. Gavin was absolutely astounded, as he kept saying that it was a lovely place for a walk but it was so strange, its like a fear you just...don't realize you have until certain situations occur. And this was so strong that I wouldn't even continue with my 6ft 3 brick****house husband!

I asked if he had ever felt this way. He said he hadn't.

Now, it may be his size that has made him this way, but he was pretty sure that men just do not have this constant internal risk assessor (I can't think of any other way to say it)

And THIS was what made him start crossing the street rather than walking behind a lone woman. As he asked me when this happens, and I gave him a few examples, which do include walking alone, especially if you hear footsteps behind you, and even moreso when it turns out its a guy. Except in that situation, you cannot just decide not to go there. You have to deal with it, and the absolute mind numbing fear that it brings with it.

I get that this may sound dramatic and ridiculous, but I assure you its true. And is also the experience of every female friend I have broached this topic with

[Beso]

I must be in touch with my feminet side because i risk asses when on trains and buses all the time.


I am starting to think that the 20 yard shout is the way forward because i get creeped out when i know someones coming up behind me in the dark, at least with the shout they would get the initial fright but have enough time for their female instincts to kick in like the wily old dears on the trains and buses when they see me cheerily waving from afar.

[Scarlett.]

Agree with this, I never realised how widespread this sort of thing is, I honestly don't get how people can live with themselves knowing they helped enable people like Saville and Weinstien.

[Beso]

But yes..men should be standing up from the bottom of the ladder against these slithering leeches.

[Vicky.]

I must be in touch with my feminet side because i risk asses when on trains and buses all the time.


I am starting to think that the 20 yard shout is the way forward because i get creeped out when i know someones coming up behind me in the dark, at least with the shout they would get the initial fright but have enough time for their female instincts to kick in like the wily old dears on the trains and buses when they see me cheerily waving from afar.

Maybe you are :p

I have asked a few male friends about this ever since the astonishment of my husband though, and none of them report to have this constant almost hidden thing in the back of their minds near constantly.

A few did say that they would feel uncomfortable passing a group of blokes incase they were jumped though. But not ever that they would feel dodgy simply walking home alone in the dark or anything. Or that having simply another person in their personal space would set off a danger radar or anything.

[Beso]

I dont want to derail what is an important subject to you but are you the same if its a female?

[Vicky.]

I dont want to derail what is an important subject to you but are you the same if its a female?

Until I know that its a female yes obviously as I don't know that before that point and it could be either. Once I know that its a female... the risk drops greatly and thats when I tend quite literally to breath a sigh of relief. Again that sounds like its an exaggeration, it really is not.

I wouldn't say this is a derail tbh. Its all part of the same culture IMO

[Beso]

Until I know that its a female yes obviously as I don't know that before that point and it could be either. Once I know that its a female... the risk drops greatly and thats when I tend quite literally to breath a sigh of relief. Again that sounds like its an exaggeration, it really is not.

I wouldn't say this is a derail tbh. Its all part of the same culture IMO


Could i not then argue(if my thumbs fitted this ****ing phones buttons) that its your problem being born a female that feels that way rather than a random bloke trudging home from work. Therefore it should be the job of both men and women to stand up against the question in your debate, not just men....seeing as your examples are more how you react. Wisely i may add...but you are judging all men as potential dangers..i probably would as well though in your shoes...



Theres a paragraph jumbled up somewhere in my head but.....

Basically, lets all get the ****ers..

[Vicky.]

Could i not then argue(if my thumbs fitted this ****ing phones buttons) that its your problem being born a female that feels that way rather than a random bloke trudging home from work. Therefore it should be the job of both men and women to stand up against the question in your debate, not just men....seeing as your examples are more how you react. Wisely i may add...but you are judging all men as potential dangers..i probably would as well though in your shoes...

I think you misunderstood me somehwere along the line. I am not blaming that guy walking home from work for me (and others) having this internal risk assessor. I am not blaming guys who walk closely behind me for making me scared. I accept that in many (or most) cases, my fears are totally unjustified. But my fears are largely, because I know the sheer scale of abuse of women by men.

Along with...I have a fighting chance against another female who wanted to harm me. I do not have much chance if some bloke decided he wanted to harm me. I am a fairly large female, who has been in a lot of scrapes in my life so know how to fight, but even against much smaller blokes than me, if the guy really wanted to overpower me, he would not have to use that much effort.

[Beso]

My jumbled paragraph would have explained that i know you arent blaming men and its just a reaction to the sad state of the times..i think the only thing i disagree with is the debate question in that it should be men....shouldnt it be both?

[Vicky.]

My jumbled paragraph would have explained that i know you arent blaming men and its just a reaction to the sad state of the times..i think the only thing i disagree with is the debate question in that it should be men....shouldnt it be both?

Of course it should be both. And women have been arguing against it for a very long time. And do stand up against it (I would argue, possibly more frequently than men do) but womens voices are just not heard the way mens are (especially on the issue of male violence against females)

Also women sometimes do not actually see the 'true' side of men, as some men will try to suppress it around women..especially women they love. Men out as just men...are much more likely to air their true feelings about this matter. Men are in a much better position in this way too.

The kind of man who would assault a female...is unlikely to listen to females when they complain about this kind of thing. They are much more likely to listen to males around them. If that makes more sense

[Beso]

Of course it should be both. And women have been arguing against it for a very long time. And do stand up against it (I would argue, possibly more frequently than men do) but womens voices are just not heard the way mens are (especially on the issue of male violence against females)

Also women sometimes do not actually see the 'true' side of men, as some men will try to suppress it around women..especially women they love. Men out as just men...are much more likely to air their true feelings about this matter. Men are in a much better position in this way too.

The kind of man who would assault a female...is unlikely to listen to females when they complain about this kind of thing. They are much more likely to listen to males around them. If that makes more sense

Going on from your last paragraph....

That would work in the offices around the world and should be applauded.

But the more money involved and the more power that person has....how do we get round that?

Protest...together. male and female.

[Beso]

Just a side note.....risk assesment...all women and men should ask possible partners how they react when they stub thier toe....
Answer crumple in a heap...hop going ow ow ow...safe.
Answer Shout, swear..hit wall...danger.

[Vicky.]

Going on from your last paragraph....

That would work in the offices around the world and should be applauded.

But the more money involved and the more power that person has....how do we get round that?

Protest...together. male and female.

I don't disagree with the sentiment. But I don't see how protesting would actally work on issues such as these...this is such a widespread problem ...a problem with society in general.

I guess a shift in attitude away from the current 'lets blame the vicitm in some way' narrative when people report sexual assaults may help in some way. I mean, even friends (both male and female) who would be described as feminists in so many areas of life have come out with rubbish such as 'when women dress like that, what do they expect'...shifting the blame from the men who assaulted, onto the woman in some way. Stuff like this, widesspread as it is, prevents people coming forward. As along as the fear of not being believed, there is fear of being blamed.

But in a total across the board way to improve things, I think the author of the article in the OP has the right idea. Male voices are more heard. So whilst females will obvously do the same, males need to stand up and be counted on this issue, and not let mysoginy go unchallenged any more. (obviously speaking in a wider sense, not on an individual level as some men clearly DO currently stand up to this ****)

[Tom4784]

That article hit the nail on the head, All the actresses in the world could reveal stories about Weinstein and nothing will ever really change in the Hollywood machine until the men in power say enough is enough otherwise things like this will just happen again with someone else abusing their position.

Everyone's (rightfully) damning Weinstein but the industry that enabled him also needs to be put in the firing line because Studios and production companies releasing statements condemning Weinstein is just lip service. It's easy for them and largely inconsequential and no actions to prevent another Weinstein from abusing their positions will take place, after all Weinstein was pretty much protected by the industry due to his clout with the Academy. As long as people like Weinstein don't get caught out, the people running the show don't give a ****.

[Beso]

I don't disagree with the sentiment. But I don't see how protesting would actally work on issues such as these...this is such a widespread problem ...a problem with society in general.

I guess a shift in attitude away from the current 'lets blame the vicitm in some way' narrative when people report sexual assaults may help in some way. I mean, even friends (both male and female) who would be described as feminists in so many areas of life have come out with rubbish such as 'when women dress like that, what do they expect'...shifting the blame from the men who assaulted, onto the woman in some way. Stuff like this, widesspread as it is, prevents people coming forward. As along as the fear of not being believed, there is fear of being blamed.

But in a total across the board way to improve things, I think the author of the article in the OP has the right idea. Male voices are more heard. So whilst females will obvously do the same, males need to stand up and be counted on this issue, and not let mysoginy go unchallenged any more. (obviously speaking in a wider sense, not on an individual level as some men clearly DO currently stand up to this ****)

Its went on in hollywood for ages, since it was built even...this wienstien thing may just shake it up and to its core...these music producers next....but the lawmakers..the real issue. The real abusers of power.

You have to cut of the head to feed the chickens..or suumfing.

If we cant stop powerfull people abusing children how can we stop this?.....protest...by the common family in numbers...

[Beso]

Side note......imagine how good, or bad certain films could have been...

Thanks for the stories vicky...gotta go.

[Oliver_W]

I guess the Bystander Effect was at play to a certain extent; if a single actor (say) knows that he's one of many who knows a certain thing, he may well wonder why no-one else had spoken out, and fears for his career or even life might make him hope someone else comes forward.

Let's not forget how rich Weinstein was - not counting the fingers he had in many pies across Hollywood, he was a major donor to the Democrat party...

But as for "men having to speak out", I'd say it's more of an industry wide thing, where anyone with any power should speak out - not just about Weinstein, but about any industrial abuse they know of. Meryl Streep has said it was a shame that Roman Polanksi was jailed, and he wasn't "just" a guy who used his power to get his way with women, he was a nonce. Plus, she referred to Weinstein as God, so there's that...

Wasn't Elijah Wood blackballed for speaking out against Hollywood paedos?

And then there's the BBC, and their complicity in the Saville stuff. They've at least bucked their ideas up - I can't go into why as it relates to a job I do over the summer from time to time, but their child protection is above and beyond these days, and rightly so!

[Beso]

Thank you oliver. I applaud you.

[Oliver_W]

There just seems to be a thing among showbiz types to cover each other's backs. In 2004 an investigative journalist called Sharon Waxman had been investigating claims against Weinstein, and the piece she wanted to publish was allegedly "spiked" by Matt Damon and Russell Crowe, and the article she worked so hard on (it involved traveling to two different countries) had to be essentially binned.

When this came to light, Jimmy Kimmel involved Matt Damon in a stunt on his show, so the news of his appearance and the viral video would bury those of Damon's alleged involvement in spiking the article.

[Beso]

There just seems to be a thing among showbiz types to cover each other's backs. In 2004 an investigative journalist called Sharon Waxman had been investigating claims against Weinstein, and the piece she wanted to publish was allegedly "spiked" by Matt Damon and Russell Crowe, and the article she worked so hard on (it involved traveling to two different countries) had to be essentially binned.

When this came to light, Jimmy Kimmel involved Matt Damon in a stunt on his show, so the news of his appearance and the viral video would bury those of Damon's alleged involvement in spiking the article.


And that is how simple it is.

Tibb needs to unite and protest.

[Brother Leon]

Problem is that whenever a Man does say anything, so often the comments are over analysed or **** from their past will just be dragged up again to make them Look Hypocritical. .

918621328453668864

918623049834000385

Gosling called him out and this is the response he gets from one of the victims. He probably felt he should have just stayed shut.

[Oliver_W]

Rose McGowan is a mess, let's not use her responses as a barometer.

[Toy Soldier]

It's a complicated issue and I'm going to have a proper run at a reply later but the foreword I'm afraid Vicky... Is that I sort of find this is easier more than a little sexist.

Have to get the kids off to school now but like I said, I'll go into it later.

[Toy Soldier]

OK

The Hollywood / business in general issues are entirely different to the everyday issues. The former are about power, and while it's true that it is still more often men who are in power, that's a separate issue. The fact is that all these people at or near the top, male or female, see is money - if it will affect their pockets to tackle these issues, they won't do it. If it's bad for business to let it continue, they'll nip it in the bud. That goes for ANY issue.

Regardless, it's a world completely removed from ours and there's nothing that anyone outside of that bubble can do, other than vote with our wallets, and $$$ doesn't care what we have between our legs. As has been said already... the Weinstein issue has far more to do with a toxic industry that needs gutted from the inside out than anything else.

Meanwhile in the real world, everyday casual sexism, the idea that

"men need to sort out men",
"men need to be the ones addressing this"
"men's voices are heard."

... in my opinion ... compounds the problem. It is very similar to the rhetoric of it being "up to the Muslim communities" to tackle terrorism, it's misguided, and it causes more division. If people as a group see anyone being harassed in any way in public, we should be more willing to do something about it. On an individual level - why is it assumed that a 6' tall guy is all that much more equipped to take on a physically aggressive stranger than anyone else? That thinking is, in itself, problematic. The idea that a man is not only needed to, but EXPECTED to, sort out an issue like that more than anyone else. Fact is, a lone male who is NOT an aggressive person himself taking on an aggressor, is quite likely to get himself (and probably other bystanders) hurt. If the aggressor happens to be carrying a knife, mr white knight is probably going to get seriously injured or killed even if he's twice the size. Whereas if 5 people - regardless of sex - take on an aggressor, they will probably slink off with their tail between their legs.

So this is where it becomes a paradox. You're trying to tackle the problem of "macho male culture" and "hypermasculinity" by ... promoting "macho male culture" and suggesting that every male should consider himself a "tough guy" and chivalrous protector of poor scared females. You're promoting the idea of male = more powerful, male = better heard, male = protector, male = dominant when all that does is feed right back around to the "bad end" of the spectrum, where men who are already predisposed to disrespecting or lacking empathy for people in general are being culturally drip-fed the idea that women are inferior and need men's help in "scary situations". Men can be gentle, men experience anxiety, men can be scared by scary strangers on trains.

Again, it's not that I'm saying people should be left to fend for themselves, I'm saying that if there's a perv on a train carriage then every single person there should have a major problem with it. People should not be eyeballing "the big guy in the corner" and wondering why he isn't stepping in to sort it out.

Really the only part I can agree with, is that in groups of male friends the ones who don't think "sexist banter" is acceptable should be more willing to call their friends out on it (or mock them for it - it works better - people hate nothing more than embarrassment) and let them know it's not OK, rather than keeping quiet or even joining in under peer pressure.

Other than that I consider people to be a collective of individuals and no one is more / less responsible for the actions of people who are not them than anyone else is. Again, that's not to say people "should mind their own business" and not step in, it's just to say that expectations should not differ based on physical attributes of any kind.

[DemolitionRed]

I felt I could not ask a man for assistance, as there is a large chance they would just laugh, or say the pervert did not mean anything by it and was just genuinely squashed (he was not), or start chatting me up and refuse to give in, or assault me himself, or it may even turn out the perv is this guys friend...and then a combo of the above could happen.

It was never a conscious decision to not ask for help just because I shouldn't HAVE to.

Just like its not really a conscious decision to avoid certain areas. More (and this will likely sound ridiculous to a bloke, or to a woman who has never had reason to be scared yet) its a kind of...constant weighing up inside your head if the risk is worth it. Like, I have a 'danger radar'...and I assume a hell of a lot of females do too. I know many of my female friends do. This came as such a surprise to my husband and I will tell you how it came about too to try explain further

We were out walking the dog, years and years back. Was an absolutely lovely night so we ended up walking further than usual...mainly along well lit areas. When we came to a clearing...kind of a forest arch leading to the woods. Gavin went to march in, not a thought in the world. Going through my head was a risk assessment. It was dark, nighttime, secluded, perfect place for a perv or someone else to just wait for unsuspecting women, it was also quiet, pretty secluded, so noone would likely hear if there were any problems. The risk was not worth it, IMO. I refused to go any further. Gavin was absolutely astounded, as he kept saying that it was a lovely place for a walk but it was so strange, its like a fear you just...don't realize you have until certain situations occur. And this was so strong that I wouldn't even continue with my 6ft 3 brick****house husband!

I asked if he had ever felt this way. He said he hadn't.

Now, it may be his size that has made him this way, but he was pretty sure that men just do not have this constant internal risk assessor (I can't think of any other way to say it)

And THIS was what made him start crossing the street rather than walking behind a lone woman. As he asked me when this happens, and I gave him a few examples, which do include walking alone, especially if you hear footsteps behind you, and even moreso when it turns out its a guy. Except in that situation, you cannot just decide not to go there. You have to deal with it, and the absolute mind numbing fear that it brings with it.

I get that this may sound dramatic and ridiculous, but I assure you its true. And is also the experience of every female friend I have broached this topic with

This is really interesting. They say that women are more tuned into their intuition than men, especially around danger. We are good at picking up clues.

The problem is, we often don't listen to our intuition.
Years ago, when I was seven months pregnant with our second son, I took the dog for a walk down an old disused railway track. I had my eldest son with me and a dog who I believed would protect us. As we stepped off the beaten track I felt uneasy about something but brushed it off as me just being silly. We walked on a bit further and could see smoke in the distance and just about make out a group of people. Instinct told me not to walk too close in their direction but I didn't want to turn around because we were within a hundred yards of the next exit point. The problem was, that extra hundred yards was close enough for them to spot us. They had motorbikes and before I knew it, they were hurtling towards us.

My dog was really pleased to see them. Even when they started to circle my young son and me, he was wagging his tail :fist: They didn't touch me or my son but they did taunt me and make a lot of sexual suggestions. I turned around with my now very frightened little boy and walked back the way we came. One of the guys followed us right back to the car.

I obviously went to the police and I did make a statement but I was horrified when the young police officer laughed when I repeated what these guys had said. I gave birth that night to a seven-week prem baby. (The police took that very seriously)

Our gift of fear is there for a reason. If we feel like something's not right, its probably because we have been given a subconscious clue.

[Toy Soldier]

Again DR I'm afraid I just don't think that's true... That women are necessarily more attuned to danger or more likely to feel afraid. Males are socially conditioned to believe that being afraid "isn't masculine", that anxiety is "feminine", that the correct thing to do is to "man up" and never SHOW fear, and certainly never admit it after the fact, because if you're a man fear is weakness.

I get that in some situations women are perhaps more likely to feel intimidated than some men, but again, that's only in general. A skinny 5'5 guy is no more able to take on an attacker than most women. Are they less likely to be attacked? Sexually, yes. In general? No. There are a lot of muggers out there who fully believe that you "don't hit women" but will happily knock the **** out of a guy half their size.

Even from my own perspective. I'm 6'2 and well built. I honestly do get that I probably feel a lot safer, say, sitting waiting for the bus home at 11pm on a Friday (LOT of weird people about) than a lot of people but even then. One dodgy guy going past and I don't bat an eyelid. Two, I'm relatively comfortable. Three or more? Let's face it, if they decide to go for me I'm just as ****ed as a small woman.

[Kizzy]

I don't think it's much to do with culture anymore, not here anyway we are very attuned to what is and is not socially acceptable behaviour.
The issue is powerful/rich/influential people being allowed to continue once an accusation has been made, money talks and power corrupts.

These are not your ordinary joe public here,he may have been involved with a lodge where they all swear to protect one another? Look at savile and all his parliamentary lodge connections, like attracts like.

[Kizzy]

Again DR I'm afraid I just don't think that's true... That women are necessarily more attuned to danger or more likely to feel afraid. Males are socially conditioned to believe that being afraid "isn't masculine", that anxiety is "feminine", that the correct thing to do is to "man up" and never SHOW fear, and certainly never admit it after the fact, because if you're a man fear is weakness.

I get that in some situations women are perhaps more likely to feel intimidated than some men, but again, that's only in general. A skinny 5'5 guy is no more able to take on an attacker than most women. Are they less likely to be attacked? Sexually, yes. In general? No. There are a lot of muggers out there who fully believe that you "don't hit women" but will happily knock the **** out of a guy half their size.

Even from my own perspective. I'm 6'2 and well built. I honestly do get that I probably feel a lot safer, say, sitting waiting for the bus home at 11pm on a Friday (LOT of weird people about) than a lot of people but even then. One dodgy guy going past and I don't bat an eyelid. Two, I'm relatively comfortable. Three or more? Let's face it, if they decide to go for me I'm just as ****ed as a small woman.

I think you are wrong here I would say that women are much better at assessing situations even if there is no immediate threat ( like vicky stated) I would go as far as to say that it's the 'atmoshere' they are reading.
Here's an academic article on feminine intuition.

'Research on nonverbal communication skill has clearly shown that women are, as a group, better at reading facial expressions of emotions than are men. As a result, women are more likely to pick up on the subtle emotional messages being sent by others.

There is a much more logical, and research-based answer. Research on nonverbal communication skill has clearly shown that women are, as a group, better at reading facial expressions of emotions than are men. As a result, women are more likely to pick up on the subtle emotional messages being sent by others.

Women are also better at expressing emotions through their facial expressions, tone of voice, and body, particularly positive emotions. Men are better at controlling felt emotions and at hiding emotions behind a "poker face." There is also evidence that women are seen as more empathic than men, and that they are more likely to see themselves as empathic.'

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cutting-edge-leadership/201107/women-s-intuition-myth-or-reality

[Niamh.]

Yes. But many wont due to fear of not fitting in. The men involved in the Weinstein case should have done more. Brad Pitt apparently confronted Weinstein after his girlfriend Gwyneth Paltrow had been harassed and seth macfarlane told jokes clearly aimed at Weinstein while hosting the Oscars but its not enough. Apparently everybody knew. Until other men start to object to the 'Jack the lad' behaviour nothing will change

Also apparently Corey Feldman spoke out about being abused as a kid by higher ups in the movie business too but nobody listened to him either (not sure if he mentioned names though or if Harvey Weinstein was involved)

[Toy Soldier]

I think you are wrong here I would say that women are much better at assessing situations even if there is no immediate threat ( like vicky stated) I would go as far as to say that it's the 'atmoshere' they are reading.
Here's an academic article on feminine intuition.

'Research on nonverbal communication skill has clearly shown that women are, as a group, better at reading facial expressions of emotions than are men. As a result, women are more likely to pick up on the subtle emotional messages being sent by others.

There is a much more logical, and research-based answer. Research on nonverbal communication skill has clearly shown that women are, as a group, better at reading facial expressions of emotions than are men. As a result, women are more likely to pick up on the subtle emotional messages being sent by others.

Women are also better at expressing emotions through their facial expressions, tone of voice, and body, particularly positive emotions. Men are better at controlling felt emotions and at hiding emotions behind a "poker face." There is also evidence that women are seen as more empathic than men, and that they are more likely to see themselves as empathic.'

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cutting-edge-leadership/201107/women-s-intuition-myth-or-realityBut the latter part of that only confirms what I'm saying; men are conditioned to suppress instincts like fear because they are "not manly". They are conditioned to be less expressive, perhaps never even learn to be as expressive, because "men are stoic". It's not a super-power or inherent biological difference between men and women, it is 100% social convention. The study shows what it shows, but it's a study of people who have lived in a world that has shaped them.

But society is changing and people do now expect and encourage the full range of emotion and expression in all people. Which is great, and how it should be. But then men are still expected, alongside feeling the full range of raw human emotion, to "step up" and deal with threatening situations "like a man"? It doesn't make sense, and it is a double standard.

[Beso]

A woman was today ordered to pay 750 pound costs gor drunkenly licking a mans face, grabbing his buttocks and lunging for his genitals...and a A list actor may be about to be outed.

[Toy Soldier]

Also apparently Corey Feldman spoke out about being abused as a kid by higher ups in the movie business too but nobody listened to him either (not sure if he mentioned names though or if Harvey Weinstein was involved)The Corey Feldman situation is pretty messed up really, he came forward about a lot of horrible stuff and not only were most people not all that interested... But he was basically an outcast because of it.

[Niamh.]

The Corey Feldman situation is pretty messed up really, he came forward about a lot of horrible stuff and not only were most people not all that interested... But he was basically an outcast because of it.

Yeah they made him out to be a nut job really didn't they? very sad, it's hard to challenge people like that with so much money and power because they're so protected

[Kizzy]

But the latter part of that only confirms what I'm saying; men are conditioned to suppress instincts like fear because they are "not manly". They are conditioned to be less expressive, perhaps never even learn to be as expressive, because "men are stoic". It's not a super-power or inherent biological difference between men and women, it is 100% social convention. The study shows what it shows, but it's a study of people who have lived in a world that has shaped them.

But society is changing and people do now expect and encourage the full range of emotion and expression in all people. Which is great, and how it should be. But then men are still expected, alongside feeling the full range of raw human emotion, to "step up" and deal with threatening situations "like a man"? It doesn't make sense, and it is a double standard.

Who said it was? The fact remains that for now there is this nuance for some, nobody is expecting anything, nobody wants anyone to be a hero and put themselves in danger that's your projection perhaps?

[Toy Soldier]

A woman was today ordered to pay 750 pound costs gor drunkenly licking a mans face, grabbing his buttocks and lunging for his genitals...and a A list actor may be about to be outed.Does the guy get the money? This and similar happened to me a couple of times a week when I was at University, I could have made a fortune!

Well, the genital lunging less frequent but the arse groping was literally constant. I don't think I ever got licked, to be fair. Though I did once get essentially forced to have a girl stick her tongue in my face as I was being lowkey threatened "not to make her feel bad" by a group of mainly guys she was with.

And have literally just realised that I was therefore technically sexually assaulted :umm2:...

[Oliver_W]

Also apparently Corey Feldman spoke out about being abused as a kid by higher ups in the movie business too but nobody listened to him either (not sure if he mentioned names though or if Harvey Weinstein was involved)
As far as I know Weinstein was offering favours in exchange for sex, rather than abusing little boys. But didnt both Coreys from Lost Boys come forward?
A woman was today ordered to pay 750 pound costs gor drunkenly licking a mans face, grabbing his buttocks and lunging for his genitals...and a A list actor may be about to be outed.
Gosh, it wouldn't occur to me to take things up with the authorities for something as inconsequential as some random groping me in a club, but I'd go all METOO if I could get nearly a grand from it!

[Niamh.]

As far as I know Weinstein was offering favours in exchange for sex, rather than abusing little boys. But didnt both Coreys from Lost Boys come forward?

Gosh, it wouldn't occur to me to take things up with the authorities for something as inconsequential as some random groping me in a club, but I'd go all METOO if I could get nearly a grand from it!

I'm not sure about Corey Haim but it could definitely have been a reason why he ended up a drug addict and dying so young :(

[Toy Soldier]

Who said it was? The fact remains that for now there is this nuance for some, nobody is expecting anything, nobody wants anyone to be a hero and put themselves in danger that's your projection perhaps?

I would still counter that it is impossible to judge whether or not women are more perceptive to external threats than men when men (including in any study) are likely to mask fear, anxiety or identification of a threat with bravado / humour / anger as that is the socially expected and accepted response. It's equally likely that all people are on average just as likely to assess situations and intentions in the same way, with men being statistically less likely to vocalise their perception of that situation as threatening.

For the rest... this entire thread is based on the concept that men should challenge other men? Partly on a societal scale (which I agreed with, groups of male friends shouldn't encourage or copy their mates sexism in peer settings and should call it out) but also on two other levels.

First being that "men are responsible overall for the actions of other men" and responsible for being the ones to stop it. I can't imagine you agree with that, because I know your stance on the suggestion that "Muslim communities are responsible for terrorists and should be the ones tackling it" and this is literally no different. Non-sexist / non-aggressive men are not responsible for the actions of other men, and no individual or community should be made to feel responsible for the actions of another individual unless they have actively encouraged it.

The second was quite explicitly that men should be expected to step in in specific, acute situations such as sexual harassment on public transport, moreso than individuals in general, because aggressors are more likely to listen to men, with the underlying message being that "men are tougher and more able to stand up to these things". That is a massive problem. It's trying to tackle macho culture by ENCOURAGING macho culture. It's impossible.

[Toy Soldier]

I'm not sure about Corey Haim but it could definitely have been a reason why he ended up a drug addict and dying so young :(IIRC he didn't come forward about anything but the "other Corey" has said that this was the case. That's off the top of my head though, from an interview that he gave.

[Niamh.]

IIRC he didn't come forward about anything but the "other Corey" has said that this was the case. That's off the top of my head though, from an interview that he gave.

Well those two worked together alot back in the 80's and 90's so it would be pretty likely if Corey Feldman had been abused then Cory Haim probably had been too as they would be around the same people

[Oliver_W]

The discussion about danger perceptions between the two genders is interesting but slightly o/t, maybe it warrants its own thread? But yeah, as far as I know men are better in "flight or fight" situations and making snap decisions due to endocrine and brain chemistry? Though that's slightly different, it's more about how to react to a presented possible threat, rather than perceiving them.

[DemolitionRed]

But the latter part of that only confirms what I'm saying; men are conditioned to suppress instincts like fear because they are "not manly". They are conditioned to be less expressive, perhaps never even learn to be as expressive, because "men are stoic". It's not a super-power or inherent biological difference between men and women, it is 100% social convention. The study shows what it shows, but it's a study of people who have lived in a world that has shaped them.

But society is changing and people do now expect and encourage the full range of emotion and expression in all people. Which is great, and how it should be. But then men are still expected, alongside feeling the full range of raw human emotion, to "step up" and deal with threatening situations "like a man"? It doesn't make sense, and it is a double standard.

Science has proved on average that men's brains are wired differently to women. I agree there are expectations within society regarding 'manning up' and as boys grow into men, there's a huge amount of conditioning.

When it comes to wiring, we can only work on the law of averages (the most common connectivity patterns tested this far)

Perhaps I should have said, "on average, cognitive science shows that most women are more intuitive than men (around danger)" and not made it sound like a sweeping generalization.

[Kizzy]

I would still counter that it is impossible to judge whether or not women are more perceptive to external threats than men when men (including in any study) are likely to mask fear, anxiety or identification of a threat with bravado / humour / anger as that is the socially expected and accepted response. It's equally likely that all people are on average just as likely to assess situations and intentions in the same way, with men being statistically less likely to vocalise their perception of that situation as threatening.

For the rest... this entire thread is based on the concept that men should challenge other men? Partly on a societal scale (which I agreed with, groups of male friends shouldn't encourage or copy their mates sexism in peer settings and should call it out) but also on two other levels.

First being that "men are responsible overall for the actions of other men" and responsible for being the ones to stop it. I can't imagine you agree with that, because I know your stance on the suggestion that "Muslim communities are responsible for terrorists and should be the ones tackling it" and this is literally no different. Non-sexist / non-aggressive men are not responsible for the actions of other men, and no individual or community should be made to feel responsible for the actions of another individual unless they have actively encouraged it.

The second was quite explicitly that men should be expected to step in in specific, acute situations such as sexual harassment on public transport, moreso than individuals in general, because aggressors are more likely to listen to men, with the underlying message being that "men are tougher and more able to stand up to these things". That is a massive problem. It's trying to tackle macho culture by ENCOURAGING macho culture. It's impossible.

It's not always about threat, a threat has an altogether different vibe there is more at play body language, words, and the charged situation itself with which to piece together a response. Intuition is based on something much more subtle here's an example of a study..

'For the study, 90,000 people were shown different photographs of people’s eyes. They were then asked to say what they thought that person’s mood was. The results: women consistently outperformed men.'

I don't agree with the premise of the thread that men need to police other men far from it, like you say it is applauded when men step in but they shouldn't be however it's impossible to say whether they do it due to a false sense of duty or just due to the fact they are witness to a crime. With everyone the bystander effect throws up those who step up and those that don't, male and female.

[Kizzy]

The discussion about danger perceptions between the two genders is interesting but slightly o/t, maybe it warrants its own thread? But yeah, as far as I know men are better in "flight or fight" situations and making snap decisions due to endocrine and brain chemistry? Though that's slightly different, it's more about how to react to a presented possible threat, rather than perceiving them.

If you can't perceive a threat how can you be better at reacting to it?... :/

[Beso]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/news/video-1555273/Man-goes-aggressive-rant-against-woman-tube.html

This video of the truth and you at last years tibb get together may illustrate your point vicky.

[Oliver_W]

If you can't perceive a threat how can you be better at reacting to it?... :/

A man drawing a knife is a presented threat which needs to be reacted to, a shifty looking man who just seems dodgy is a possible threat, which apparently women would be better at judging the likelihood of him being an actual danger.

[Kizzy]

A man drawing a knife is a presented threat which needs to be reacted to, a shifty looking man who just seems dodgy is a possible threat, which apparently women would be better at judging the likelihood of him being an actual danger.

A man with a knife is an actual threat not a perceived one.

[Oliver_W]

A man with a knife is an actual threat not a perceived one.

Dat's wight wabbit.

My argument was that while women might be better at assessing whether or not something is a threat, men are better at reacting to the actual threat.

[Kizzy]

]Dat's wight wabbit.[/B]

My argument was that while women might be better at assessing whether or not something is a threat, men are better at reacting to the actual threat.

I'll ignore the bit in red. That is your opinion based on what exactly?

[James]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/news/video-1555273/Man-goes-aggressive-rant-against-woman-tube.html



I don't know if it is relevant to this thread, but I read this BBC article recently where they did an informal social-experiment in a public park, where they had two actors: in one scenario they had a man shouting at a women for an hour and a half, and in the other the roles were reversed.

When it was the man shouting at the women 7 passers-by stopped to help, and with the roles reversed 1 person stopped.

Here is the article - http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/item/5d33c36d-cd41-4351-97ed-4516962d5c44

Video here - http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/item/e6432b9c-94bf-4fb7-bd19-82a82dbf6ec5

[Oliver_W]

I'll ignore the bit in red. That is your opinion based on what exactly?
Genetic differences between the two sexes. The article below outlines how male physiology better enables them to respond with fight or flight. The example given is a gunpoint robbery and how each gender would respond, and the biological reasons behind this. Obviously there are other dangerous situations which may or may not require a fight or flight response.
You are walking alone in a dark alley late at night when, all of a sudden, you feel the barrel of a gun pressed to the back of your neck and hear a voice saying (https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/games-primates-play/201203/gender-differences-in-responses-stress-it-boils-down-single-gene): "Give me your wallet or I will kill you." What do you do? The answer is: it depends on whether you are a man or a woman. If you are a man, you either run away as quick as you can or you turn around and punch the guy in the face. If you are a woman, you try to talk yourself out of the situation: "Are you sure you want to do this?" you ask the robber, or "If you put the gun away, we can talk about the situation and I will see what I can do to help you."

Physiologist Walter Cannon - a pioneer of research on stress - argued in the 1930s that "fight-or-flight" is a universal physiological response to stress shown not only by all humans, but by animals as well. This response is controlled by the sympathetic nervous system - the part of our nervous system that deals with automatic functions such as breathing. Under stress, this system is activated, increasing heart rate and blood pressure, hastening breathing, and otherwise readying you to face down your enemy or to run. Thousands of studies inspired by Cannon described and documented this response in a variety of species and situations. The vast majority of these studies, however, were conducted with males.

A new study conducted in Australia suggests that the difference between men and women in their responses to stress may boil down to a single gene. The authors of this study argued that the SRY gene that men have on their Y chromosome - right between the gene for flipping through TV channels with the remote control and the gene for not putting the toilet seat down after peeing - causes their fight-or-flight response, while women use different genetic and physiological mechanisms to deal with stress.

[Kizzy]

Genetic differences between the two sexes. The article below outlines how male physiology better enables them to respond with fight or flight. The example given is a gunpoint robbery and how each gender would respond, and the biological reasons behind this. Obviously there are other dangerous situations which may or may not require a fight or flight response.
You are walking alone in a dark alley late at night when, all of a sudden, you feel the barrel of a gun pressed to the back of your neck and hear a voice saying (https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/games-primates-play/201203/gender-differences-in-responses-stress-it-boils-down-single-gene): "Give me your wallet or I will kill you." What do you do? The answer is: it depends on whether you are a man or a woman. If you are a man, you either run away as quick as you can or you turn around and punch the guy in the face. If you are a woman, you try to talk yourself out of the situation: "Are you sure you want to do this?" you ask the robber, or "If you put the gun away, we can talk about the situation and I will see what I can do to help you."

Physiologist Walter Cannon - a pioneer of research on stress - argued in the 1930s that "fight-or-flight" is a universal physiological response to stress shown not only by all humans, but by animals as well. This response is controlled by the sympathetic nervous system - the part of our nervous system that deals with automatic functions such as breathing. Under stress, this system is activated, increasing heart rate and blood pressure, hastening breathing, and otherwise readying you to face down your enemy or to run. Thousands of studies inspired by Cannon described and documented this response in a variety of species and situations. The vast majority of these studies, however, were conducted with males.

A new study conducted in Australia suggests that the difference between men and women in their responses to stress may boil down to a single gene. The authors of this study argued that the SRY gene that men have on their Y chromosome - right between the gene for flipping through TV channels with the remote control and the gene for not putting the toilet seat down after peeing - causes their fight-or-flight response, while women use different genetic and physiological mechanisms to deal with stress.

Is there a link to this article please? How do XX males deal with stress then?

[Niamh.]

If you click the underlined part of the post it will link you to the article Kizzy

[Kizzy]

If you click the underlined part of the post it will link you to the article Kizzy

Ah, isn't technology fabulous?... ;)

[Niamh.]

Ah, isn't technology fabulous?... ;)

:laugh:

[Beso]

I don't know if it is relevant to this thread, but I read this BBC article recently where they did an informal social-experiment in a public park, where they had two actors: in one scenario they had a man shouting at a women for an hour and a half, and in the other the roles were reversed.

When it was the man shouting at the women 7 passers-by stopped to help, and with the roles reversed 1 person stopped.

Here is the article - http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/item/5d33c36d-cd41-4351-97ed-4516962d5c44

Video here - http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/item/e6432b9c-94bf-4fb7-bd19-82a82dbf6ec5

Thanks. I will read it after work.

[Oliver_W]

How do XX males deal with stress then?

As in a transguy? I guess he'd have much the same response as any other biological female. That said, testosterone fuels some of the behaviours we deem "aggressive", so if he'd started HRT he might be more inclined to fight an attacker off.

[Kizzy]

As in a transguy? I guess he'd have much the same response as any other biological female. That said, testosterone fuels some of the behaviours we deem "aggressive", so if he'd started HRT he might be more inclined to fight an attacker off.

No, as in an XX male with no SRY gene.

[Vicky.]

Does the guy get the money? This and similar happened to me a couple of times a week when I was at University, I could have made a fortune!

Well, the genital lunging less frequent but the arse groping was literally constant. I don't think I ever got licked, to be fair. Though I did once get essentially forced to have a girl stick her tongue in my face as I was being lowkey threatened "not to make her feel bad" by a group of mainly guys she was with.

And have literally just realised that I was therefore technically sexually assaulted :umm2:...

Yes, its kind of scary when you realize isn't it. When I thought about it all properly, I remember 10 clear instances of being sexually assaulted, one clear cut case of rape, and one dubious rape case where I don't actually know if it was rape or not as I was forced into it but I just did not say no enough or physically fight enough, and if I had I may well have been able to 'get out of it' if i tried harder rather than just have the ridiculous instinct to freeze. Where previously I thought I had 'only' been assaulted once, and raped once. Too much of this behavior is just something people expect. When no...it really should not be 'normal' to be groped by strangers at all.

I feel I should reply to all (or most of) your posts in here in more detail when I have more time as kind of busy at the moment but your replies have made a lot of sense to me too and yes, there is a kind of self fulfilling prophecy issue to so much of this. And maybe it is sexist to think men are listened to more by other men than women are. But I genuinely do believe this to be the case.

[Vicky.]

I don't know if it is relevant to this thread, but I read this BBC article recently where they did an informal social-experiment in a public park, where they had two actors: in one scenario they had a man shouting at a women for an hour and a half, and in the other the roles were reversed.

When it was the man shouting at the women 7 passers-by stopped to help, and with the roles reversed 1 person stopped.

Here is the article - http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/item/5d33c36d-cd41-4351-97ed-4516962d5c44

Video here - http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/item/e6432b9c-94bf-4fb7-bd19-82a82dbf6ec5

These are done/posted quite regularly.

[Vicky.]

This one I can answer quite quickly though.

First being that "men are responsible overall for the actions of other men" and responsible for being the ones to stop it. I can't imagine you agree with that, because I know your stance on the suggestion that "Muslim communities are responsible for terrorists and should be the ones tackling it" and this is literally no different. Non-sexist / non-aggressive men are not responsible for the actions of other men, and no individual or community should be made to feel responsible for the actions of another individual unless they have actively encouraged it.
Men are not actually responsible for the actions of other men on an individual level though, would have thought that would maybe go without saying. Men (as a class) are responsible for what can lead to individual men feeling so...'backed up' in their misogyny though. Some women are misogynistic too. And some are more passive. Not saying they aren't. But it seems a bit silly to get into cases of individuals though. As there are exceptions to all rules.

Don't really understand the Muslims part. IF the absolutely huge majority (infact very nearly all) of terrorist attacks were committed by Muslim people then I do think it would be totally acceptable to allude to this being a problem predominately with one part of society. And to ask why this is. And what 'normal' Muslims could/should be doing to stop this anomaly that seems to be making one race hugely more dangerous than other races. And I would question why others did not think that these things were fair to say/ask actually.

Nearly all sexual violence is committed by men. Against both women, and against other men.

Infact, violence in general is nearly always committed by male people.

[Toy Soldier]

This one I can answer quite quickly though.

Men are not actually responsible for the actions of other men on an individual level though, would have thought that would maybe go without saying. Men (as a class) are responsible for what can lead to individual men feeling so...'backed up' in their misogyny though. Some women are misogynistic too. And some are more passive. Not saying they aren't. But it seems a bit silly to get into cases of individuals though. As there are exceptions to all rules.

Don't really understand the Muslims part. IF the absolutely huge majority (infact very nearly all) of terrorist attacks were committed by Muslim people then I do think it would be totally acceptable to allude to this being a problem predominately with one part of society. And to ask why this is. And what 'normal' Muslims could/should be doing to stop this anomaly that seems to be making one race hugely more dangerous than other races. And I would question why others did not think that these things were fair to say/ask actually.

Nearly all sexual violence is committed by men. Against both women, and against other men.

Infact, violence in general is nearly always committed by male people.


Not to turn into the new Truth here, but this simply isn't true. Most assaults that result in serious injury are committed by men, as men are more physically capable of causing serious injury without a weapon (and most violent incidents don't actually involve weapons). It's also true that there is MORE violence is committed by males. "Nearly always" however is a gross exaggeration; the domestic violence stats are close to being 50/50 by many measures. The main difference being that female-on-male domestic violence is (again) far less likely to result in serious injury, and also much less likely to be reported (very, very rare in fact). I personally actually know far more guys who have been slapped / kicked / had objects thrown at them by their female partners than females who have had their male partners get physical with them... it's just much more widely accepted for some reason. A guy stays out late with his friends and gets home to an angry girlfriend and she lobs something at him, he tells his friends the next day, it gets a "LOL". A girl gets home from a night out and her angry boyfriend chucks a boot at her and she tells her friends about it... at the very least he's he's going to be considered her "violent boyfriend" from that point on, and they'd probably encourage a police report.

As of course - they should. Domestic violence is never acceptable, in any form... my point isn't that it should be fair game, just illustrating how massively skewed official violence stats are because of social conventions. It's impossible to gauge that way. But most anonymous stats asking the simple question "have you ever been struck violently by a partner" show that the stats across genders and sexual orientations are pretty much all equal.

[Vicky.]

Would it help if I said instead, all stats we have evidence of say that violence is nearly always from male people? As really, going on what we think happens more is a bit daft.

http://www.refuge.org.uk/about-domestic-violence/domestic-violence-and-gender/

A 2009 study based on police reports, which accounted for the dynamics of domestic violence, found that only 5% of domestic violence incidents were perpetrated by women in heterosexual relationships

Whilst male/female victims are fairly equal...it still seems to be predominantly, males who are assaulting other males.

Though I would agree that there is a worrying trend of people thinking female DV is somehow acceptable. which is not helped AT ALL by how in films for example, its often a 'funny' scene when a girl slaps a guy for something

[Vicky.]

Not trying to trivialize male victims here by the way. Not at all. But when males are assaulted, is would usually still be another male that was doing the assaulting.

'nearly always' to me would mean like, 90ish%+ of the time.

[Toy Soldier]

Would it help if I said instead, all stats we have evidence of say that violence is nearly always from male people? As really, going on what we think happens more is a bit daft.

http://www.refuge.org.uk/about-domestic-violence/domestic-violence-and-gender/



Whilst male/female victims are fairly equal...it still seems to be predominantly, males who are assaulting other males.

Though I would agree that there is a worrying trend of people thinking female DV is somehow acceptable. which is not helped AT ALL by how in films for example, its often a 'funny' scene when a girl slaps a guy for something

But it isn't "all the stats" and it isn't just an assumption or "what we think" - the link you've posted specifically says "based on police reports". The point is that female-on-male violence is drastically under-reported for societal reasons, and because injuries requiring treatment are far less common. When polls have been taken on random samples anonymously, and especially when they don't ask "have you experienced domestic abuse" or use terms like "assault" but instead stick to the basics - "have you ever been struck by a partner" - the stats show that women are perfectly capable of low-level aggression in relationships and it's not uncommon at all. People just don't take it seriously enough to call it abuse or file official complaints.

[Vicky.]

Of course women are perfectly capable of low level aggression in relationships too?

Would genuinely like to see some of these studies/polls actually. As I tend to find stuff like that very interesting (maybe to the point of obsessing, sometimes) but never known which to take seriously as they seem to be obviously scewed one way or another depending on the source (an obvious MRA poll would show the totall opposite to a radical feminist one, for example) which is why I go on official stats/data collection sources and much more. But yes, police reports would maybe show different to an anon poll for the reasons you have listed and more

Finally I would never accuse you of being like truth...in ANY way :p

Going back to game of thrones bingewatch in a sec..so will go back in the morning and reply on the other posts you made earlier in the thread that I do think need a bit more thought/attention than what I am currently putting into posts..

[Niamh.]

I read this on FB and it's so true, women are always shut down, shamed and called liars :

When grown men came forward to report abuse by youth team football coaches they were described as brave, but if women report abuse they are criticised for not doing it sooner.

[Niamh.]

I really like this video
https://www.facebook.com/OccupyDemocrats/videos/1748455535247493/

[Vicky.]

You know, the black lives matter page just put what I meant by 'not all men are like that' and 'women do it too' in the OP into perfect words

Do you go onto dog charity home pages and say "Cats get abused too, look! Why don't you help cats? And some dogs bite people. Look at this baby who was hurt by a dog."

Nobody would do that because it would be deranged. Yet it is seen as acceptable to do this in response to people trying to discuss problems like sexism or racism.

I never used to understand the BLM movement. I remember being on threads saying 'well why black lives, surely all lives matter'. Its taken me a lot of years, and tackling what I can only say was internalized racism...to fully understand it. I think this soul searching...is whats brought me to understand the wider problem of sexism actually. As until quite recently I was very much a 'females are equal in this country, no need for feminism' kind of person. When really...its not true at all. In law maybe, in actual day to day life, not so much.

[Vicky.]

OK

The Hollywood / business in general issues are entirely different to the everyday issues. The former are about power, and while it's true that it is still more often men who are in power, that's a separate issue. The fact is that all these people at or near the top, male or female, see is money - if it will affect their pockets to tackle these issues, they won't do it. If it's bad for business to let it continue, they'll nip it in the bud. That goes for ANY issue.

Regardless, it's a world completely removed from ours and there's nothing that anyone outside of that bubble can do, other than vote with our wallets, and $$$ doesn't care what we have between our legs. As has been said already... the Weinstein issue has far more to do with a toxic industry that needs gutted from the inside out than anything else.

Yes, what I am getting from this is that its different with the hollywood thing, its about power in general. So its unfair to say that its a problem males need to sort out...as men are so often powerless too. I would agree that people such as Streep(just as an example) are in a much better position than some guy who is just starting out...for calling out people like Weinstein.

Meanwhile in the real world, everyday casual sexism, the idea that

"men need to sort out men",
"men need to be the ones addressing this"
"men's voices are heard."

... in my opinion ... compounds the problem. It is very similar to the rhetoric of it being "up to the Muslim communities" to tackle terrorism, it's misguided, and it causes more division.

Mens voices are heard, to other men, more often than womens are though. A woman complaining about something is often written off as just a 'moany bitch' and I can't be the only one who would spend ages in office meetings with an idea only to be ignored, then a guy say the EXACT same thing and suddenly its the best idea ever.

Yes, it may be a sexist view, but a view that (in my life anyway) has been my experience. Men listen to other men, more than they listen to women. Take other men much more seriously too.

Infact I am fairly sure that most men would agree with this assessment of (sadly) how things are.

Some people may not even realise that this is often how things are. I cannot, for example, be the only person who spent ages pitching an idea at work, just to be ignored. Then a few mins (or days) later a guy says the exact same idea and all of a sudden its a brilliant idea. Infact it used to be a bit of a running joke in our office that if any of the women had an idea, to let their male friends know it and the males would then take the idea to the (dickhead) boss.



If people as a group see anyone being harassed in any way in public, we should be more willing to do something about it.

Well yes, and most people would. Its not just an issue of when seeing someone assaulted though, its challenging the entire culture that leads to entitled arseholes thinking its fine to behave this way in the first place.

On an individual level - why is it assumed that a 6' tall guy is all that much more equipped to take on a physically aggressive stranger than anyone else? That thinking is, in itself, problematic. The idea that a man is not only needed to, but EXPECTED to, sort out an issue like that more than anyone else. Fact is, a lone male who is NOT an aggressive person himself taking on an aggressor, is quite likely to get himself (and probably other bystanders) hurt. If the aggressor happens to be carrying a knife, mr white knight is probably going to get seriously injured or killed even if he's twice the size. Whereas if 5 people - regardless of sex - take on an aggressor, they will probably slink off with their tail between their legs.

Yes agreed.


So this is where it becomes a paradox. You're trying to tackle the problem of "macho male culture" and "hypermasculinity" by ... promoting "macho male culture" and suggesting that every male should consider himself a "tough guy" and chivalrous protector of poor scared females. You're promoting the idea of male = more powerful, male = better heard, male = protector, male = dominant when all that does is feed right back around to the "bad end" of the spectrum, where men who are already predisposed to disrespecting or lacking empathy for people in general are being culturally drip-fed the idea that women are inferior and need men's help in "scary situations". Men can be gentle, men experience anxiety, men can be scared by scary strangers on trains.

Yes again, good point but the writer of the article (nor myself) are expecting men to put themselves in dangerous situations to play 'white knight' or anything. Its tackling common sexist views and language. That will often occur more often in situations where male people are the majority(or all the viewers). Its more a...men call out your sexist friends on their sexist language and behaviour...than men go out and save a woman from being raped.


Again, it's not that I'm saying people should be left to fend for themselves, I'm saying that if there's a perv on a train carriage then every single person there should have a major problem with it. People should not be eyeballing "the big guy in the corner" and wondering why he isn't stepping in to sort it out.

Yes, I don't think anyone would think that. The only person who has said anything similar on the thread, was parmnion who suggested that I turn to the nearest bloke for defense!



Really the only part I can agree with, is that in groups of male friends the ones who don't think "sexist banter" is acceptable should be more willing to call their friends out on it (or mock them for it - it works better - people hate nothing more than embarrassment) and let them know it's not OK, rather than keeping quiet or even joining in under peer pressure. Well...that was the whole point of the thread so very glad we agree on that. I would never say men should put themselves in danger on purpose, but tackling the culture from the inside out will make all of the difference. Yes there will still be pervs around, there always will be even if EVERY single nice guy turned round tomorrow and said enough is enough. But the general attitude towards women would change a lot.

Other than that I consider people to be a collective of individuals and no one is more / less responsible for the actions of people who are not them than anyone else is. Again, that's not to say people "should mind their own business" and not step in, it's just to say that expectations should not differ based on physical attributes of any kind.
Agreed.