UKH

I have been prompted to post by the interview with Mina Smallman on Radio 4 this morning. Two of her daughters were murdered last year in a London Park. Last week two threads responding to the Sarah Everard murder ended up getting locked. I found the responses on the thread difficult specifically the way that the male violence, aggression, pestering and such like vanished and they quickly became about what women could do to stay safe. The source of the problem largely became invisible.

So what can men do? One idea I quite like is men organising a march for men in post lockdown times on CPS offices to demand a better response to complaints of rape, assault, stalking etc.

In reply to Solsbury:

Not a snowball's chance that will do any good.  You'd be much better off being much more specific with what you want to say about what to whom when, and then organising single protests of the sort that will get coverage in the tabloids about each of these things.

T.

In reply to Tony Buckley:

Yeah, what Tony said. If you want a change you need specific demands and you need to stuff them down the throat of the most relevant body. So depending on your demands, it might be the police, the home secretary, the judiciary, the house of commons, etc.

In reply to Solsbury:

There are various campaigns in place by women already, men (in large numbers) need to get behind these with their voices and financially, but do so without attempting to take over.

https://wecantconsenttothis.uk/

Men need to join the many women writing to and emailing the attorney generals office every time there is a lenient sentence relating to the rape or murder of a women.

https://www.gov.uk/ask-crown-court-sentence-review 

For example this recent case...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/cwmbran-...

In reply to Solsbury:

Start critically analysing (the find word function is handy) news articles in relation to male violence about women and make the effort to complain.

This is a BBC article about the harassment of female athletes, the BBC fails to acknowledge that it is men who are doing the harassing, the only reference to men in the entire article is a direct quote from a female victim.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-wales-55890779

Highlight the issue and complain to the BBC, highlight the issue and complain on social media, highlight and discuss the issues with your sons.

In reply to SAF:

I don't  think trying to second guess trial juries and judges based on outrage and partial knowledge is the way forward. If overall sentences are regarded as too low, campaign to change if you think that would reduce violence.

In reply to Solsbury:

In previous threads the point has sometimes been made that schools can play a pivotal role in developing a better sexual culture for our society. In this context, I think it's significant that students in expensive private schools are beginning to lift the lid on some of the frightening attitudes they have experienced - eg the allegations about a "rape culture" in Dulwich College that was "condoned by school management." I see the protest that was planned has now been cancelled after students were threatened with disciplinary action by the Head Dr Joe Spence. (I'm guessing that insisted-upon doctorate doesn't qualify him to give anyone a jab.) It's worth remembering that a majority of this country's leadership were educated in very similar schools when considering how likely they are to be agents of enlightened societal change.

In reply to SAF: Thanks, that is exactly what I felt happened in many of the posts on here last week, the level of threat and violence from men towards women seemed to be taken as something like the rising and setting of the sun, it just happens and therefore just does not get talked about.  t  

In reply to MG:

Should we all sit back and take the same attitude for this case?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/mums-fury-after-...

In reply to MG:

Or this one....

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.eveningtelegraph.co.uk/fp/young-woman-who-...

In reply to SAF:

I do. We simply dont know whether the sentence was appropriate based on an article in the Mirror.

They will be errors in sentencing so it is right there is an appeal process where this is informed by full knowledge and legal advice. However it shouldn't be abused by politicising it  (and hence more widely the justice system) or by taking tabloid articles as accurate accounts of complex court decisions.

In reply to MG:

We absolutely should politicise it. This is women and girls lives your talking about. Who cares if it is reported in the mirror or BBC or wherever if you raise a concern by the official routes it can be reviewed if necessary and then  misogynist judges can begin to be held accountable.

In reply to SAF:

Take a look at US justice before you push for a politicised system.

In reply to MG:

I'd rather look at the UK justice system as this is where I live and the society in which my daughter will grow up, and currently rape convictions are at an all time low.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-53588705

In reply to SAF:

Well if that is your approach you wont get any support from  me. You are basically advocating mob justice.

In reply to MG:

How is using your legal right to petition the attorney general's office 'mob justice'?

How do you suggest we improve rape conviction rates and appropriate sentencing for violent crimes against women? Because women are campaigning and have been campaigning for a long time and things are getting worse not better.

In reply to SAF:

Because you are taking whatever very limited in knowledge you have about a case, assuming the sentence is wrong based on your politics and abusing an appeal system by mass petition to change it.  More generally politized justice is terrible. You really don't want it if you actually want to reduce violence rather than just feel good about being vengeful

You could try looking at say Sweden for a more effective approach.  But since that isn't in the UK, I guess you aren't interested.

In reply to MG:

Okay, then...

What are you doing to improve rape conviction rates and appropriate sentencing for violent crimes against women?

In reply to SAF:

Generally voting for progressive parties. 

Are conviction rates inappropriate, given the evidence in court?  Are sentences inappropriate?  Does a "hang em and flog em" approach reduce violence? The divisive and simplistic approach that you take and seems typical among advocacy groups makes it very unlikely I will do more.

In reply to SAF:

'What are you doing to improve rape conviction rates and appropriate sentencing for violent crimes against women?'

What possible answer could you expect to such a stupid question?

In reply to MG: We don't necessarily know the circumstances but that doesn't mean we shouldn't think about both sentencing generally and these cases specifically.

In reply to Solsbury:

Yes, I said that above.  Although I don't think simplistically increasing sentences will do much good

Less certain of this.  These are  cases reported partially to develop outrage (and clicks).  They are probably correct sentences, certainly within the guidelines that judges have to follow.  Encourage mass writing on the basis of this outrage is definitely not apporpriate.

In reply to MG:

No these cases are real women and girls who have had their lives taken or destroyed.

In reply to SAF:

Most likely both.

In reply to SAF:

Taking cases to CPS and ensuring my team pursue all the evidence in accordance with the Criminal Procedure and investigation Act.

You?

In reply to Solsbury:

What we need is a Home Secretary who understands a woman's perspective, who can empathise with their situation. In short, a woman.

Oh.

In reply to off-duty:

Completing safeguarding referrals and well completed patient clinical records and police statements for relevant incidents.

You're not the only person dealing with the victims of violent crime, rape and domestic abuse.

In reply to SAF:

not voting Tory/Austerity = cuts in social services, policing, society generally

not voting to Brexit = distance us from European values to move to more trade with "enlightened" cultures in Asia and China

In reply to MG:

How do you think you know the intentions of those reporting on such cases - the difference between 'This is an outrage people must know about things like this', and 'This will help create outrage and clicks on the website'?

It could appear to be an assumption, more than knowledge...

In reply to Timmd:

I'm also curious as to how any journalist would manage to report the facts of those 3 cases without it appearing as outrageous clickbait.

In reply to wercat:

I've never voted Tory, but anyone who thinks labour is a pro women party really needs to educate themselves. Right at the moment women are between a rock and a hard place with which party will support our rights best (or less worse).

In reply to captain paranoia:

What, like Priti Patel?

Or Amber Rudd

Or Theresa May

Or Jacqui Smith...

There's an episode of Upstart Crow, where Shakespeare gets worried that Queen Elizabeth will think his 'Taming of the Shrew' traitorous.

Until it is pointed out that she hasn't done anything for women's rights during her reign...

I'm not sure why this comes to mind.
 

In reply to Andy Clarke:

Yeah I was going to say take it into schools. But especially things like drunken consent.

It terrifies me what kids these days get up to though with the dating/hook up apps. It's just such a different environment to the one most teachers grew up in.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

You think nothing can be done, and it's stupid even to ask the question?  All righty.

In reply to off-duty:

Working well isn't it?  Well, for 49% of the population anyway.

In reply to Blanche DuBois:

Because all men are rapists? Do f*ck off.

In reply to Timmd:

No really. The Mirror one didnt report on the case at all, just the reaction of the family. We have no idea of what happened or why the sentence was arrived at.

In reply to MG:

Are you suggesting that the adult male didn't penetrate the 5 year old girl with his penis, and that in 5 years time (he was given only 5 years on the sex offenders register) that the then mid 20s male will no longer be a threat to young girls?

https://www.kidderminstershuttle.co.uk/news/18796612.mums-fury-kidderminste...

There is an article available in the local paper as well if the mirror offends you so much.

In reply to Solsbury:

Well this is all very pleasant...

In reply to SAF:

No - he was convicted of rape. Incidentally his sentence was increased after an appeal but only somewhat. There clearly is something about the case that makes a superficially inappropriate sentence correct.

I have no idea and nor do you. We don't have the information needed.

In reply to MG:

You put a lot of faith in the UK justice system, as a women I can not do that.

It's pretty simple that an adult male who rapes a 5 year old has the potential to do it again his entire life and therefore needs to be on the sex offenders register for his entire life in order to protect other girls and women (not as punishment for his actions) regardless of individual nuances of the case. We don't need more information on that matter. The judge who decided that has let down girls and women and totally disregarded our safety.

In reply to MG:

No but the vast majority (99%) of rapists are male.

In reply to SAF:

And therefore all men want them to go unpunished?  Piss off. I'm done with thread.

In reply to SAF:

'As a woman I cannot do that.' I can't say that's a sentiment I've heard from my wife, daughter, other women friends and work colleagues. So why is their experience so different from yours?

In reply to Blanche DuBois:

We can gather the evidence, we can put it before the CPS. In the drive to try and ensure that every case is pursued to a charge I've seen huge changes with both positive and negative impacts on victims and suspects in a desire to improve procedures so that more cases will get to charge.

We can't make a jury convict.

And I'll move over your apparent ignorance that we deal with male rape victims as well.

In reply to SAF:

What do you know about the suspect in this case - Callum Haycock.

From what I've read he was 21 and regularly "played with" the 5 year old victim. The rape occurred when he was 17 years old.

Given the sentence my suspicion would be that he is someone with complex needs and potentially some sort of learning disability. The fact that the original sentence was successfully appealed and still didn't result in a custodial, suggests there is a lot more to this story.

In reply to off-duty:

Either he has insight into his actions and should have been given a custodial sentence or he lacks any insight and is therefore a continuing threat and should be on the sex offenders register for life.

So surely his time on the sex offenders register should reflect these complex needs in relation to his sexual behaviours and lack of normal boundaries and he should be on the register for life in order to protect girls and women in the future.

In reply to Solsbury:

Wasn't one of the reasons Britain removed the death sentence because it didn't stop people from murdering.

Bringing more harsh offences isn't going to stop horrible People/Men doing disgusting things. The only real way is to educate young men/boys early on and to push that it is not right to treat women/people in this way.

I used to be a bit sexist (only remarks, I was never violent) as a young teenager. Until luckily my father educated me on why I was being a disgusting shit. School did very little to specify or show its such an issue in society.

In reply to SAF:

I think that's a fairly binary view of what may well have been an extremely complex offender.

The length is defined by law. 5 years is the maximum in this case.  The requirement to register doesn't have any provision for working with him to prevent re-offending. It's a requirement on him to notify the police of certain details.

In reply to off-duty:

I'm sure you and your CPS colleagues do your best in serious circumstances but there has been evidenced police and/or CPS failings in many cases, often linked to resource issues. On the subject of resource we have a current court wait of upto 2 years for some serious sexual violence cases due to covid backlogs. I'd agree the biggest problem in low conviction rates is almost certainly poor jury decisions, of which there is much evidence, and a clear need for improved jury training. Just one of many research links available on the subject:

https://www.gla.ac.uk/media/Media_704445_smxx.pdf

I think the low conviction rates for rape is one of the biggest social injustices in the UK at present and rape is undeniably way too common a crime (estimates are over a hundred thousand a year). My support for longer sentences/delay of probation for rape isn't based on punishment, it's about public protection.

https://rapecrisis.org.uk/get-informed/about-sexual-violence/statistics-sex...

In reply to Offwidth:

We get criticised by the victims for disclosing too much.

We get criticised by the suspects for not disclosing enough.

We get criticised by the victims for not taking their allegations seriously enough 

We get criticised by the suspects for destroying people's lives based on an allegation.

It's a terrible crime that covers the whole range from being dragged off the street by a stranger, to being raped in the context of an ongoing consensual sexual relationship that has continued before and after the offence.

In reply to off-duty:

That's ludicrously defensive. There is no relevance to any 'we', there is just a professional process for individual officers and prosecuters to follow based on evidence. I believe your testimony on the subject but others have clearly failed (often due to ridiculous workloads). The much bigger problem is outside the legal system : it's public attitudes which need education and support to shift (currently areas which are also ridiculously underfunded).

In reply to Offwidth:

Not meant to be defensive. It's literally the truth.

Yes there have been failings, the most high profile of those disclosure failings have been to the detriment of the offender, not the complainant.  

In reply to MG:

No not all men are rapists. But to a woman all men are *potential* rapists.

In reply to Offwidth:

It doesn't seem ludicrously defensive  to me. The reality is that the public perception of any particular case can flip-flop in a moment; the media have no problem reversing their view - and therefore reporting - of any particular case from one day to the next.

Today the accused is a vicious public school boy brought up in a culture of misogyny and privilege used to taking what he wants; tomorrow, after a sympathetic interview with Mum, he's a sweet boy who wouldn't hurt a fly and whose future has been destroyed by the ravings of some jealous, frustrated drug fuelled harpy.

Having done my jury service how anyone can think it's a sensible way to determine guilt or innocence is beyond me - there's no theoretical basis for it, ironically it made more sense when it started in the Middle Ages, when the jury was supposed to be recruited from people who knew the defendant - 'a jury of peers' - and could therefore advise the monarch's representative, who didn't. Practically it doesn't work either. I don't get the adversarial prosecution/defence thing either. The fact is, something happened, and determining what it was shouldn't come down to the rhetorical tricks or professional talkers.  Personally I would like to see a more investigative, forensic approach, maybe conducted as a tribunal of professionals who are suitably trained and have access to all sorts of resources, whose only remit is to determine the facts and advise a judge on likely guilt or innocence.  

In reply to ring ouzel:

Is that true?  I understand that a large proportion of women have been occasionally subjected to unwarranted attention, inappropriate behaviour and  unwanted sexual advances, and that's not good  - but I'm not entirely convinced that the majority of 'normal' women start each day wondering how many potential rapists they're going to meet. 

In reply to ring ouzel:

apply to ALL AFTER "But": delete all insert many and I would agree with you otherwise there would be no happy mixed sex relationships

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

I've been speaking to a number of female friends and honestly Rob, I was gobsmacked. And no they dont think about it, its become instinctive. Phoebe Smith wrote an article about bothying recently where she explained you dont think about this stuff anymore, you just automatically go through the drill in your head when you go into a bothy. As a martial artist I was taught situational awareness. Women do this everyday as part of their survival strategy.

In reply to off-duty:

Well, that's absolutely shocking, and people wonder what can be done about sexual violence. Surely putting rapists on the sex offenders register for life would be a step in the right direction.

In reply to Solsbury: Reading this thread I realise I may have got something wrong when I asked what can men do. Maybe it could have been 'how can men talk about male sexual violence?. Reading through the thread I can hear the frustration, the anger and the confusion in even trying to do this.  I would say that I think it is very hard and few people are doing it. 

Jason Katz is interesting in as much as he says male sexual violence is primarily an issue for men.  Men's silence about this so-called women issue is a form of consent to the status quo. By violence I am thinking of staring, name calling (in life and on the net), unwanted touching, sexual molestation and rape. My personal opinion is that most women in the Uk consciously and unconsciously navigate what is a fairly predatory environment most of the time and have done their whole lives. Katz teaches a 'bystander' program where he urges men to interrupt other men who are talking abusively about or to women. For that to be of any use men first need to recognise it is something that they know about.

A few random thoughts-

I have stopped climbing with two men over the past twenty years because of their attitude to women (and their racism) One may have thoughts about why I started saying no but neither are directly aware-should I have been more direct?

Back in the eighties I intervened in a situation where a man was attacking a women and they both turned on me, it ended up in a fairly serious street fight from which I had to be rescued. I am now reluctant to intervene when I am by myself-feels a bit shit. I have intervened since but am wary - this is more than frustrating.

 I know how frustrating it can be to be blamed for organisational failures around dealing with predatory sexual incidents. I think a big part of the Salmond situation is to do with these types of dynamics-why wasn't he stopped earlier? It seemed to be common knowledge. I have been through similar situations as a union rep dealing with unwanted touching by very senior managers in statutory institutions. None had satisfactory outcomes.

I went for a walk yesterday at dusk, everyone I met seemed to be a single women and I kept having to move over. I hate it....I want to say 'I am not a threat' but the bottom line is that I am.

It is a male problem, men suffer at other men's hands as well (See RAF induction video) and until we, men, can talk about beyond what we are able to now I fear little will change.

In reply to off-duty:

Just out of interest, does Clare's law get used much by the police? Have you ever used it and if so, did it have the desired effect?

In reply to off-duty:

It is not literally the truth as you say it. Its understandable some people get emotive on the victim side and people who do wrong to sometimes try and deflect from guilt but not everyone does that and dealing with those who do is just an uncomfortable part of the job. To focus on that human nature instead of the evidence of any crime is unnecessarily defensive.

In reply to off-duty:

On the disclosure failing point I guess you mean the Allen case. It was certainly high profile but most argue from evidence that accuser lies are the exception not the rule. As per the opinion linked below:

https://www.counselmagazine.co.uk/articles/disclosure-in-criminal-trials-an...

"This may well be explicable by the media propagating the pervasive narrative that women lie about rape which taps into deep fears of false accusations. However, the reality is very different – Home Office research shows that only 4% of cases of sexual violence reported in the UK were found or suspected to be false by the police."

In reply to Offwidth:

Fair enough. My experience of arresting suspects at work for allegations that have later been proved to be false, my experience of having to disclose that the complainant had previously lied to the police that enabled the defence to ambush her on the stand, my experience of having to disclose sexual conversations on phone evidnece leading to cases being dropped, my experience of criticism for failing to disclose other relationships of a victim - probably best disregarded as atypical and uncommon.

Thanks for your insight into the disclosure process. I've seen and read the new guidance and will operate within it, just as I have with all previous versions. I'm also well aware of the fact that despite a lot of comments about "professional" and "objective" investigation - we aren't dealing with a game of chess, we are dealing with human relationships and real people who have complex lives.  Dissecting the evidence and more importantly what should/shouldn't be disclosed is never black and white.   The adversarial nature of the court system exploits this fact.

In reply to off-duty:

I'm not denying your experience but the home office evidence does indicate if that is more common for you than likely rapists 'getting away with' the crime, then it is very untypical.

People engage in all sorts of risky fantasy role play but if at the point where one person says no and the other ignores that, it constitutes non consensual sex and a genuine crime is commited, albeit one which is highly unlikely to be prosecuted without other significant evidence.

As I've said above the main problem is the court system needs better jury training as cases that go to court are usually quite strongly evidenced. Yet it's all too easy currently for jurors to get caught in myths: defense lawyers rely on that and hope the jury don't not follow what should happen in law in terms of reasonable doubt.

In reply to Offwidth:

The unfortunate truth is that with no corroboration or witnesses, most cases rely on one word against another. We are now in a position where CPS should charge if they think there is a 51% chance of a conviction, but we need to prove to a "beyond reasonable doubt" level.

I wouldn't argue against the fact that a jury make a tough audience for a rape victim, but it's also a high hurdle of proof to surmount.

(As an aside - as an example of the difficulties in this arena, dependant on the last training course I've received am I referring to a victim, survivor, complainant ? I think the answer is use different terminology in different situations. But imagine what happens when that needs to be disclosed as well... 🤷‍♂️ )

In reply to ring ouzel:

Ironically when I was in my teens I found myself in Tremadog barn by myself, when a single woman turned up. I was a bit anxious on a number of levels, and very relieved when another party turned up. 

I can see the bothy issue, and the problem is the only solution I can see - normalise the idea that single women staying in a bothy is routine - might excaserpate the situation.

In reply to SAF:

I think there needs to be much tougher sentences for female murderers also ! 

Fair is fair , equality and all that! 

In reply to Monkeydoo:

Well start a thread about 'female violence' then!

In reply to off-duty:

Logically then in the majority of cases a conviction is impossible as the perpetrator need only deny. So potential conviction is often not much value as a deterrent to others, in fact the reverse as most abusers escape justice. Its hard to see how this can change. It would need something like legal representatives and jurors witnessing carefully controlled interrogations of both perpetrator and victim under sedation and with a "truth" drug ...which of course is pure fantasy.

In reply to Monkeydoo:

Can you show me which of the 7% of all murders perpetrated by women that you have concerns about the sentencing?

In reply to SAF:

I wouldn't bother, he's just trying to derail the thread.

In reply to Solsbury:

Human history shows that the victimization of women is a black stain upon our species, and though modernization away from the factors that perpetuate and institutionalize it, it still seems just below the surface too often. It can seem at times too, to be seen as secondary ie something that is a byproduct of alcoholism, religion or lifestyle - something I think is dangerously incorrect; violence towards women shows a bias in psychology that I think is far more concrete than just opportunism. 

I think, like all endemic problems we have as a species like addiction, pedophilia, slavery etc to root it out will take multi-level processes ranging from public health programs like we have for reporting child abuse, to functional self-analysis campaigns like we have for road rage and systemic social efforts by dedicated organizations like we have for racism. Marchs and legal precedents may not do much in themselves, but they may help to anchor the issues in the public realm because the very nature of the subject sits behind a cone of silence both macho and shameful. 

Avoiding hysteria I'd imagine will be a (wishful) priority.

Of course this will take generations, but I think the biggest hurdles will probably the face off with ideology (what a surprise...) that may not promote it but that can be permissive of it. Some people, somewhere, will need to confront the fact they harbor the attributes and/or are permissive of it when it's all too close; the guy at the pub who hits his girlfriend, the lads who need a drunken pack behind them to meet girls, grandpa's bullshit hidden behind 'old school' values - it's on the scale that includes honor killings, gang rapes and kidnapping school girls.

I think this as a male, who has worked around places where the victimizing of women has been either simmering or blatant. I have trouble not applying a 'string the f*ckers up by the balls' mentality to it because I've been surprised often enough by some of the people who entertain the traits. I don't think killing the chicken to frighten the monkey would work here because the there may be too many chickens.

In reply to Removed Userwaitout:

Good post.

The only thing I'd like to pull you up on is the use of the word "hysteria", particularly in the context of discussing violence against women. The origin of the word hysteria is extremely misogynistic.

I notice that racism activist are quick to call people out on the use of language that has it's origins in slavery and persecution of black people. I wonder how effective a strategy this is. I assume the aim of it is to keep the media spotlight on race rights issues , start/keep the conversation going, and to create an opportunity to educate people on black history.

Maybe a similar strategy could be applied to the language and behaviours around women's rights issues. Keep people talking about it and keep chipping away at the problem.

In reply to SAF:

Good point and something I wasn't aware enough of - the irony of being an example of my own post in some ways.

I agree with digging into the language used, done functionally and clearly, in a kind of anti-Orwellian way (anti here meaning reverse of, not against) to work a clearer way to communicate all this. I think we've collectively done this before to some success with the way some things are addressed (though fallen short with others). As Kongzi said, "the first step towards a solution is describing it clearly".

For the sake of continuity 'hysteria' could be swapped out for 'unfocused outrage' or somesuch - losing the signal in the noise and volume. 

In reply to Removed Userwaitout:

Good thoughts - I wonder how much we are dealing with firmware/software of human behaviour? What elements of how we behave are we able to change? 
 

Some things I would think are fairly hard wired - finding someone sexually attractive for instance. How we respond to that is more modifiable, but I wonder a bit what we should target as ‘normal’ - that has changed dramatically over the millennia and across cultures. 
 

internally I often have a conflict between my emotional (?) response to a situation and what I believe is ‘right thinking’ which I find quite interesting and difficult to resolve.

In reply to Solsbury:

Thank you for this thread, it's very helpful to see men asking this question and wanting to discuss it. Just showing an interest and a willingness to listen and engage is a really helpful action.

As previously said, sexual harassment/aggression of women by men is a deeply grained subconscious norm in our culture, and this makes it very challenging to discuss, let alone change. It's good to see reflections on personal attitudes to sexual harassment.

I've shared this before, but building on some of the previous posts, we need to change behaviour at all levels of the rape culture pyramid:

https://www.11thprincipleconsent.org/consent-propaganda/rape-culture-pyrami...

I would add (often unintentional) sexist language (as per the chat about 'hysterical'), commenting on women's bodies and what they wear. If more of us take action to make it clear this isn't OK, then this will help the change. Thanks again.

In reply to SAF: I understand and agree with what you are saying. In the post you are responding to the use of 'hysterical' is very ambiguous, is it referring to men or women or both? One or two people have flounced off from this thread for reasons that are not clear, 'unfocussed outrage' on the part of a couple of men perhaps? 

In reply to Removed Userwaitout: Hmmm, just thinking about the phrase 'unfocussed outrage'. When talking to some women the outrage actually seems very focussed-focussed on how unwanted male sexual attention and intrusion impacts on them. There is a whole world of discussion which we as men are not aware of.

In reply to Dr.S at work: 'Some things I would think are fairly hard wired - finding someone sexually attractive for instance.'

I think it is interesting and 'positive' that there is some ownership of attraction coming from the man here. So often rape and sexual assaults are reported by the man as something that was being done to them by the women. 'She was asking for it'. 

What men do with that sexual attraction is up to them.  

In reply to Solsbury:

Agreed it is interesting and positive that there is some ownership of the attraction, rather than it being done by the woman.

I'm a wee bit concerned however that there is still a suggestion of 'I have no control' which is does feed into 'I couldn't help myself'.  As you say, what men do with sexual attraction is up to them.

In reply to Dr.S at work:

Yes, very much things I wonder about too, as well as how those factors may also be the very things that have been exploited to allow so little progress in the right direction in some sectors. “History, Stephen said, is a nightmare from which I am trying to awake.” and all that.

I think the hardwiring for violence runs deep and is fairly obvious, but for it to be specially directed by men at women to me seems modifiable as it seems so contrived. I can imagine some broken units where it's a type of psychopathy, but when entire groups have it as a trait I think it's culture which has countless examples of being possible to shrug off.

I think too violence towards women is separate to misogyny (though no doubt linked), in that the examples I see seem based on victimization of women perhaps due to a perceived vulnerability (though in the stuff that makes the news often a man would be no less vulnerable as the degree of violence can be so extreme). I think there's a disturbing amount of some men perceiving this can be 'for their own good' or the good of the tribe or whatever bullshit, and rooting that out will only get ugly.

I'm with you on the internal struggle. I did an exercise a while back that involved responding to violent events with some twists on the genders involved and it exposed a degree of personal bias. It's a confronting thing

In reply to Solsbury:

Yes I'm sure there is. I used the phrase (poorly, I admit) to refer to the noise that could likely come from groups that feel themselves victims for having their ideologies and motives dragged into the spotlight, not dissimilar to the way recent protests - rightly or wrongly - rapidly went from being about a focal issue to being about all sorts of issues, not always conducive to addressing the initial one.

Your points are very good I feel, especially re the perceived transfer of victimhood which is a very nasty thought process.

In reply to Solsbury:

I'll address this directly in context.

I used 'hysterical' to mean a reaction from some corners that is disproportionate and distracting from the matter at hand, ie violence towards women. There are cultural, religious and personal elements to this that will arise (as they do for many matters of similar gravity like racism, terrorism, crimes against children etc etc) and that is guaranteed to raise the heat in discussion. I used it with no gender, because the propensity for people to stir up unfocussed outrage for multifarious agendas on all sorts of platforms seems equal to both. Should a 'March against violence towards Women' or somesuch take place, as per the initial post, I think there will arise counter-marches al 'March against violence to all People', as well as the Not My Fault, Not My Problem crowd that seems always arrive.

I was aware that 'hysteria' had connections to outdated and ridiculous pseudo-medical conditions, but wasn't aware it was so linked to dumb shit about women. What I knew was the link to PTSD from the trenches. My bad.

In reply to Solsbury:

Whatever its historic usage, I'm a little surprised that there is a problem with "hysteria" in its current and common gender-neutral usage; language changes and evolves. I actually would have thought that your usage of "flounced" about men would  be more problematical - it very much conjures up a female image to me being used in a denigrating way.

In reply to FionaJN:

 

well that’s the interesting point - do you have control over who you are attracted to? I think not - do you disagree?

Sometimes that sexual attraction will be ‘wrong’ how do we feel when we encounter that in ourselves? What’s the internal result of that tension and how does it play out externally?

How you act on that attraction is up to you, and I think that’s where we can perhaps install ‘new software’ to address things like sexual violence and harassment. I do think it’s a very hard process though and is probably a multi-generational project.

In reply to: 

Hysteria is derived from 'hystera' and is literally of the womb. It is a derogatory term originally used to invalidate the reactions and feelings of women. 

It has obviously becomes common in mainstream usage, but particularly in the context of reactions to violence against women it could still very easily be seen as being used negatively towards women.

In reply to Dr.S at work:

I meant that 'I have no control ' is an excuse for sexual harassment.

No, we can't control when, where and with whom we experience sexual attraction. But most of us learn to manage it - not to look, stare, get too close, touch, comment, rate it etc.

Unfortunately in our culture, it is still too acceptable for men to behave in these unwanted ways against women, often at the subconscious level. I really hope it isn't a multi generational project to change it.

In reply to Solsbury:

Here's a good quick read about why hysteria and other sexist terms are offensive:

https://togetherband.org/blogs/news/words-that-describe-women

In reply to FionaJN:

An interesting collection of terms. I agree that most do (or at least can often) have negative connotions, but for some, such as "hysteria", I really think it is very context dependent. As for "bossy", Seriously?

In reply to SAF:

Certainly sounds like  a Greek word to me, and having an interest in such things I had a look in my dictionary expecting something like  υστερια to be there meaning "womb" - which it is, but means "hysteria" (surprisingly).  Probably comes from Latin (I guess) or ancient Greek (which is nothing like modern Greek).  Anyways, only reason I'm bothering to post is that I naturally looked up the Greek for womb, and it comes up as μήτρα, which is also the word for "wombats"  (according to google translate) - which I definitely thought worth reporting on!

In reply to Robert Durran:

Seriously.

https://www.businessinsider.com/sheryl-sandberg-women-ban-bossy-2014-4 hi

In reply to FionaJN:

not to look? What would Edith Cresson feel?!

Progress in this sort of thing seems to take decades - you need to raise kids in a culture which embodies the things you want in order to avoid the subconscious - take the use of “gay” in a negative context as an example ~ when I grew up it was totally normal to disparage some action as “gay”. certainly a phrase I would commonly use into the 00’s without thought. Now only twenty years later it’s not a usage I would ever adopt in conversation - but it does still occasionally leak into my internal monologue to my extreme irritation.
 

hopefully my son will never encounter that usage, or it will be so rare/flagged as inappropriate that it won’t become part of his subconscious* thought processes - that’s the sort of time frame I mean by multi-generational.

*im not sure our use of subconscious here is correct, as in someways I think it means base human reactions/actions rather than learned things like language use or how to act around a sexually attractive person - perhaps Jon Stewart or some other deep thinker can interject.

In reply to Robert Durran: I get your point and put my hands up. I have no defence other than I was posting on the run.

One thing it makes me think is that men, you in this case, can spot such stuff, we can think about it. I do think men need to do some thinking for themselves, yes listening is important and there is so much testimony to be listened to but can we actually take responsibility to think about male sexual aggression between ourselves.

Women (some) have been going off with women to think about what it is like to be a women for 60 years in the modern world. Obviously longer but thinking of the Women's movement. I am not sure that men have really done this as yet. To get anywhere I think men need to be talking about these issues with other men and working some stuff out for themselves.

In reply to FionaJN:

I'm not sure that means the word "bossy" is in itself offensive in a gendered way, just that there is overusage applying it to women (or perhaps underusage applying it to men). Or, to put it another way, if I describe a man as "bossy" would it be considered offensive because of any sort of gendered connotations (like could be said of "hysterical")? Are we not simply saying that it is wrong to describe the same behaviour as "bossy" in a woman but "assertive" in a man, when the two words are not synonymous?

In reply to Robert Durran:

It is.. my wife gives me a grilling every time I call my daughter bossy.. and it's true we don't use the term bossy with boys.

My wife's an MD, she's a small blonde lady, and is constantly referred to as a nurse, so she's pretty sensitive to these things working in such a male dominated career. She finishes her fellowship soon and we'll employ an employment lawyer to negotiate her first proper salary. It'll increase her salary offer she gets by about $50,000 a year. A male MD won't have to, he'll automatically get the higher salary.

In reply to Solsbury:

On a previous thread on male aggression, a poster changed some of the responses from sexism to racism; women and men to black and white people. It was enlightening about the prevalence of sexism.  And how embedded it is.

So, would you suggest white people get together without black people to think about racism? To talk about racism issues and work stuff out for themselves?

(NB for the avoidance of doubt, I recognise racism is a massive problem. And segregation is not the answer. As with sexism).

In reply to FionaJN:

On occasion yes, perhaps. And sexism. It might encourage more open discussion without the fear of causing offence by "putting one's foot in it".

In reply to FionaJN:

This is something we struggle with in schools now having the racism debates. Do we re-traumatize the Bipoc students? Do they want to be involved in all our discussions. There's also no magic pill to be anti-racist/an antiracist educator. I went to a zoom seminar led by Ibram X. Kendi (author of Stamped) for educators and so many teachers wanted to be told what to do, xyz steps. I think some of it is just willing to be being called out when we say things which can be seen as racist/sexist or things that make people feel uncomfortable or address things in the classroom incorrectly at the time. Not being defensive. 

In reply to Solsbu

I agree that resolving sexism and racism is very complex. But surely it's best done in collaboration and discussion about what works best for different situations? Otherwise it suggests a continuation of the 'we know best' attitude.

In reply to Roadrunner6:

Absolutely. I think the obvious example is the subtle "coloured"/"of colour" thing; people sometimes need educating, not denounced. I am sure there are similar gender examples. 

In reply to FionaJN:  I suppose I think we need multiple conversations between different groups of people.  I felt very uncomfortable about the recent treads including the one about a women only forum. Part of that discomfort is a very male trait of letting women do the emotional work, the heavy lifting for them. This sets up many strange dynamics, lone women being expected to produce something that can then be shot down.

I know men are capable of addressing complex personal and interpersonal topics but there is a default to avoiding this. Until men start working out some truths for themselves I worry we will be stuck in that dynamic and in talking about women's safety rather than male sexual aggression towards women which is actually what the problem is here.

Under my real name I am part of the UKC community though I have never posted on a non-outdoors topic before, I felt I owed it to myself and to those around me to have another go. I am not sure what can be worked out in such a public forum but if it encourages the odd conversation elsewhere, between men and men, men and men and women and women it can be no bad thing.

In reply to Andy Gamisou:

Hysteria is of the same root as hysterectomy

In reply to FionaJN:

I think both - men need honest conversations with other men, and also more input from Women - I think there are lots of assumptions on both sides of the gender divide - look at the surprise/anger from Women on recent threads when men say they are surprised by Women’s day to day experience - both groups have assumed the knowledge of the other matches theirs.

In reply to Roadrunner6:

Bipoc?

In reply to Dr.S at work:

black, Indigenous and people of color.

It's a term being used more here to describe wider issues of racism. It's not to replace saying Black people, if that's appropriate.

In reply to Dr.S at work:

Black, indigenous, people of colour.

Sarah Everard's murder lead to many women sharing their every day experiences of male aggression, often for the first time, including on UKC.

I haven't seen any surprise/anger from women on this board when men say they are surprised by our everyday experiences. I see frustration at men deflecting and denying the issue eg by saying  that men violence is the issue; that the issue is poor risk assessment, demanding data etc

In reply to Solsbury:

I agree about the problems with expecting women to do the heavy lifting. And also focusing on male behaviour rather than women's safety.

Multiple conversations sounds good. I've really appreciated male friends asking me about my own experiences in the last couple of weeks and expressing concern about how things are.

In reply to FionaJN:

This morning a male colleague, unprompted, mentioned seeing men with hats/hoods on with masks or buffs and just seeing their eyes as a slit and how intimidating this must appear to women. It's nice when men noticed there is an issue and start the conversation.

In reply to Dr.S at work:

The anger is when certain men refuse to acknowledge and even deny the issue even when they have been told.

In reply to marsbar:

Possibly I’ve misinterpreted the responses then, but certainly some posts along the lines of “I’m amazed that this is women’s day to day experience” appeared to get “how the hell can you not know this!” Responses and multiple dislikes.

In reply to Dr.S at work:

From men and women 

In reply to wercat:

F*ck the people who dislike a factual statement

In reply to MG:

No, I won't.  And I didn't say, or imply that.  Interesting that your interpretation is that I did.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Yet you continue to deny that to many women the words "hysteria" and "bossy" have certain connotations and that they're wrong and you're right.

In reply to Solsbury:

It would be interesting to see an analysis of these threads about male behaviour and aggression. They do seem to be very unwelcoming to women. As well as deflection, denial and defensiveness, there's misquoting and darvo. And segregation. More subconscious sexism at play?

I'm particularly interested in the suggestion that men are not engaging as they are scared of getting it wrong. I've seen many posts from women politely explaining issues, problematic words, responding to questions etc. I haven't seen any aggression, shaming etc. Quite the opposite, women welcome this opportunity to start a conversation. Frustration comes from the response from men.

Thank you to the men who have also added insight into sexism. It's interesting that they don't get the same negative response as the women posters.

In reply to FionaJN:

Is it possible for both these sentences to be true at the same time? Surely a conversation is a two way street? Seems like what you're describing is more of a lecture.

One reason I don't engage in these threads (aside from the observation above, which is more about the logical inconsistency than the subject matter) is that my brain gets hung up on the language. It's a discussion on a very negative subject, but all of these statements are about 'men', the entire demographic.

My brain parses the statement 'men do 'x'', thinks 'I don't do 'x'', and it's an immediate wedge between me and the discussion.

In reply to Blanche DuBois:

I don't deny that. I have simply argued that I don't think that means the words should necessarily be avoided where their use is disconnected from contexts where they could be deemed offensive.

Until yesterday it would never have occurred to me that there were issues with the word "bossy". I shall now try to be careful about the contexts I use it in. As I have been for several years with "hysteria".

In reply to mullermn:

No not a lecture. The frustration from women that I've seen from these threads comes from the dismissal of our viewpoints, in various ways previously listed. A conversation doesn't dismiss people's views, it engages with them, which is how it should be on a discussion board. 

I've praised and thanked men several times in these threads for engaging and I hope more do so. 

In reply to Robert Durran:

Thanks for making that change.

In reply to FionaJN:

' A conversation doesn't dismiss people's views, it engages with them,'

I think the implication from a number of these posts is that 'engagement' means 'agree'.

In reply to off-duty:

I keep seeing comments that "only 7% of rapes result in conviction". In fact, almost 60% of rape PROSECUTIONS result in conviction. It's true that only 7% of initial complaints of rape result in conviction (which would indicate that around 10% of complaints actually proceed to a prosecution.

What I don't know is WHY the other 90% don't proceed. What percentages of dropped cases are due to:

- No perpetrator identified (stranger rape)

- No evidence (word against word)

- Evidence, but insufficient for a realistic prospect of conviction

- Complaint shown to be unjustified (evidence shows no rape took place, or sex was consnsual)

- Complaint withdrawn

- Etc

Is there somewhere where these figures are broken down?

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

I haven't seen implications from women posters that engagement means to agree. Only that our views aren't dismissed.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree...

In reply to FionaJN: I would love to see an analysis of this and the recent threads, as I have said I have found them deeply problematic and it would be interesting to have some thoughts about what might be going on.

I am not surprised at all that men are not engaging because they are scared of getting things wrong. For example, somehow my observation that I think men need to do some work themselves may have/has got translated into something about advocating segregation. 'Ouch!! that hurts, that is not what I meant-cant you see that?'. Its hard on the net and it stings when it (appears) not to go down how you expected/hoped. 

We, probably more men in this instance would love some certainty around language. That is not possible, take bossy, it is a loaded word that can be pulled out to mark a women negatively with a whole bunch of connotations. Does that mean you should never say it, probably not, but why that word now?

I could say an awful lot more and maybe I will but I need to do some work.

In reply to Rob Naylor:

Good questions. This BBC Reality Check article makes for interesting reading and references good organisations for folk wanting more info.

It seems the secret CPS target led to fewer cases going to court we've really let women and girls down.

In reply to FionaJN

Sorry, link didn't post

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-48095118

In reply to Solsbury:

I think you missed out a few words in your post, it doesn't really make much sense.

In reply to Rob Naylor:

I'm not sure if I have ever seen those figures broken down, though something similar should exist as they should be broken down to an extent in crime disposal codes but they would be pretty broad areas.

Anecdotally (and to give some context)

Rare.(These jobs may well be critical incidents with a lot if resources focussed on them)

No perp ID (details not provided by victims or can't be identified - historic)

A few.

These would go to CPS for a charging decision.

Some. *

A few. 

(Or reported via 3rd party via counselling or similar - no intention to prosecute)

Some.*(probably a similarish proportion to other asterisk)

In reply to Rob Exile Ward: Probably how I write. I was saying that it stings when we appear to get something wrong-this is a difficult subject and it is easy to take offence. I was trying to illustrate this with a personal reaction rather than from another post. 

In reply to off-duty: Do you think reports of historic assault and rape make up a high proportion? I have worked, in statutory services, across several areas with very different policies from every hint of historic sexual assault should be reported to the police to whatever the opposite is.

Both of these approaches has led to distress to the victim.

In reply to off-duty:

I can't really make out from your answers where you see the bulk of these incidents fitting (unless you think there's another category that wasn't listed as an option), but I'm interested in your thoughts as a police officer on the categories above, as my uninformed guesswork is that a majority of incidents is probably one of these two.

Do you see any route to improving conviction statistics for these without simply reducing the bar for conviction to the point that innocent people get convicted?

In reply to Solsbury:

Yes, a significant proportion are historic, where I would include everything outside the forensic window of about a fortnight.

The process for investigating domestic violence involves completion of a series of questions, one of which relates to being forced to have sex (or something similar) in the course of the relationship. This generated a lot of rape crime, quite a lot of which then doesn't have victim support.

Historic child sexual exploitation is a large category as well.

Referrals from partner agencies, as you mention, does contribute significantly. The process should be relatively painless - we make contact, if permitted, and record a crime with details based on how much or how little the victim wants to engage, which might be not at all. In which case it's recorded and filed. There should never be pressure to engage with the police or investigation, but there is support available if they want to.

In reply to mullermn:

Off the top of my head, probably an equal split between insufficient evidence and victim retraction/withdrawal, with probably slightly higher proportion of word Vs word that are sent to CPS.

The best way to improve rape convictions is to prevent rape.  Education has definitely improved in this area. We are definitely seeing many more rapes reported than we used to, often in the context of a relationship. These are very difficult to prove in court.

It's a very tough problem 🤷‍♂️

In reply to off-duty:

Is there much effort/ systems in place to connect allegations? What is held on file and for how long?

ie if one women reports she was in a relationship/had a date with a man who then raped her (non consensual sex rather than violent rape) and then in future further women come forward with similar accounts about same man.  With more than one he said/she said low evidences allegation against the same man by different women would the CPS proceed then. Are there any examples of successful prosecutions of this nature? 

In reply to Rob Naylor:

The head of the CPS was on the radio recently (might have been Rebecca Lawrence) and she did a great job of not answering this direct question! (and why the figure had increased). However she did mention that social media is a factor.  I assume she meant that now the life of many is fully documented, this can count against the compainant, or the thought of the privacy intrusion outweighs the desire to proceed with the complaint.     

In reply to FionaJN:

I think there is a small missing piece of the puzzle to making further progress. It's the acknowledgement that men (especially young men) are basically on drugs, all the time. Huge amounts of drugs, roughly 7x-20x the amount that women are on. It's completely alarming and never discussed.

That drug, is testosterone - and like all potent drugs, it has very powerful effects on consciousness and decision making and is a key driver of sexual violence towards women by men. It's a (small, but significant) disservice to men (and ultimately women) to ignore that men have their thoughts modulated towards more aggression, against their will, by these much larger quantities of testosterone, while women don't have this issue anywhere nearly as much.

I'm not really sure what this acknowledgement should look like, but maybe it's simply more awareness that men have a harder battle with their urges than women do, due to the potent effects of testosterone - and a little bit of credit that 'good men' are not just doing nothing, but are all actively managing the effects of a huge testosterone load (remember - 10x more - imagine trying to cope with 10x more coffee one day versus the one before - it would be harder) trying to derail their thoughts.

Can you imagine trying to solve some other heavily drug-exacerbated problem - e.g. Mexican gang violence - while never mentioning the key role drugs at all? It wouldn't work at all.

In reply to SAF:

It will be recorded on crime it intelligence systems which should link in to the national intel database PND. 

Not sure if the length of retention - you have to bear in mind that these may be unsubstantiated allegations.

There is also a national analysis database looking at serious sexual crime that hits certain criteria to link cross border offending - eg travelling stranger rapists.

I've dealt with jobs where the existence of multiple unpursued allegations has resulted in more weight being given to one prosecuted investigation. Good practice would be to revisit earlier reported victims to see if more evidence/prosecutions could be started.

I think some of the successful historic CSE prosecutions involved this kind of linking of intelligence and pursuing of earlier reports.

In reply to off-duty:

I think you missed my question yesterday (the thread went a bit crazy). 

Does Clare's law get used much? When it does get used does it have the desired effect?

In reply to SenzuBean:

I'm sorry, but this really doesn't wash. Many thousand of men 'manage' to cope with the testosterone without resorting to sexual assault. You want credit for simply behaving like a decent human being? I'm afraid that sounds somewhat pathetic. 

And remember, as we have been helpfully reminded by another poster, rape and sexual violence exist at the apex of a pyramid, and that there are many other male behaviours which are unwelcome, and which are not 'driven' by testosterone urges, such as belittling women, making improper comments regarding women's appearance and objectifying women in a sexualised manner.

Too many men have, for far too long, believed they can get away with any kind of behaviour towards women. This has been normalised in society, despite it being unacceptable to at least half the population. Hiding behind 'testosterone's to blame' is shameful. 

In reply to SAF:

Not my area that deal with it so I've very little direct experience. From government data (bottom of the link)

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/domestic-abuse-bill-2020-factshe...

One of the issues I've seen in domestic abuse cases is that even when they are victims they still "think the best" of their partner, and where they are told/aware of his history with other partners they tend to dismiss it or believe any minimising account that the abuser tells them "she was mad/it was made up to get me in trouble etc".

This is purely anecdotal though, I think it's a good idea. It also gets used as a "right to tell" when dealing with high risk DV offenders who are subject to multi-agency protection arrangements.

In reply to Harry Jarvis:

While acknowledging that it might be a factor in explaining (not excusing) some male behaviour isn't.

In reply to Robert Durran: Hi Robert, I am not sure I quite get what you are saying, I don't suppose you fancy having a go at expanding that a bit?

In reply to MG:

Part of the problem!

The rules protecting the privacy of the victim are too often abused to protect the perpetrators.

CB

In reply to Solsbury:

.....isn't shameful. 

In reply to Robert Durran:

Thanks. 

While acknowledging that it might be a factor in explaining (not excusing) some male behaviour isn't.

I think there are loads of interesting points in here, not all connected.

1. As the latest set of news has rolled out have men felt shame for being a man or thrown up defences against feeling uncomfortable about men's wider behaviour? I suspect they have. Enlarging this should men feel shame for having sexual desire? Of course not, sex, in consensual relationships, is fantastic and has given me much pleasure over the years as well as some angst. So how do we engage in a discussion when some of us may feel on the back foot and under pressure?

2. It is hard on the net, but I don't really have a problem with the initial post raising testosterone as a thing to be considered. It seemed like a tentative and genuine attempt to think about something. Completely wrong in my opinion but, as far as I know not malicious. It is Ok to get things wrong sometimes??

3. Testosterone as an explanation for, what, being a man with a sex drive? I am not sure that men's sex drive is inherently higher than women's, I think men's sex drives are down to more than testosterone. I don't know, I am not a biologist or whatever. I think there is an issue in the thinking that men are under this pressure. Women can end be represented as without desire or it being somehow a bit yuck. Working clinically with men and women I know men can feel very pressurised by a women's sexual desires and demands, amongst friends I know of several long term sexless relationships where it is the man that has withdrawn from sex  making for a very frustrated women. I am sure there are a few outliers in the general population where testosterone does cause real problems but I don't think there is a dramatic innate noticeable difference of wanting sex in men and women that is explained by physiology. Indeed the idea that there is may legitimise men 'taking' sex as necessary in the face of an unsexual women.

So I suppose I was wondering what you thought it, testosterone was explaining? 

In reply to off-duty:

A friend has just split from her husband, the details of which were shocking, when she opened up about the abuse she had to put up with. 

She hasn't pursued the case in court as this would mean him losing his job and she would lose any financial support for her and their children.

His job -  a secondary school teacher!!!!!

In reply to artif:

Yeah, this is a terrible situation. Its a really tricky position all round. The CJS / professional consequences directly impact on the victim even if those consequences are entirely unintended.

No easy solution, particularly as it would not be entirely unexpected (in my opinion) if he didn't start the same behaviour with a new partner.

In reply to Solsbury:

Speaking as a member of the aggregate of 'men' I feel as much shame for the crimes of other 'men' as I do personal triumph at having walked on the moon. This bizarre notion that we're all accountable for each other seems quite unique to this issue.

In reply to Solsbury:

I was really thinking of the association of testosterone with aggressive behaviour. A quick Google suggests the relationship is non-direct and complicated. Perhaps it would be fairer to say that males tend to be naturally more aggressive for complex biological reasons rather than singling out the effects of testosterone. Maybe somebody better qualified could comment. Anyway, my point about explaining but not excusing undesirable male behaviour would still stand.

In reply to mullermn: Me neither. I should have written 'some men'.

I am not sure that I agree it is unique to this subject though. Over the past few years I have heard people express shame that the UK voted to leave Europe, that Trump got elected, around race and the Union Jack. I think there is a fare amount of shame washing around the modern world, but it is a strong uncomfortable word.

In reply to Solsbury:

Probably the wrong word. Perhaps "embarrassment" is better? 

In reply to Robert Durran: I think it is far more than just biological reasons but need more time to respond properly.

In reply to Solsbury:

It is without doubt very much cultural as well. That is why I said it was a "factor". If it were entirely biological there would presumably be little hope of change. I think the point Senzubean was making is that a cultural change requires some sort of conflict with and overriding of biological urges.

In reply to off-duty:

Apparently he already has some new victims lined up, the kids have reported back to the ex wife.

He comes across as a very pleasant person in public and he's a good runner and cyclist (e. g. one of us) . Having seen the signs up close previously and before I new of his alter ego I suspected there was something not right. 

In reply to artif:

The obvious thing to do is report it. But the fall out will potentially be horrendous due to the financial relationship.

I'd say it's fairly likely that financial link will be used as a method of control though so...🤷‍♂️

In reply to off-duty:

I suspected that this would be the problem with Clare's law, it is terrifying how quickly an abuser can exert their power through lies and manipulation and brainwash their victim.

The one that all was gets to me is when the battered women is insisting that there husband/partner/ex is 'a good dad'. Trying to explain to them that good fathers don't beat the living s**t out of the mother of their child. It's heartbreaking that anyone can reach the point where they believe that.

In reply to Harry Jarvis:

To simply say that being a decent human requires zero effort, and ignoring that there are huge quantities of hormones promoting sexual violence inside men - is going to result in a disconnect especially for those men who go on to commit violence, because it ignores their (small, relatively) daily struggles and minimizes the amount of effort required to stay on the straight and narrow. We give alcoholics some credit for remaining on the straight and narrow (even though most of us can never understand the urge to throw one's life away for day-drinking) - and this apparently is very helpful to many of them to know that they have some support.

2/3 of those are driven by testosterone. Social dominance (and submission to those higher in the hierarchy) are testosterone-type behaviour.

I never said hiding it - that's your own interpretation. I said that we need to acknowledge this part of the puzzle. Maybe in your field of work, you can ignore key details and it still works out - but in mine (engineering), you can't hide inconvenient details, and always use them as part of the solution.

In reply to FionaJN:

I help out with a DofE group at a girls school. It's not uncommon to get questioned about my motivation for doing so. I'm always honest, and say that yes, many of those girls are very attractive; that's a simple fact of nature. Sometimes they are even flirty, experimenting with that behaviour in a safe environment. There are attractive girls everywhere, but I guess the difference is that I have some degree of trust and power with the DofE girls. The thing is, though, I wouldn't dream of exploiting that influence. Literally, wouldn't, and don't dream of it. The nearest description of my feelings towards them is that of an uncle. I guess not too surprising, since it is the school my nieces attended, which is how my involvement started. I have had dealings with the associated boys' school and DofE, but I just don't seem to get on as well; I can't be doing with the competitive nature they seem to have. And, sadly, mixed groups have sometimes brought out the worst, stereotypical behaviour in both sexes. 

It's a bit like bravery, I think; being afraid, but doing what is needed anyway. Being attracted, but not doing anything.

In reply to SenzuBean:

Would you then argue for an acknowledgment among men that due to their physiology they are more prone to perpetrating violence (sexual and non-sexual, to any gender) AND more capable of being ‘successfully’ violent and so must take on extra responsibility to control themselves?

In reply to Dr.S at work:

Yes I agree with that.

Perhaps we could all stand in a line and apologise for being Male?

https://mol.im/a/9416195

In reply to Solsbury:

It's very difficult to separate whether behaviour is driven by sex socialisation (which begins in the womb) or biological processes. Fine's Testosterone Rex analyses the evidence to date and seems to point at socialisation having the greater impact.

I get that it is very challenging for men to reflect on how ingrained social sexist norms are, and how they create a culture of sexual assault (and other problems for women).

We need all men to be allies to fix this, to self reflect and to call out the everyday small acts of sexism.

In reply to SenzuBean:

You're a 'details' guy, gotcha, and your field is engineering?  Not endocrinology or psychology (or both)?  Like you I'm not an expert but your analysis here seems to me to lack nuance, almost to the point of being complete bollocks.  Do you have a link you can post to your source for this scientific insight?

Here's one I just found with a two-second googling:
https://thepsychologist.bps.org.uk/volume-22/edition-1/testosterone-and-mal...

"Think of testosterone and you probably think of lust, violence and machismo. Indeed, testosterone is often labelled ‘the aggression hormone’ due to its presumed relationships with such negative, antisocial and principally male qualities.

Over the past decade or so our principal research activities have investigated the extent to which levels of testosterone can be associated with certain male-typical behaviours. As you might expect, the answer is by no means straightforward. For one thing, hormones do not directly change behaviour; they influence the expression of a behaviour within appropriate environmental/ social contexts. When studying human behaviours, identifying which environmental/social contexts might be important remains a significant challenge to researchers trying to identify hormone–behaviour relationships."

But hey, if you feel you need a high-five for getting through another day without assaulting someone I'm here for ya brother.  Woo-hoo.  Well done.  Have a pat on the back.  HTH.

In reply to SenzuBean: I think that to go from a completely dependent mewling baby to an independent adult in relationship with others (and who can play) is a massive feat for which we probably all deserve a clap. Women of course go through a comparable and equal but different developmental journey to men. I don't believe men have a harder time growing up than women. There are many possible pitfalls and many of us struggle to a greater or lesser degree along the way.

I don't think there is much, if any, mileage in looking to male hormones as some way to explain or chart a path through the current situation. Firstly I believe that environment, from birth, is a huge causal factor in both individual and group behaviour. Secondly the idea that only men are aggressive and  desiring is just not true and I believe serves to some how bring the conversation to a dead stop.

Are men really going to blame their hormones?

In reply to THE.WALRUS: If that is a proposal then I feel it smacks a bit of lip service. I don't feel the need to apologise for being a man.

In reply to SAF: Agreed, especially if you then need to initiate proceedings that can lead to the removal of that child, sometimes not for the first time, in order to protect it.  A very viscous and damaging, for the women and child, dynamic to get into. Meanwhile the man frequently wanders off to the next episode.

In reply to Solsbury:

There's ways that testosterone can be reduced in men: diet, exercise, becoming a father, active parenting, getting a dog, active childcare etc.

For those who feel that testosterone levels are a real burden, perhaps we should be promoting these methods? In the same way that many women take steps if they feel their hormones are causing unwanted impacts?

In reply to Solsbury:

True, but development continues to be rapid up until children reach adulthood. Rather than look for differences between men and women, I would suggest we look at the effects of lives lived more on the internet rather than in person, the resulting lack of emotional / empathetic intelligence not dealing with real people brings that seems to be enveloping the population in general...

In reply to Richard Horn: Agreed, and what gets laid down in childhood is, I believe, relatively fixed and hard to modify. By that I mean our 'stance' in the world, our behaviours can be endlessly changed though that is not always easy.

We probably need to look in multiple directions though I think men have been raping women since before the internet. No one has mentioned the impact of internet porn. I was surprised in Line of Duty last night when when copper said 'if you find my jazz mags, feel free to knock one out'. Are jazz mags mags still a thing?

In reply to FionaJN: I think some sex offenders are offered chemical castration, think the uptake is very low. Whilst I can see promoting exercise and diet change may be ok encouraging someone struggling with the impacts to have a child or even a dog is not without its pitfalls. I am not sure what is possible really, probably not one solution, are there any GP's around, surely it must show up in the consulting room?

In reply to captain paranoia:

Thank you for this. Adolescence is when we start to learn to handle sexual attraction, and I agree adults in different roles can play a part in this to ensure that teenagers are safe and don't develop negative attitudes and behaviours.

I was in a work situation where a teenage boy's behaviour towards me went from a crush to sexual harassment and physical intimidation and my strategies weren't stopping it. I approached the male instructor in charge, and he first dismissed it as a joke, and that I should be flattered. Then he treated my persistence as a nuisance and nothing was done.

The male instructor in charge let me down, but he also let the teenager down. And all his male mates who witnessed the poor behaviour.

In reply to Solsbury:

If you read on past the Aussie Daily Mail's clickbaity headline, it becomes apparent that this school assembly was (a very small) part of a state-wide initiative in Victoria to make it mandatory to teach pupils about consent in state schools.  As well as the boys (and their parents) who were outraged at being forced to 'apologise' (actually they were just asked to stand), the story also quotes one who felt he was simply being asked to stand as a gesture of solidarity and had no problem with it.

In an advert at the bottom (monetising the school's 'right to reply' - way to keep it classy DM!) the following statement from the school principal appears:

The initiative to introduce/expand teaching about consent came about as a reaction to a scandal involving widespread allegations of sexual assault and harassment in Victorian schools and a petition started by a Sydney student.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-03-21/consent-education-to-become-mandator...

There are those who would argue that a similar initiative (the teaching material, not asking boys to stand in a single school assembly, obvs) is required here. 

Perhaps including Tory MP Maria Miller: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/mar/29/ofsted-must-investigate-all...
And Labour MP Jess Philips: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/mar/30/ministers-dropped-the-ball-...

In reply to FionaJN:

Perhaps Senzubean will post a link to some scholarly research to back up his assertions and contradict it, but the paper I linked to above would seem to suggest that relatively small (ie: non-extreme) changes in testosterone levels are rather unlikely to have a significant effect on behaviour.

I guess it's quite possible that any of those um..  let's say 'lifestyle changes' might well modify a person's behaviour by other means, but I don't much like the idea of a man who feels he has urges to abuse that are difficult to control (and reaches for Senzubean's theory* as a way to avoid taking ownership of his own behaviour) having a child (or a dog) in the hope that that'll help somehow.

*(ie: "It isn't my fault, I can't help it.  My gonads are forcing me to behave this way!")

In reply to deepsoup:

Yes, agreed it's complicated and I'm not convinced by the role of testosterone. Just anecdotally, in my experience, older men are generally more aggressive than younger men despite testosterone levels decreasing with age. And agreed it can be used as an excuse.

The point I was really trying to make is that we don't have a culture of men taking action if they perceive there to be a problem with their hormones. We do with women.

I'm certainly not advocating men with aggression problems getting a dog or having a child as the solution!

In reply to wercat:

Ha - this was me, who you were replying to.  I think I probably pressed it accidentally whilst swiping down.  Undone it - but you seem to have another one now...

In reply to Solsbury:

There seems to be a sentiment that the fix to the underlying social problem is better education/support/life skills coaching at an early age. What are the sort of intervention points that have been identified where this can be applied, and what would it look like?

I imagine we're all watching the school issue that is in the process of blowing up, and I'm very glad that my own sons are well below the age bracket where they can possibly be part of that situation. It raises the question of what happened (or didn't happen) between the point where the boys who are involved were innocent children and now that led to them being in this position. They may be accountable for the specific things they've done wrong, but a lot of them are young enough that the larger failure belongs to the people who raised them in a way that led to the wrong choices being made.

Presumably most of those childrens' parents thought they were doing a good job and are about to have an extremely bad situation land in their laps. I'm interested to consider what they missed before it's my turn.

Buzz phrases like 'talk to your sons' say nothing, I'm really interested in any specific ideas that have been floated.

In reply to FionaJN:

That's interesting.  Becoming more aggressive as they get older do you think, or more of a generational thing?  (eg: Men who grew up in the '80s being more aggressive than men who grew up in the '90s.)

Fair point.  Though to a large extent we don't have a culture of men taking action if they perceive there to be a problem with anything related to their health.  A lot of us middle-aged blokes would almost rather die than make an appointment with the GP.

Also to a large extent we tend to forget that there are a lot of hormones other than testosterone and estrogen, most of which work exactly the same way in male and female bodies.

Personally I would suspect my thyroid was playing up if I found myself suddenly putting on tons of weight, having no energy etc.  For mood swings, aggression and such I'd be much more likely to point the finger at mental health, depression and the like.  But a quick consultation with Dr Google tells me you're absolutely right to suggest it could be related to levels of testosterone.  (Typically declining levels of testosterone in older men, not an excess, particularly in relation to levels of estrogen.)

In reply to deepsoup: Thanks for reading past the headline, I could not face it whilst under the pressure to do some work.

I know very little about schools/education but I cant believe this is not happening in UK schools already. Education can make a huge difference I am sure. Under the last labour government 'we' managed to get the ever escalating rate of teenage pregnancy turned around and decreasing, similarly overall levels of drug and alcohol use amongst teenagers started to decrease. There are probably multiple factors (i.e. you cant get pregnant on Whatsapp or Facebook which increased at the same time) but there was a huge expansion of sex/health education in schools for a significant period of time.

In reply to FionaJN: Men are not good at getting help around health concerns, I would be interested in hearing from any GP's about this coming up in surgeries. I cant remeber the figures but there is/was a huge difference between the number of times men and women presented at their GP's.

I am sure you were not advocating giving aggressive men puppies as the solution. There is  a small but long history of he use of animals in prisons though. Years ago a member of staff asked to bring there dog to work, in a very rough and chaotic hotel for a week. As clients were allowed pets I reluctantly agreed. It was the most pathetic, scared Jack Russel you ever did see, but these very hard (some very racist, misogynistic and impulsive) men were transformed by this dog and for a while more able to be reachable. Interesting. 

In reply to deepsoup:

I don't think that's what SenzuBean was saying at all. But then I'm an engineer, too, and the comments about needing to consider all factors made sense to me. It certainly didn't read to me as a statement that 'testosterone is the only reason for male violence'.

As with all aspects of human behaviour, it will be a combination of nature and nurture. I am fortunate that my nurture, from birth, strongly encouraged empathy. By reports, my nature is mild, too (a quiet baby).

In reply to Andy Gamisou:

Ah,

perhaps I over reacted.  Well if people want to dislike some extra information perhaps they can.  I knew that fact as my mother had the operation back in the early 70s and I think she didn't consent as she was having psychiatric treatment at the time for problems thought to be caused by hormonal imbalance.  I don't think she ever came to terms with this and it caused her problems in the future (as seen from the early 70s, as she passed away nearly 10 years ago). She didn't tell me until decades later after my father had died.

In reply to FionaJN:

I suspect that the men who 'have a problem with their hormones' don't perceive they 'have a problem with their hormones'. Or their behaviour.

In reply to deepsoup:

My n=1 experience of men getting more aggressive as they get older could be generational, it's impossible to say just from personal experience. My general perception is that young males are much more accepting of me in my typically male work and that gives me hope for the future.

I totally agree that there is strong evidence that males in general don't go to the GP. Incidentally, most women don't either for advice on 'lifestyle ' changes.  It's not a GP strength.

I was making suggestions for solutions to some of the issues raised on this thread. Schools could do a lot lot more, and hopefully will as a result of current coverage. But the most important thing any man can do is call out the small stuff, everyday sexism, belittling, commenting on a woman's looks etc. Be a role model, whether you are a parent, d of e leader, coach etc.

In terms of bringing up sons, talk. Talk about sexual coersion. How to check it's not happening. To only proceed if your partner is clearly really keen. How to avoid peer pressure. Porn is very tricky. So much of it is focused entirely on male pleasure and gaze. Female pleasure and enjoyment where it exists is often unrealistic (and there for male pleasure). And there is so much trafficking. Again, talk to your sons and daughters.

In reply to FionaJN:

Just recalled this: https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/1405274425?pf_rd_r=5RZS2Z4SDH8QHP0VRR67...

Other titles in the series may prove illuminating!

In reply to FionaJN:

I don't think I'm much of a role model to anyone but that really isn't so much to ask and I'll certainly try.  And continue to try, rather than giving up after inevitably failing now and then*. 

*There being times when it's surprisingly difficult to go against the flow, peer pressure, yadda yadda, and it's tempting to chicken out.  Also times when it just seems unbelievably tedious and it's tempting to just pretend not to notice.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Indeed. Some interesting stats in here:

https://www.mhpbooks.com/a-new-study-suggests-mr-men-books-are-sexist/

In reply to FionaJN:

The only thing interesting about that is that someone thought it insightful enough to write an article about it. The mr men books are 100% totally and transparently sexist (in the ‘of its time’ kinda way).

They’re equally out of date in many other respects too. 50% of them involve some fairly harmless character getting the individuality beaten out of them by a wizard for no good reason.

In reply to deepsoup:

In reply to deepsoup:

I wonder how you will get on with someone like this!

youtube.com/watch?v=iAASBR6nL6M&

(I'm sure he's a nice guy really!) 

In reply to deepsoup: I think it is really quite hard. Especially face to face and in the moment. Not sure exactly why? I have had to do it in work a fair amount for many years and would not say it has got significantly easier, it can feel even more difficult in social situations. 

 It can feel like you are making a very personal criticism of someone rather than their behaviour. In some ways I have found intervening on the street easier than pulling up a friend or acquaintance. Despite being less chance of getting punched, which has happened to me, it can feel quite high risk

I am old enough to remember the '80's when quite a number of women I knew were heading off on self defence classes during an earlier round of Reclaim the Night type activity. Although I am sure there is stuff on the net about becoming more comfortable at 'intervening' there always seemed to be a lot of solitary gained by doing it together.

In reply to Solsbury:

There was brilliant article on here recently about women reclaiming the outdoors. In it it describes what men can do. I shared the hell out of that article

Euge

In reply to mullermn:

I agree that 'talk to your sons' says little but for some families it would be the very first step.

More important in my opinion is both fathers and mothers modelling positive behaviours to both their sons and daughters . Fathers need to speak to and about women and treat women with respect but equally mothers need to not blindly accept old fashioned gender roles, and vocally stand up for themselves, and to leave abusive or imbalanced relationships, and friends and family need to support women when they do this.

We also need to teach our children about healthy boundaries and bodily autonomy from an early age and there does seem to be a positive move in this direction, even if it can sometimes seem like a battle against the grandparents!

But, in terms of 'specific ideas' for talking to your sons about, I'd go with 

1. Consent (the cup of tea cartoon is probably the best tool I've seen)

2. Read up on the incel movement and discuss this. The incel movement isn't just a danger to women but is being used as a route to groom young men into the far right. So definitely one to tackle. There is a book titled 'men who hate women' which covers all this and is supposed to be very good (on my list to read when I get time).

3. Porn and how it is not representative of normal sexual relationships, and at the extreme end of the scale look at the 'we can't consent to this' website.

In reply to Euge: Thanks I had half forgotten the article after the thread that followed it.

In reply to deepsoup:

Pick any of the 20 references here - go nuts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testosterone#Aggression

Take a look at the side-effects for taking testosterone as a medicine.

Not worth my time to handhold you anymore through basic science. Have a nice day
 

In reply to Solsbury:

I agree, which is why I never said that either sex had a 'harder' time growing up.
I pointed out that a testosterone level of 1000% more, would however give men a harder time with their urges, than women.

I think there is - because a lot of people seem to think that sexual violence is really driven by rational thought, when really it's not - it's driven by hormones and suppressed by rational thought. This subtle difference is - I believe - very important. As I alluded to before, in the context of addiction - this distinction is well-entrenched and seen as important.

Yes of course, this was never in dispute.

I agree - which is why I absolutely never said that

In reply to SenzuBean: Apologies for where I have misrepresented what you wrote. I will have a look and a think about what you are saying. 

Going back to your original post-

I'm not really sure what this acknowledgement should look like, but maybe it's simply more awareness that men have a harder battle with their urges than women do, due to the potent effects of testosterone.

I really am not quite sure how to read this. I started this thread because I was concerned that men, in many ways seemed to be missing in the conversation. Male sexual aggression seemed to be seen as a fixed entity and we should there fore concern ourselves with women's safety. Not only do I not believe this but I feel it abrogated responsibility for talking thinking and acting to improve the situation, although I don't think that is your intention personally.

I have lots of thoughts and will return to reply, I think it is worth looking at, i think it is important to differentiate between male aggression and  male sexual aggression, to that end I got the thread title wrong.

In reply to SenzuBean: Lets have a go talking about testosterone. The premise was that are men are subject to 'huge' amounts of this hormone or drug, in fact, within certain limits, most men have a 'normal' for them amount of testosterone for being a man at any one time.

A link was provided to a wiki page about Testosterone. It is a big page and I have not read it in detail but the part highlighted says half the studies found a link between testosterone and aggression and half did not. It did not, as far as I could see, mention predatory sexual behaviour and did also talk about testosterone as a protective factor in maintaining stable social hierarchies.

I think one of the issues, as i mentioned in my last post, is that the I believe that there is a difference between the drivers of aggression and (i don't know what the phrase is but) unwanted sexual interference.

Here is a wiki page about (the theory of) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_sexual_violence

A wider search about testosterone and sexual violence did not through up very much.

The Rape Culture Pyramid is great at describing the impact on women but, again, my feeling is that different mechanisms enable this aberrant behaviour at different levels of the pyramid from being unable to withstand peer pressure to severely pathological functioning. A wide range of initiatives are probably needed from education around consent to permanent incarceration (for the Fred West's of this world)

I am not sure where thinking about testosterone gets us other than saying men are men. I am also not sure whether people have been saying unwanted sexual interference is driven by rational thought, and would not agree it is a matter of 'suppressing' urges or it is useful to say men need acknowledgement for not being worse. I know you did not say that exactly but that is how it can be read and could be taken as highly insensitive.

Lastly as you say the devil is in the detail. Last year it was reported that there was serious ongoing violence around avocado farming, there are also wars around land and water, and the petrochemical industry. The drug wars in South America are about many things but are basically about the control of a very valuable resource-drugs. Drugs may desensitise combatants to the horrors but it is about wealth and ,by extension, power that is at the root of it, and not drugs.

In reply to Solsbury:

And in evolutionary terms and historically men have always competed and fought for control of another valuable resource - reproductive women. Isn't this the origin of much male on male violence and the whole rape culture? We used to raid our rival's cave, beat him over the head with a club and drag his women off back to our own cave. It still goes on in some conflicts. Fortunately most societies have moved a long way from this sort of culture, but its remnants are probably what we are dealing with here.

In reply to Solsbury:

No worries

I must admit, it's not great to admit that I have far less control over my actions, but really it's true. It's a fallacy of the highest order to think all or even a high proportion of human actions are chosen as the end-result of a logical thought process. Humans act via emotion for almost every action, and then post-justify it with 'logic' - but this is perceived as having chosen the action, rather than observing it. That's a fact at the population level and the individual level, and has been repeatedly proven in social science (that we control little of our thought and actions). The point is that (I believe) most violent crimes are committed at this sub-rational level (which is why it's been proven that increasing deterrents don't work, because they are totally not part of the consideration process to commit a crime for a large percentage of crimes - financial crimes on the other hand...).

In terms of solutions that are better because they are acknowleding this fact, basically we need to focus on the 'ground-level' emotions that are still active in the brain when it's operating at a sub-rational level. The only one I can think of, is empathy. So my rationale would imply that unless we can increase empathy in males who are likely to commit violent crimes, we won't fix the problem at all.

I think they're largely driven by the same things and are heavily intertwined. As an example, the vast majority of male mass shooters (which is almost all of them, they're 95% male) - express sexual frustration as a main reason for committing the crimes.

In reply to Solsbury:

The huge amount of testosterone, is relative to women. Thus I'm saying the violence imbalance is partially explained by the hormone imbalanced. Were we to give women the means to commit violence (either equivalent body sizes and strengths, or compensation in the form of weapons), and 10x-20x more testosterone - I predict sexual violence would become equal. This is of course - wildly unprovable.

See my above reply about saying a solution with testosterone in mind focuses on fixing the problem without using the rational thought layer.

In reply to Robert Durran: Hmm....I am not sure, by extension this seems to lead to all men are (potential) rapists? 

'We' as a species developed lots of, symbolic and real, ways to avoid the high risk strategy of entering other peoples caves with clubs. Rapaciousness was probably mitigated by other evolutionary and developmental imperatives. My first thought is that rape can't exist within a loving relationship- do men biologically 'need' loving relationships?

In reply to SenzuBean: Morning.

I must admit, it's not great to admit that I have far less control over my actions, but really it's true. It's a fallacy of the highest order to think all or even a high proportion of human actions are chosen as the end-result of a logical thought process.

I have absolutely no problem acknowledging that we are governed by our unconscious.  

Humans act via emotion for almost every action, and then post-justify it with 'logic' - but this is perceived as having chosen the action, rather than observing it.

Most individuals actions can become readily understandable when pulled a part enough, they do 'make sense' to that persons experience and take on the world. 

So my rationale would imply that unless we can increase empathy in males who are likely to commit violent crime.

I am not sure I do agree with your rational but your conclusion I agree with-previously I had thought you were saying men need more empathy (acknowledgement) for males. Whilst in other conversations I may agree in this I thought it was undermining and potentially offensive. One way of increasing empathy is to read and take on board the testimony of women on the receiving end of unwanted male attention.

I think they're largely driven by the same things and are heavily intertwined. As an example, the vast majority of male mass shooters (which is almost all of them, they're 95% male) - express sexual frustration as a main reason for committing the crimes.

Intertwined yes. I am not a criminologist or a psychologist but my quick reading is that many mass shootings are driven by misogyny- a hatred of something outside, in this case women. Sexual frustration is something internal, inside. Whilst there is probably a overlap there is more than one force going on in here. So much of the rationalising of sex offenders is about how something is done to them by the women rather than it was something coming from inside them-I believe this needs to be challenged.

Whilst I have learnt a few things looking and thinking about testosterone I will say again I am not sure quite where it gets us in talking about the current situation. I wonder if there is an attempt to distance us, men, from the impact of men's collective behaviour on women- an irrational suppression as you may put it, or a manic defence as I may put it.

In reply to Solsbury:

I don’t think that’s true, unless you are using an incredibly specific definition of “loving”.

That line of reasoning just leads to sexual abuse and assault being ignored with legal defences like “did you love him? Well in that case it wasn’t rape”. 

Rape is defined by the lack of consent in that single instance, not by weighing up the characteristics of the rest of the relationship

In reply to Solsbury:

You're doing it again. 'We' don't have a collective behaviour. We are all individuals. I'm not sure why you're so keen to carry the responsibility for other people who you've never met, had no role in shaping and have no connection to at all.

If you're talking about the general societal factors that might be creating the environment in which these men are making poor choices then yeah, I guess we're all collectively responsible - but that's not specific to men, by definition that would be all members of society.

In reply to Stuart Williams: I get what you are saying. I was trying to think of other evolutionary and developmental processes that have led men not to rape. I would probably stand by my statement though.

We have a crisis with investigating and prosecuting sexual assault cases, I have heard three senior police officers say they feel that the police have lost the confidence of women in this country. Both men and women on this thread have expressed bafflement about why women stay in abusive relationships.

I may argue that sexual abuse and assault is currently being ignored because of this confusion. I have read testimony on the schools reporting site this week saying 'it could not be wrong he loved me'. I would suggest that it is a tactic that some men use to enable the ongoing abuse and avoiding punishment. 

I suppose I think you can be raped by someone you love but you can't rape someone you love. I can only imagine what conflicts and pain accusing someone you love of rape might throw up but I would think that they could only make the process ten times worse.

In reply to mullermn:

You're doing it again

Apologies, I should have used the kept it to the two posters talking about testosterone.

I'm not sure why you're so keen to carry the responsibility for other people who you've never met, had no role in shaping and have no connection to at all.

As I said before I felt the recent threads on this topic were full of excuses, whataboutery, rationalisations, denials, patronising and gaslighting and were, in parts unpleasant and depressing. I feel that men are capable of more than this and wanted to have another go. I don't think I have any responsibility beyond this.

In reply to Solsbury:

I'd start with the idea that if you want to pass your genes on successfully children need to be reared for a number of years before they're self sufficient, that requires a stable group/society. If they're routinely produced through violence abduction and rape then that behaviour destabilises the groups required to raise them, production is the smaller part of the problem. Apologies for grim/dispassionate language. Basically I mean we do better from a reproductive and survival perspective when we cooperate or at the very least, aren't constantly aggressive within and at the edges of our societies.

I think I understand where you're coming from but that seems a somewhat Disneyfied take on the messy reality of human emotions and relationships or to require 'love' be impossibly narrowly defined.

jk

In reply to Solsbury:

The thread has been good and I've been reading it with interest, I just disagree with the way you're framing this aspect of it.

If you say 'on average men don't go to the doctor enough' and suggest men getting together to work out how that can be improved that's great, but if you say 'men have collective responsibility for the death of Joe Bloggs because he didn't go to the doctor' then there's something wrong with the logic there.

And yes, that hypothetical example sounds harmless but that sort of thinking is what leads to things like the school assembly of boys being made to stand up and apologise for being rapists-in-waiting as per the news article linked some way above.

In reply to Solsbury:

I’m struggling to understand most of what you are trying to say there I’m afraid. However I think that you are taking an overly simplistic, and somewhat “fairy tale”, view of ‘love’. Plenty of people do things, for all sorts of reasons, that cause people they love pain and suffering. I think you are also forgetting that rape doesn’t just occur in the context of ongoing abuse.

The interpersonal factors and dynamics that lead to and maintain abusive relationships are complicated. Equally I doubt that the reason someone commits a sexual offence is ever as simple as “if X then Y”. Having predefined rules and assumptions about what emotions someone is able to experience, or how they can experience them, is  going to make it all even harder to unpick.

It sounds like it’s fair to say that your experience and understanding of love is incompatible with rape (as is many people’s). But I think it is a mistake to assume you can extrapolate that out to everyone’s experience. 

Anyway, I’ve probably taken this off at a bit of a tangent to the main point of the thread. 

In reply to jkarran: Thanks, there are probably loads factors. I was reminded reading your post about an Indian activist, I cant remember who, maybe Sunitha Krishnan, any way, one of the many things she said was imagine yourself having the most amazing sex you could ever possibly have, it has never been like and may never be again and right in the middle your gran walks in. You would probably stop. Many personal and more evolutionary processes will trump testosterone.

In reply to mullermn: I agree, the thread does feel a bit....different, men talking about their hormones and women suggesting we give rapists puppies (I know I am only joking-though the therapeutic effects of animals is not to be sniffed at)

In reply to Stuart Williams: I don't think it is a tangent actually, or not wholly unproductive one anyway. I introduced the word love by accident, on a whim. I was thinking of love as a simple, primal, huge and ungovernable thing, certainly not a fairy tale thing. 

I think it is interesting how this, and the word shame further up the thread, are somehow difficult or unpalatable to some men.

One thing I was saying was that peoples prior relationships makes handling allegations of sexual assault hard. You said that 'well he loved her' may be used as a defence in court, I am saying I think it may already be a factor the proceedings- 'it couldn't have been rape, he got her a taxi.'

It may make it easier to substitute the word love (which I don't want to do as we are all 'meant' to love our neighbour) for care and consideration. Assaulting a stranger, or even shouting at them, is certainly not showing them care or consideration.

Just for clarification I fully accept all human relationships are hugely complicated including love. About a year ago I, and the rest of the team, had to support a women with serious suicidal ideation on a ongoing basis. It turned out she was being gang raped on a regular basis, this was a semi-commercial arrangement and was led by her family. She was 'agreeing' to do it to prevent harm to a younger female relative because she loved her. Many agencies including the police were very, very  involved but chose not to act. I did not believe she could consent due to previous trauma ie her mental health, but this was not a view shared by the person concerned or other professionals. 

I completely accept that other people experiences and views can and do differ wildly from mine and for clarification I also believe you can have fantastic sex with other consenting people who you do not strictly love.

In reply to Solsbury:

With regard to the testosterone debate in this thread.

Women are equally as under they influence of hormones as man. Different hormones with different effects but still there none the less, and arguably female hormones could be seen as more challenging due to the frequent fluctuations and massive changes over a lifetime (menstrual cycles, pregnancy, postpartum, breastfeeding, restarting of menstrual cycles, then repeat for how ever many pregnancies are experienced, then perimenopause, menopause and post menopause) yet largely women manage these hormonal effects without significant impact on others. Most women choose to override years of hormonally dictated broodiness to have a small number of children at a desired time, and we achieve degrees and hold down successful careers despite PMS symptoms, which can be quite debilitating in some cases.

So what is different here. I suspect it is that women have an imperative to achieve despite the hormonal effects as we are the underdogs in society, workplace and relationships.

Men historically hold the power at a government, societal, and family level therefore the imperative to override there testosterone based behaviour just isn't there in the same way. But women (and a significant number of men who manage to behave decently in all aspects of their lives) have certainly proven what is possible in this respect, and therefore I think using testosterone as an argument in situations of misogyny, sexism and sexual violence is just giving men an easy excuse so that they don't need to tackle the real issues behind their negative behaviours.

In reply to Solsbury:

And that’s what I think is unhelpful and tending towards fairy tales. In the real world love isn’t simple and it doesn’t stop bad things happening.

You might have to elaborate on that, I’ve no idea what you are saying I’m uncomfortable with. But I’d politely suggest that it is you who appears avoidant of the idea that sexual assault can be committed in situations that are more familiar than we might want to admit and by people who are more familiar than we’d like to admit.

Absolutely it does happen. Which is why I think it is reductionist, unhelpful and idealistic to say that sexual assault and love are mutually exclusive. It contributes to the situation whereby if someone demonstrates love it can be seen to exonerate rape, which is clearly a load of tripe.

I agree that the act of assaulting someone is not a caring or loving act. But that is very different to you saying that it can’t happen in a relationship where someone experiences love. People can feel and do contradictory things. If you think every perpetrator must be an obvious monster incapable of empathy then you are blinkered to the reality of the problems.

Sorry, you’ve lost me again. Why is the quality of someone’s consensual sex relevant?

In reply to SAF:

Sorry, but I don't think anybody is using testosterone (or anything else) in any of these threads as an excuse. They are just looking for explanations. Explanations can be helpful in looking for solutions so should only be seen as a positive thing. They should not be misrepresented as excuses.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Look, you can't come all complicated like that in a black and white situation

In reply to wercat:

Apologies. Men bad. Women good.

In reply to Robert Durran:

that's more like it - keep saying it as you go to sleep

In reply to wercat:

Earlier on, Robert posted this:
"And in evolutionary terms and historically men have always competed and fought for control of another valuable resource - reproductive women. Isn't this the origin of much male on male violence and the whole rape culture? We used to raid our rival's cave, beat him over the head with a club and drag his women off back to our own cave."

After an analysis of evolutionary anthropology like that, I really don't think Robert is entitled to congratulate himself for his incredibly nuanced understanding, let alone point the finger at others for oversimplifying matters.

In reply to deepsoup:

isn't that how the Vikings worked?

and the Normans?

In reply to deepsoup:

Obviously it is a caricature but probably has a lot of truth in it - look at some of the recent activities of ISIS killing men and taking their womenfolk as sex slaves. 

Anyway, I didn't point the finger at anyone for oversimplifying anything; I said that it was wrong to misrepresent an explanation as an excuse. I feel exactly the same in this debate about the misrepresentation of statements of facts as "victim blaming". Such distortions can only be unhelpful 

In reply to wercat:

Certainly the Vikings. And the Romans. Historically it has pretty much been the norm I think when conquering and raiding until pretty recently. Obviously now against international conventions and very much frowned upon.

In reply to Robert Durran:

It was also established in some cultures to kill sons, brothers, cousins, uncles etc. But men seem to have managed to stop that on the whole.

In reply to SAF:

I think you've probably hit the nail on the head here.  Besides a lot of testosterone swilling about, the other thing that many men have and few women do is that certain kind of a sense of entitlement.

In a reply to a post of yours in of the other recent threads, I quoted a passage from a book in which the author debunks 'Stockholm Syndrome'.  (For anyone who missed that - it isn't really a thing.  The psychiatrist who first 'diagnosed' it was essentially a charlatan looking to cover his own arse.)

After I posted that quote (which I found online) it dawned on me that I really should read the whole book so I bought a copy and I'm about 3/4 of the way through it now.  It's mainly about domestic abuse, written by an Aussie author but she's expanded her original research and added a lot of case histories and data that are more relevant to the UK.  It's excellent.  (Admittedly in a somewhat horrifying and depressing way.)

@ Solsbury, if you're interested in the topic you might find this worth a read.  Drop me an email if you'd like to borrow my copy when I'm done with it.

The book is "See What You Made Me Do" by Jess Hill. 

I found my copy here: https://www.booksetc.co.uk/books/view/-9781787383685
(I like to avoid Amazon where poss - pleasingly this was a couple of quid cheaper than it would have been from them too.)

In reply to SAF:

Yes, things have generally improved in that area too. 

In reply to deepsoup:

Could you remind me what it said. I know a woman who was diagnosed with Stockholm Syndrome (along with other things) after surviving (just) a really horrific abusive relationship. 

In reply to Robert Durran:

It really doesn't have a lot of truth in it. 

Since you're talking about evolution and pre-history maybe let's not look at a renegade band of 21st century nutters.  Why don't you try looking at what's known about the pre-historic societies you were actually pontificating about there, or failing that maybe look at how various groups of indigenous people who've barely had any contact with mainstream 21st century culture organise their lives.  See how common it is in their societies for the men bash their rivals over the head with a club in order to drag the women* back to their own cave.

*(Women who are simply a 'resource' for the men to fight over in your analysis I can't help noticing, and have no agency of their own - that's possibly a bit too old-school even by neolithic standards.)

Edit to add:

Yep.  Bear with me, I'll try to find it online again to copy/paste.

In reply to Robert Durran:

 Nothing exposes the mythical thinking behind learned helplessness better than Stockholm syndrome:  a diagnosis assigned to women who show affection for their captors, and a distrust of authority.  It’s a classic throw-away line we use to describe the mental condition of domestic abuse victims, but it’s also a term that’s still taken seriously by some psychologists. ‘A classic example [of Stockholm syndrome] is domestic violence,’ says Oxford psychologist Jennifer Wild, ‘when someone – typically a woman – has a sense of dependency on her partner and stays with him.’

But Stockholm syndrome – a dubious pathology with no diagnostic criteria – is riddled with misogyny and founded on a lie.  The psychiatrist who invented it, Nils Bejerot, never spoke to the woman he based it on, never bothered to ask her why she trusted her captors more than the authorities.  More to the point, during the Swedish bank heist that inspired the syndrome, Bejerot was the psychiatrist leading the police response.  He was the authority that Kristin Enmark – the first woman diagnosed with Stockholm syndrome – distrusted.

Enmark was twenty-three when, one morning in 1973, Jan Olsson walked into a bank in Norrmalmstorg and took her and three other clerks hostage.  Over the next six days, the audacious heist became a blockbuster media event.  Swedes had never seen anything like it, and neither had the police.

With no training in hostage negotiation, the police response was ham-fisted from the start.  Early in the siege, they misidentified Olsson and, thinking they had found his younger brother, sent a teenage boy into the bank to negotiate, accompanied by Nils Bejerot, only to have Olsson shoot at him.  As Olsson became more and more agitated, his accomplice, Clark Olofsson, whose release from jail was one of Olsson’s first demands, reassured the hostages.  ‘[Clark] comforted me, he held my hand,’ Enmark recalled in 2016.  ‘He said, “I want to see that Jan doesn’t hurt you.’  I can’t say I felt safe, because that’s not the word, but I chose to believe him.  He meant very much to me, because I thought that somebody cared about me.  But there was no affection in that way.  In some way, he gave me hope that, this is going to end okay.’

There was no such reassurance from the police.  Enmark asked to speak to Bejerot, but he refused.  In a live radio interview from the bank, she blew up at the authorities.  ‘[The police] are playing with…our lives.  And then they don’t even want to talk to me, who is the one who will die if anything happens.’  Sensing that their likelihood of survival was getting slimmer by the hour, Enmark took matters into her own hands.  She called the Swedish prime minister, Olof Palme, and begged him to let her and another hostage leave the bank with their captors.  ‘I fully trust Clark and the robber,’ she told Palme.  ‘I am not desperate.  They haven’t done athing to us.  On the contrary, they have been very nice.  But you know, Olof, what I’m scared of is that the police will attack and cause us to die.’  Palme refused to let her leave, saying they could not give in to the demands of criminals.  At the end of the conversation, Enmark says Palme said ‘Well, Kristin, you can’t get out of the bank.  You will have to content yourself that you will have died at your post.’  Enmark was appalled, telling Palme, ‘I don’t want to be a dead hero.’

Finally police teargassed the bank vault and paraded the captors up and down the street to cheers and jeers from the crowd.  Enmark watched on, furious at the macho display.  When she was told to lie on a stretcher, she refused: ‘I walked in here six and a half days ago, I’m walking out.’

On the radio, Enmark criticized the police, and singled out Bejerot.  In response, and without once speaking to her, Bejerot dismissed her comments as the product of a syndrome he made up: ‘Norrmalmstorg syndrome’ (later renamed Stockholm syndrome).  The fear Enmark felt towards the police was irrational, Bejerot explained, caused by the emotional or sexual attachment she had with her captors.  Bejerot’s snap diagnosis suited the Swedish media; they were suspicious of Enmark, who ‘did not appear as traumatized as she ought to be.’  ‘It is hard to admit,’ wrote one journalist, ‘but the words that come to mind to describe her condition are:  fresh and alert.’  Her clarity was, apparently proof that she was sick.

Four years later, when Enmark was asked to explain her actions, she was indignant.  ‘Yes, I was afraid of the police; what is so strange about that?  Is it strange that one is afraid of those who are all around, in parks, on roofs, behind corners, in armoured vests, helmets and weapons, ready to shoot?’

In 2008, a review of the literature on Stockholm syndrome found that most diagnoses were made by the media, not psychologists or psychiatrists; that it was poorly researched, and the scant academic research on it could not even agree of what the syndrome was, let alone how to diagnose it.  Allan Wade, who has consulted closely with Enmark, says Stockholm syndrome is ‘a myth invented to discredit women victims of violence’ by a psychiatrist with an obvious conflict of interest, whose first instinct was to silence the woman questioning his authority.

*Footnote numbers removed. Please see the book for full documentation. “See What You Made Me Do” by Jess Hill, 2019.

https://www.survivepersonalabuse.org/stockholm-syndrome-not-what-youve-been...

In reply to deepsoup:

Thanks for that. Interesting in the context of my friend.

In reply to deepsoup:

So if you are extrapolating the societies of these modern day indigenous societies back to the stone age and our evolutionary roots, where do you think the long historical tradition of conquering and enslavement had emerged from? Why have the men been doing this rather than the women?

In reply to Robert Durran:

No bother.  If you would like to read the book I put a link to the cheapest hard-copy I could find in my post at 22:48 (I think it's also available on Kindle).  But the same offer I made to Solsbury in that post also stands - you'd be welcome to borrow my copy in a few days' time too, easy enough to chuck it in the post.

In reply to SAF:

I'm glad you raised this; I was wary of doing so, given the apparent reluctance of some on this thread to accept that hormones have a role to play in human behaviour. The female hormonal cycle is much more pronounced than that in men, but the effect it can have on female behaviour is completely accepted in society. It seems odd that one should be accepted, but the other utterly rejected.

Just to stress; I am seeking understanding, not justification.

In reply to Robert Durran:

I'm not.  It was just an aside really.  I was just guessing that a self-sufficient hunter-gatherer tribe of a few hundred individuals who have little routine contact and no trading relationship with the outside world are more likely to run their societies along similar lines to how at least some of our early ancestors did than bloody ISIS.

In reply to deepsoup:

ISIS is just a recent example of what seems to have been going on throughout history. The difference is whereas ISIS has received wide international condemnation, this sort of thing seems to have been an accepted norm for a lot of history. 

In reply to captain paranoia:

Hardly... Read the comments on any article about the Radford family (22 kids and counting).

It is not 'completely accepted' by any enlightened society for a women to leave education at 13 have her first child 9 months later, one every 18 months or so from then on and finally stop around 45. Women are expected to control their hormone meditated desire to reproduce and their fertility despite side effects from any effective method, and hold down education and careers along the way, and most do. But this then gives women more independence from men and control over their own destiny and some men with a sense of entitlement over women and their bodies do not like this. Other men cope just fine with the idea!

In reply to Solsbury:

I suggested known methods of reducing testosterone levels which I thought might interest those who feel that testosterone is a problem. I did not suggest we give rapists puppies and I have already clarified this. Please don't misrepresent me. Making it out to be a joke is still misrepresentation.

This thread is very short on solutions like those I suggested. It very challenging, complex and difficult for all men to take action to reduce male violence against women. But that's what needs to happen to fix it. I'd really like to read more men discussing solutions. It's hard to not draw the conclusion from reading this thread that men are only keen to discuss excuses.

In reply to FionaJN:

I think that the real solutions are education based - both formal and informal.

The recent conversations highlighting how women feel probably alter how many men behave or think - certainly they do for me. 

I think the earlier we can teach people about consent, and how to interact around sex the better the chance they will behave appropriately.

In reply to FionaJN:

Improved diet and exercise, active involvement in parenting etc. would all be worthy aims in their own right.  (Obviously having a child and getting a dog would be a wee bit drastic if it wasn't something someone was already planning to do, and they're both things we could do with less of from a climate change PoV.)

I jumped straight in to poo-poo the idea that 'testosterone is a problem' above.  (So much so that I failed to grasp the basic science apparently, ha ha, like "there are huge quantities of hormones promoting sexual violence inside men" presents a nuanced understanding.)  But having said that a negligible change in an individual could still be very significant rolled out across an entire population.

Ha.  But can you imagine the reaction to a government policy with a stated aim of lowering levels of testosterone, generally, in men?  We'd all be losing our f*cking minds about a sinister scheme to emasculate us all and the hashtag-notallmen men would be absolutely at the forefront of that.

If I were putting in a plea for mitigation before sentence is passed, I could blame slightly higher than average levels of testosterone in the womb for my violently antisocial behaviour (as evidenced by the relative lengths of my fingers I shit you not) or with equal validity (ie: none) I could blame it on my primary school playground being next to a busy road in the '70s.  Nobody was ever forced to commit a crime by the lead that found its way from a gallon of petrol into their growing brain, but nevertheless there is strong evidence to suggest that taking lead out of petrol caused a marked reduction in violent crime.

Looking back at Senzubean's post that sent this thread spiralling down the 'hormone' rabbit hole in the first place, he also said this:

"We give alcoholics some credit for remaining on the straight and narrow (even though most of us can never understand the urge to throw one's life away for day-drinking) - and this apparently is very helpful to many of them to know that they have some support."

Well I don't know about giving offenders 'credit' for getting through another day without violently assaulting a woman, but civilised societies do have systems in place to help offenders not to reoffend.  That's what the Probation Service is for, should be for, at least in part.  Offenders who don't get custodial sentences and those who do, after their release.

Besides the decade of austerity cuts that have slashed that and other public services, dramatically reduced the numbers and resources of police forces, decimated funding for women's shelters etc.. the probation service was well and truly trashed by being split up and sold off in a partial privatisation in 2015.  That was the work of Christopher No-ferries Grayling and even by his remarkable standards it wasn't very well thought through - fearing that they might not win the 2015 election the objectives were first and foremost to get it done before the election and to make it irreversible, having it make any sense at all barely registered in third place*.

*(As reported extensively in Private Eye at the time and since, and barely mentioned anywhere else in the media.)

In reply to deepsoup:

A first hand account of an early meeting with the Aborigines in Robert Hughes's The Fatal Shore describes exactly that, except it's the woman they bash.  The author summarizes the woman’s status as “merely a root-grubbing shell-gathering chattel, whose social assets were wiry arms, prehensile toes and a vagina.” and “if she seemed lazy or gave her lord and master any other cause for dissatisfaction she would be furiously beaten or speared.”  

In reply to Jim Hamilton:

White colonials also labelled the entire aboriginal society as savages, so I'm not sure how reliable your quote above is.

But congratulations on getting some good old racism into the thread!!

In reply to SAF:

The quote is from the modern author (1986).  Good book (if unrelentingly grim) on the convict settlement of Australia.

In reply to Jim Hamilton:

Blimey, I'm not touching that one!  I wish I'd never mentioned indigenous people now, and the pre-historic malarky was already an off-topic tangent, without falling down some awful colonial rabbit-hole. 

This thread will be getting archived pretty soon anyway, better to start a new one for a 250-post argument about that! (If you do it, I might just sit on my hands and try not to join in.)

E2A:

You said it was a 'first hand account', it can't be both.

I just had a look at some good reviews.  I'll bear it in mind the next time I'm in the mood for an unrelentingly grim but interesting read, probably be more uplifting than some of the threads on here lately anyway..

In reply to Robert Durran:

We've just changed the business model, those who wish to pay for sex are happy to pay for a trafficked Eastern European, or buy a bride from SE Asia. Rather than bring slaves to the factory for work, we ship the work to them and bring it back in containers, getting very excited if it's delayed for a week in a canal.

Man hasn't changed, we are the same bundle of molecules, reacting to the same genes and chemicals in our bodies. 

In reply to summo:

Not going to rise to bait, but a small correction on a technical matter.. 

In the case of a 'trafficked Eastern European', that too is almost certainly modern slavery.  (I completely agree with you that slavery still exists.)  'Those who wish to pay for sex' aren't paying the slave, who does not consent - they're not punters, they're complicit in the slavery and they're rapists.

In reply to FionaJN: I am sorry for misrepresenting you, it was crass, insensitive and unnecessary.

I think I may duck out f this thread. There were some good solutions, suggestions, in the article about women's safety in the outdoors and a few more have been mentioned here. I feel that (some) men are reluctant to talk and think about sexual violence and unwanted sexual attention from men towards women and (generally) leave this 'work' to women. I would hate it for it to stay this way. Part of (some) men's journey maybe needs to coming to some understanding about what drives it, I don't know how or where this can take place.

I tend to agree with your conclusion, that it does feel like (some) can only make excuses. I have never engaged on an internet forum around this, or any other similar topic before, and despite working, directly and indirectly, with victims and perpetrators of sexual violence for 25 years I am surprised by the strength of feelings it evokes and the confusion that this thread has stirred up for me.

In reply to deepsoup:

I'd agree, it's slavery in all but name. But look at fruit amd veg picking in the uk, the governing body is still called the gang masters association etc.. in the west we are only kidding ourselves that we've moved forwards. We champion the few women who become extremely successful whilst doing little to support the rest.  

It is generational though, talking to my 70+ Yr old mother about our current 11yr old daughter's schooling and you get stupid comments like maybe she'll marry a millionaire and it won't matter. She should know the modern equivalent is posing in a bikini and being an influencer! 

In reply to deepsoup:

Sorry I wasn't clear. The first hand account relates to you mentioning bashing rivals and dragging back women - the first hand account quoted by Hughes refers to bashing the woman before the dragging. 

The quotes on woman's status are by Hughes.  (not sure that's any clearer!)

In reply to Solsbury:

Why does this thread make you think that? It's hard to come up easy solutions to such an entrenched and perhaps biologically reinforced problem. These threads have certainly had me thinking about it. I agree with the poster who said that education is probably the only way forward and I think that is already happening far more than it used to in schools, so maybe its benefits will gradually filter through. What goes on in some homes is probably harder to address and may take a generation or two longer.

Well it's certainly an interesting thing to think about and find out about in its own right whether or not it helps solve the problem.

Once again, an explanation is not an excuse. No more than being in debt is an excuse for robbing someone of their money, though it might explain it and tackling the problem of debt might help decrease robbery. Nobody has been making excuses.

In reply to SAF:

I wasn't thinking about a hormonally-induced desire to reproduce. I can't work out from your response whether you think suppression of this desire is something that men force upon women, or if it is something men don't want women to suppress. Or both?

I was thinking about my female colleagues who, much to their own annoyance, sometimes find themselves more emotional than they would like to be. And, since I understand why that is, and want to support my colleagues, I try my best to provide support, reassurance and understanding at those times. That's the sort of acceptance I was thinking of.

In reply to: a post that seems to have been deleted while I was replying to it..

Most of us commenting on these threads are men, sadly.  There are too few female voices on UKC generally, and though it may be hard to believe given the amount of waffle I post on these threads I too hesitate a bit to post in them.  It's a bit of a dilemma between on the one hand drowning out those we might sometimes do better to just listen to without comment, and on the other leaving them to do all the work of responding to a few somewhat tiresome responses, and perhaps of creating the impression by not responding that more men think as those who don't for a moment hesitate to jump in to these threads with both feet think.

I thought your post was wise and well considered, and I think relevant first-hand knowledge can only improve the signal to noise ratio of these threads really.  And any insight into the mindset of offenders (not you I hasten to add, for anyone who didn't see your post) can only help to shed some much needed light.

I'll quote a bit of your post here and hope that's ok given that you seem to have changed your mind about posting it..

This is rare practical advice for something that I, personally, can actually do.  Try to anyway, so thank you for that.  Unlike your late friend I couldn't claim to be universally respected, but maybe a bit by a few friends and colleagues at least and while it may not achieve much it's more than nothing at all.

In reply to deepsoup:

You can add "did you mean to be so rude?" and "No. Is a complete sentence" to your list of handy phrases. 

In reply to deepsoup:

Thank you for your kind words. Whether this is wise or not I don't know but I do know that I pulled the post out of fear of castigation. Fear of words is no way to live.

I have hesitated to get involved in this and previous threads as firstly I am a man and secondly most of the knowledge I have on these issues comes from defending the accused, mostly but not always guilty.

It is hard to generalise about those who I defend their backgrounds and social status cover all sections of the society that I live in, although as I deal almost exclusively in legal aid my client base tends to be the more marginalised end of that society and I only meet wealthier people when they a have been kept in custody and fall within my remit. I have come across sufficient of the latter to be of the view that middle class domestic violence is massively under reported.

The first observation I would make is that whilst all those who commit crimes of a sexual nature have, with the arguable exception (an argument I don't accept), of flashers have committed an act of violence not all those who are convicted of domestic abuse have, will, or might commit a crime of a sexual nature. Some might many don't. Two linked but separate problems.

The second is that not all those who commit crimes of domestic violence commit other crimes of violence. There is, I think, an undoubted issue with male violence towards women that is separate from male on male violence.

The problem here is that I could fill the page with the variety of offenders.

There have been some solutions proffered;

One was the example of fathers; an issue here is that example is often the father repeatedly assaulting the mother before disappearing. I am now dealing in some cases with the grandchildren of people I acted for in the past, same crime, same name, different generation.

Having said that the solution must be education, many offenders are genuinely bewildered to discover that their behaviour is not normal. Most go in for victim blaming and have difficulty in accepting that it doesn't matter what was said it doesn't justify a physical response and perhaps as importantly don't realise that not everyone behaves as they do.

Some are open to intervention and will if offered the opportunity take part in intensive courses as part of a community payback order. The problem here is that governments, north and south of the border seem curiously reluctant to make the necessary investment in social work to fully take advantage of these programs. Typically women make multiple complaints before an incident occurs where there is sufficient evidence to prosecute. Why not offer these programs before any conviction? It would even save money in the long term. As with much of the criminal justice system there is a tendency to save a small amount now only to pay far more later. More controversially, as arguably it could be seen as criminalising all males, a form of these programs could be added to the school curriculum. Whether there is space for it and how it would be delivered might be insurmountable problems but if it was possible it would save far more than it cost.

That lot above really refers to domestic violence and only skims the surface. Crimes of a sexual nature are a different thing. The range is enormous.

Some are socially incapable and again are surprised to find that their behaviour is not acceptable, some fail to comprehend that their victims are individuals with feelings, they haven't quite understood that women are people too, some just don't care, they see an opportunity and take it others are just evil (that is a word not used lightly) and the suffering is part of the fun.

Education would reach the first two groups, maybe the third the last are just a nightmare.

My view is that we should start by not accepting the micro aggression and transgressions. I used to have a friend, sadly now dead, who was superb at that. He would just remark, 'I don't think that's funny' or ' are you sure you want to say that?' These may seem like small things but actually they are not. When a man who is universally respected says such things others take notice. It won't reform many hardcore offenders but it may make others question their attitudes.

Incidentally this same man prosecuted domestic and sexual offences with relentless vigour. In this he was and is not a unique example of prosecutors in Scotland and without doubt in the rest of the UK. Whatever is wrong with the way these crimes are pursued it is not down to a lack of commitment by the individual prosecutors.

Sorry for the incoherent ramble but life is incoherent. I know there is nothing original in there but I thought some of it might be of interest. There is no individual solution but I despair when as far as attitudes are concerned frighteningly little seems to have changed since my first day in court, when, sitting with counsel in a rape trail I heard this exchange.

Q 'and did she consent to this?'

A 'I don't know, I never thought about it'

(he got 7 years)

That was just short of 30 years ago.

In reply to rogerwebb:

A few questions/points in no particular order....

I think your mention of interventions for people who do not have normal relationship boundaries established are so important, from a abuser and a victim point of view. I frequently see the 'freedom programme' recommended to women on another forum I'm on, the relationship situations that they describe, needing other people to explain/confirm it is not normal are often so shocking it is easy to wonder how they can even need to ask, yet there are thread after thread describing sexual coercion, financial abuse, and alienation from support networks. I keep meaning to complete the freedom programme  just to further my understanding of domestic abuse. I think it can be difficult to comprehend the lack of normal boundaries when you have had a reasonably normal upbringing.

You sound very respectful of women, but what is being done about the barristers and judges in the various court systems that still hold terribly misogynistic views. Is this being tackled at all from the inside, and how?

Finally and nothing to do with the thread, but I've often wondered on seeing cases in the news and crime drama, but what is the mental health sequelae in defences lawyers? You must successfully defend some truly terrible people, as well as the occasionally psychopath who are renowned for being manipulative, I assume this takes its toll.

In reply to SAF:

I think you could access the materials from the freedom course, but I personally don't think it would be appropriate for you to attend the course, if you are not and have not been in that situation.  The course dynamic would change completely if it was attended by spectators, however well meaning.  If I have misunderstood and you have been in that situation then I apologise but I'm not reading that in your post.  

Many of the situations you describe may seem extreme but usually it happens so gradually that it sneaks up.  

In reply to rogerwebb:

A lot of very important points there.  As someone who works with perpetrators you have a very useful perspective.  

One thing I do think that men who work in these areas need to do is to separate criticism of the system from criticism of themselves.  

As a teacher I don't hesitate to speak out when aspects of the education system need to change.  I know myself when I do or don't do a good job.  I've learnt to detach from criticism of the system or the management.  The police and the justice system aren't perfect, and mentioning that should be ok and not taken as criticism of all officers. 

In reply to marsbar:

Oh, I thought it was just an online course rather than a group course. 

In reply to SAF:

I'm not sure with Covid.  But certainly in the past the group was a powerful part of the support.  

In reply to Solsbury:

Thank you for the apology - I appreciate that. I hope you do continue to post on this topic. I've found your posts insightful and your honesty about your feelings and uncertainty refreshing. 

Misogyny and sexism is so deeply embedded in our culture, it is such a challenge to realise that and its extent and to move forward constructively, rather than be overwhelmed. Thank you for starting this thread.

In reply to SAF:

The difficulty I think is that at present to get help you have to be a victim or an offender. For it to be otherwise though would require a vastly better resourced social work system that intervened early leading to accusations of authoritarianism. Meantime we have heroic overstretched social workers doing their best with not enough. 

This is changing as the personnel change. If you went into a far north Court you might be pleasantly surprised by the number of women in authority. When I started we had no female Sheriffs and there weren't many in Scotland. Now that isn't a matter you would comment on. Most procurator fiscals are women. This doesn't cure inherent bias but it does deal with naked misogony. I have seen two in court career suicides from overt sexist bullying. 

Yes it does. Most people develop professional armour. Unfortunately in many cases it is inadequate and in any event has a use by date which is earlier for some than others. And no, you don't always sleep well at night but always better than if you hadn't fulfilled your professional duty. 

In reply to marsbar:

I am not sure that if that is an issue it is gender specific. 

In reply to rogerwebb:

Interesting post. Thanks for that.

I'm not sure if you are involved in police station work as well but you have the advantage (disadvantage?) of coming in to contact with suspects only when the case against them has been through the hoops involved in getting a successful charging decision.  (edit to add. - just remembered.you are Scotland based - seem to recollect they've only recently introduced luxuries like solicitors in police custody!!)

That being said - the policing experience of these suspects sounds very similar. 

One aspect of domestic abuse cases that is also notable is that we have serial offenders and we also seem to have serial victims. I think, as you suggest, that family upbringing plays a big role in this - just as some offenders see their violent behaviour as normal within a relationship, victims sometimes seem to have a similar distorted view of what 'normal' is.

In relation to "middle class" domestic abuse - I'd probably agree that it's under reported. It's been touched on previously, but there is a lot more for a family to lose if the perpetrator is criminalised and loses job with financial and other impact on kids. That's partly the reality of the differential impact of the CJS in a pretty divided society. 

In reply to rogerwebb:

Thank you for that post, very insightful and considered.