What makes men angry with women?

I think it goes

Men are brought up / socialised / etc to see women as an inferior servant class who should be respectful to men and keep them happy.
Society also says that you "shouldn't" go around beating and raping women who say no / aren't deferential enough (although in reality society also says this is often understandable).
Men who are heterosexual (ie most of them ) want to have sex with women
Women however have a pesky habit of >> saying no to men, not wanting to have sex with them, not being happy to make them sandwiches whenever, and talking back rather than being suitably deferential

The conflicting feelings of women are lower >> but I want to fuck them >> but I'm not supposed to force them >> and they keep saying NO!
Results in anger towards us

Plus what must be a very discomfiting feeling that while obviously women are inferior >> what if they aren't? Then how they are treated isn't fair. But I want to treat them like that! But I am fair etc etc. If someone genuinely feels something is inferior they generally don't take time out to express their dominance / be fucking horrible to them. eg I don't spend my days belittling earthworms and being cruel to them. When you have this cruelty, this urge to belittle, I think it comes from this place where they have to prove out loud that they are better than us and squash us down, as they fear that maybe they are not better, and that makes them angry too.

Take incels >> super angry, hate women, it's all about thwarted sexual entitlement.

That's what I think anyway.

They have the aggressive urges but no longer the entitlement to act on them

This is interesting, because sporting competitions are a peaceful, socially sanctioned way of letting off excess aggression, but it seems that the 'letting out' only makes it worse, for example football hooliganism and the increase in domestic violence when England play.

Perhaps thouhh the danger is more about men joining together in aggression though.. ponders .

Re men / sex / procreation

Yes I'm sure that the male sex drive is related to procreation
Not that every time they have sex they think "I want babies" and so always choose someone who is likely to be fertile etc
But the strong sex drive (?? there are men who don't have this - and in general is it really stronger than women's? nature / nurture / entitlement / sex drive measured with "man as default" >> who can say) certainly comes from a generalised "spread the seed" imperative surely. Whether the sex drive that results is then used in babymaking sex is not so much the point.

When they wear revealing clothes and then complain when men treat them accordingly.

Rape myth spouting prick.

And the protection of the clan/group, yes true.

It's overall aggression for a variety of purposes in my view.

The problem is, the testosterone is still there but the reasons for it existing have largely been made obselete, other than a few select uses.

Testosterone drives the sexual urge which as I think you said earlier, is an ever present hunger in men, generally speaking.

Women, especially in western society are no longer dependent in the same ways they were. Men don't have the same stranglehold on providing or protecting.

I get my own food and provide my own shelter. For me and my offspring. This is very threatening to men. It means I can deny them sex.

If I need protection, I call the police. Or get a dog (simplistically). The need for me to have a man is zero.

Men don't like that.

There are also very useful studies on men finding successful women threatening to their self esteem.

m.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/successful-girlfriend-men-threatened_n_3838295

This is where alot of the anger comes from in my opinion. The incel stuff is very telling which I'm sure you know about.

They have the aggressive urges but no longer the entitlement to act on them as they would have had or as chimps have. Doesnt stop them trying or being violent though. Add in the weird sexual and emotional dysfunction stuff I mentioned earlier and it's a toxic cocktail.

My feeling is that testosterone is more about aggression to fight against other humans for territory (best beachcombing/gathering/shelter/vantage point/etc). I think the only reason women have opted out of the hunt is because breastfeeding babies could cry and startle the animal, rather than hunting requiring an aggressive nature to do it.

I agree clarice to a point.

I also think that that is some of the purpose of testosterone. You had to be aggressive to hunt successfully.

Hunting is dangerous (without guns) and there was a high risk of injury. Testosterone helped overcome that fear.

The empathy gap for men is again, related to hormones in a way.

Which is why in more modern society, with the advance of women's rights, they cant cope. The skills that testosterone was useful for, are not so needed now we have Tesco, and to an extent a 'safe society (by that I mean healthcare and no wolf packs).

In a Hunter gatherer set up, men were just as dependent on women for the food they gathered, as was provided by hunting.

I also believe the change from hunter-gathering to husbandry was where men's empathy took a tumble.
Where hungry people need to trace and track an animal and then kill it, they perform rituals before hand to get in the right state of mind then need to empathise with the animal to be able to find it, asking themselves what they would do if they were that animal. There's a respect there. Controlling the free movement and breeding of animals it a totally different mindset. It is about dominance and control.

Anecdotally, I was prescribed testosterone in my mid 30s and at one point my level was much higher than it should've been. I found myself getting much more angry about things like people cutting me up in traffic.

Wrt the Steppes it is not nuclear families travelling with other families, it is one family per hundreds of square miles. So they barely see a different family. Apologies that I made it misleading in my wording.

Yes, Clarice good points.

I wasn't going to launch into this, but, it seems agriculture had a big role in inequality. In a Hunter gatherer set up, men were just as dependent on women for the food they gathered, as was provided by hunting.

www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/science/2015/may/14/early-men-women-equal-scientists

Hope it's clicky

Theres a good article in the new scientist but it's not free to view

www.google.com/amp/s/www.newscientist.com/article/mg23831740-400-the-origins-of-sexism-how-men-came-to-rule-12000-years-ago/amp

It's interesting to draw parallels between animals and humans but not all that useful I don't think, because there are so many different behaviours you can choose an example to support your argument.
Bonobos and chimps behave very differently.
I have heard that a male chimp that displaces the alpha kills all the young, so he can replace them with his own, but in other animal species, females kill their young!
I was heartbroken as a child when my gerbil ate all her babies shortly after giving birth.
And there are many other cases of female animals eating their young.

Sorry, one more 'evolutionary' comment.

Humans are very adaptable, so where there is scarcity in the Stepps, for example, there are small nuclear families travelling around together, following the food. It's the best way to survive. Monogamy, mum and dad sharing the childcare duties, camp making duties and food aquisition duties.

This is different from living in hunter-gathering tribes where specific key relationships are not so important, as working together in a cooperative group is key to survival, and different again from patriarchal polygynous groups who use animal husbandry to survive where male dominance and control of women, children and animals is the social structure, which enables men to negotiate and trade between themselves.

They are all human.

Ok. Without links, lions are the easiest for evidence of eating young. As a societal animal who live in groups.

The female gives birth to the cubs and then introduces them to the male. Who can then eat them if he doesn't like their smell. They might be his cubs but he won't risk putting in resources to them if they aren't his genes. Or he thinks they aren't.

I shall continue to read and delurk

And I shall attempt some evidence for my wild claims good forward

Very interesting themes. I find this all quite fascinating

I suppose the point I am trying to make, is there is a evolutionary reason for many human behaviours that goes back to the beginning of life itself.
That has to be taken in context with our more complex society and it's structures and how they have evolved over time.

I am not suggesting it's black and white. I am just trying to draw parallels rather than a+b=c.

This is an interesting thread. I like the question and apologies for derailing.

Bonobos are definitely not peaceful and loving in all aspects.

The eating of young by males goes back to the earlier point about not being sure they are the father.

Well not ^becoming a big issue are^ a big issue but I hope you see what I meant

And clarice raises a very good point. Bonobos are not monogamous.

Whether humans are really monogamous is a whole other thread. I personally don't think we are.

And the evolutionary advantage? Yes, to be aggressive ensures you remain the alpha and thus get access to mates and food. As a society we have changed a bit though, so this is where the male behaviours of anger and aggression are becoming a big issue. Alongside more rights for women; men are in big trouble.

But I shan't derail any further and will return to lurking.

I suppose a question might be - does it work? Do controlling, angry, abusive men procreate more than the opposite? That might tell us if it’s an evolutionary advantage or not.

I think it’s like kids in some ways. Spoilt kids who get away with murder are like that because they can be. A very small proportion of people are sociopaths and cannot be nurtured out of it, most arseholes are that way because they’ve been allowed to be. I see it with the kids my ds knows - some of the boys are allowed to get away with being violent, being bullies and always get their own way, some of the girls are allowed to be spiteful and spend their time gossiping and excluding other girls. I don’t think it’s innate behaviour, it’s stereotyped behaviour that lazy or inept parents don’t discourage because it fits in with stereotypes, so it’s socially acceptable to not really deal with it. I guess we’ll see what happens as they grow up - will they grow out of it or will the boys that currently get away with violent behaviour continue to use this as a method to get what they want as they get older.