Are women hated because we are weak?

Hmmm, you mean, theoretically, by making their husbands do more housework, women could get rid of Trump?

I know it probably doesn't work like that, but hey, it's worth a try, isn't it?

We could try and win men for that approach.

#HouseworkAgainstTrump ... or something?

Imelda Marcus had a shoe collection that was apparently to blame for Ferdinand Marcus running the Phillipines as a corrupt dictatorship for decades.

Madame Mao went to prison because she somehow convinced her revered husband, Chairman Mao, to kill millions in a failed attempt to restructure society known as the Cultural Revolution.

There are many many examples of "this nonsense"

This is nonsense..

Politically, women are hated because power is a helluva drug, hating women is politically expedient, and it all starts at home (mommy issues):

From The New Authoritarians Are Waging War on Women

*

"To understand global Trumpism, argues Valerie M. Hudson, a political scientist at Texas A&M, it’s vital to remember that for most of human history, leaders and their male subjects forged a social contract: “Men agreed to be ruled by other men in return for all men ruling over women.” This political hierarchy appeared natural—as natural as adults ruling children—because it mirrored the hierarchy of the home. Thus, for millennia, men, and many women, have associated male dominance with political legitimacy. Women’s empowerment ruptures this order. “Youths oppress My people, and women rule over them,” laments Isaiah in the Hebrew Bible. “My people, your leaders mislead you.”

"Because male dominance is deeply linked to political legitimacy, many revolutionaries and counterrevolutionaries have used the specter of women’s power to discredit the regime they sought to overthrow. Then, once in power themselves, they have validated their authority by reducing women’s rights. In a 1995 paper, Arthur Gilbert and James Cole of the University of Denver observed that French revolutionaries made Marie Antoinette a symbol of the immorality of the ancien régime and that Iranian revolutionaries did the same to Princess Ashraf, the “unveiled and powerful” sister of the shah. After toppling the monarchy, the French revolutionaries banned women from holding senior teaching positions and inheriting property. Ayatollah Khamenei made it a crime for women to speak on the radio or appear unveiled in public."

*

"There is a striking correlation between countries where women and men behave more equally in the home and countries where women are more equally represented in government. Take Sweden, 44 percent of whose parliamentarians are women. There, the gap between the amount of housework done by men and that done by women is less than an hour a day. In the U.S., where women will soon make up roughly 23 percent of Congress, the housework gender gap is an hour and a half. In Hungary, where women account for 10 percent of parliament, it is well over two hours.

"Women looking to unseat Trump or Bolsonaro in the next election may find little comfort in the Nordic example. Family dynamics change not year by year, but generation by generation. Nonetheless, the new authoritarianism underscores the importance of an old feminist mantra: The personal is political. Foster women’s equality in the home, and you may save democracy itself."

www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/01/authoritarian-sexism-trump-duterte/576382/

They don't want to go back to the days when Donald Trump wouldn't have got anywhere near any women, never mind several attractive, younger ones

I wouldn't mind going back to those days. I those days, he would probably not even have been born. (That kind of idiocy doesn't accidentally happen in only one generation, surely? I read somewhere his grandfather got rich with brothels ...)

No unbias you haven't. Read again and try harder

Have I just read what I think I’ve read? The self pitying, I’m a victim, all men (50% of the world’s population ie a good few billion people) are all bad.. hilarious absolutely hilarious

My theory is that hunter-gatherer societies were fairly egalitarian. Gathering supplies the vast majority of reliable calories and, although people like meat, it's not reliable nor is it sustainable. So women had a fair amount of power. Hunters had to be bigger and stronger (evolution made men big). Good hunters tended to get laid a fair amount so it all worked out. Women chose to shag who they wanted in the main but hard work and being a decent sort was how you got laid.

Then came fixed agriculture. Suddenly food could be guarded, stored, and access to it could be restricted. Those big, strong men could suddenly control the food in a way they couldn't before. This gave them massive power over anyone weaker. And now the most restrictive arsehole got the sex. Violence and control could get you a woman forced to be at home while you got to shag around. Awesome.

Now we have a world in the West at least where physical size and strength isn't very important. But that's an issue for men who want to keep the privilege they built up. They don't want to go back to the days when Donald Trump wouldn't have got anywhere near any women, never mind several attractive, younger ones. So we have the patriarchy, sustaining the privilege built up now the reason has gone. Feminism is the only fly in the ointment. If we realised that the only advantage men have, their physical size, is outdated and that women should be able to choose who to shag based on preference, the powerful men would be screwed (well actually not screwed).

Hence the hatred. We are trying to restrict access to sex. The best example of this is the incels.

I think it's all about status. Women are hated because they're low-status, because women have to be low-status in order for patriarchy to work, and so all our social systems have evolved to generate and enforce and reinforce the status differentials between men and women.

People feel okay directing hate at low-status people when they're seen as stepping out of their place. Low-status people are blamed for the behaviour of high-status people. Low-status people don't receive empathy to the extent that high-status people do. Low-status people are sometimes the beneficiaries of "noblesse oblige" or chivalry , but it's understood that this generosity can be withdrawn if they're not the deserving kind of poor person/women. Low status people are not listened to or taken seriously and will receive pushback if they try to assert a right to be heard.

I don't think this is some innate thing about the differences between men and women - status differentials affect every relationship, between individual people and between different classes of people. There's nothing to prevent a more egalitarian world from existing.

I do think that the precarious economy and social instability etc. means you get more people feeling like their own social status is under threat, and uppity women, or unlucky women, are an easy target to take it out on.

I wish more people paid attention to status as a variable affecting people's behaviour - class, sex, race, appearance etc all feed into it, but it's ultimately more than that, individual characteristics and personality and subcultural norms play a big part too.

The only people who really seem to talk much about it are "pick up artists" and their various spinoff subcultures (lots of incel types have a giant chip on their shoulder about being "low-status males") and improv comedy types. And the crappy kind of evolutionary psychologists. Maybe sociologists talk about it as well and I just don't know what jargon they're using?

okay that was a longer rant than I intended, thank you for listening to my TED talk.

Sorry I haven't read the whole thread, but I feel males of many species feel an innate need to control females, to give themselves a sense of power and agency. When an urge to prevail is frustrated, it comes out as hate.

Women need to start thinking like men - or at least like we want men to think!

The way we want men to think is very different from the way men actually think.

I think we need to crush patriarchy. Or, if we can't do that, make sure there's a 50% women quota everywhere.

Women won't be successful in male-dominated workplaces by behaving like men. Men don't like women who behave like men and won't promote them.

Women might be successful by first thinking of themselves - as men are wont to do - but acting just like men want them to act, until they get to the top.

And only then reveal that they are actually not the easily influenced strawwomen the men thought them to be.

Most women who uphold the status quo and even hate other women is because of fear. Either fear of becoming a victim themselves (and the false sense of security of "if i toe the line and do the right things and say the right things it won't happen to me" , "i support them so they won't turn on me", " this happens to others ") or fear of the unknown, of going against everything they've ever known,what's been drummed into them,who they are.

I just wanted ask her who, exactly, she thinks the joke is on here?!

yeah I have heard that sort of shit before. About how if I make my feminist views clear, men won't find me attractive. Yeah, because all I realllly want in my life is a misogynist that I have to spend 24/7 with....

You're overcomplicating things.

It's simpy power.

In every society the strong have power over the weak.

No powerful group ever gave up power willingly.

I am astounded at the very many women I meet who uphold and protect the status quo.

Recently a women told me that she and her extremely controlling husband were howling with laughter ,at me, because I am open about being a feminist.

I just wanted ask her who, exactly, she thinks the joke is on here?!

But due to many, many factors men are consistently more successful in the workplace. Academics can only go so far.

That's because men have much more control over the workplace. It's a man's world and they will fight to keep women in what they deem acceptable and subservient positions.
But a lot of it is also women buying into misogyny themselves. Every time I hear a woman say 'I'm very traditional at heart', I want to scream.

Perhaps the biological basis is not that men are inherently assholes, but the fact that it profits them so immensely to oppress and exploit women, the fact that exploiting women enables them to wage war against other societies and win, means that patriarchy dominates the world.

^

I think in this sense you could basically say that it's an imbalance of power at play : it could be rich/poor, black/white, but in our case it's men/women.

Exploitation is tempting if its presented to you.

When women outperform men at school and at university, people assume it's feminism gone mad and that boys are being repressed by too many female rights. But for so many hundreds of years, it was just accepted that women weren't as clever or as good as men. Well, what if women just are better? Cleverer, more intuitive, more emotionally intelligent, more strategic? Obviously males would have an interest in trying to repress that, which is why patriarchy is necessary.

^

This is all true.

But due to many, many factors men are consistently more successful in the workplace. Academics can only go so far.

Women need to start thinking like men - or at least like we want men to think!

At the core, it is much like communism.

Workers need to control the means of production.

Women need to control the means of reproduction.

I don't think it is a coincidence that abortion is only embraced by those cultures where there is no danger of women aborting male fetuses.

In China and India, women either strongly prefer sons thanks to cultural brainwashing, or can be bullied into aborting female fetuses as they lack economic independence.

In Europe and the US, women are economically independent enough to make their own decisions, to leave a man who complains about wanting a son. Some women would even prefer to have daughters.

Now, I admittedly read more news from Europe and the US than from India and China, but it seems to me that there's much more of a panic about abortions here than in countries where abortion of female fetuses is a problem.

There are, to my knowledge, no groups of people in front of Indian and Chinese clinics, begging women to not abort their baby girl.

There's government bans on doctors telling people the sex of a fetus, and that's it. The population in general doesn't seem much emotionally affected.

Do men find women threatening, though? I'm not sure they do.

They always seem condescending of any women who could be a potential threat : as if a woman couldn't be as smart /better at a job, that we almost seem to skip the threat part as you would with another man and just move straight to that fact it wouldn't be possible at all with a woman.

If that makes sense

I always thought it was about desire.

I thought some men desire women but hate that they desired women for it being a loss of control/a weakness in them. And women being ‘gate-keepers’ to sex. That’s just not fair!

When women get older, for this kind of fella, he no longer desires her, but holds her in contempt because he no longer desires her and she should be more desirable because what else is there?

We don't need many men and then we only need 'good stock.'
Women on the other hand are invaluable.

I agree. In reality, if a few men's sperm impregnated many women, society, could sustain itself for quite a while. Wouldn't work the other way around.

Firstly, I think those who say that it is rare for men to hate women are in for a shock. It's not rare at all. They don't mind compliant women at all, but if a man clashes with a woman in power, so many of them have a real issue about it and their misogyny comes to the forefront. Look also at the men who have a problem with their female partner earning more than them and with female colleagues being promoted above them. Even so-called 'nice guys' hate it if they are outperformed by a woman.

Men are taught early on that they are superior to women, but then they start to see that it's not actually true at all. When women outperform men at school and at university, people assume it's feminism gone mad and that boys are being repressed by too many female rights. But for so many hundreds of years, it was just accepted that women weren't as clever or as good as men. Well, what if women just are better? Cleverer, more intuitive, more emotionally intelligent, more strategic? Obviously males would have an interest in trying to repress that, which is why patriarchy is necessary.