To wonder why men hate women so much?

[YouAreNotBatman]

Violence againt women, sexual harrasment.

Controlling women bodies.

Women’s sexuality: frigid prude if you don’t want sex, slut if you.

Porn, sex ”work”.

All the MRA’s, mgtow, incels etc.

Even historically speaking they have no reason to be angry at women, women never had any power, mostly tried to accommodate to men’s demand/ wants, I think it still goes on.

Many women still tip toe the line to placate men.

What reason do they have to be so angry at women?

Either you are so convinced your entitled to treat people like trash if you don’t agree with them or you are genuinely unaware of doing it in which case I would think you were on the spectrum.

@Suetodo2 could you do ND (& NT) people a favour, & educate yourself about how appallingly disablist this comment is please?
Why do you think that people "on the spectrum" treat people like trash?

🤣

I was a sahm for years so I don’t disagree that it’s a valid choice, but it really had no impact on anyone other than my family so why should it be recognised by anyone other than them.

While I loved being at home with my kids and wouldn’t change a thing, I hope that my daughter makes different choices. My dm was quite worried when I first became a sahm and now that I’m a parent to a teenage girl I completely understand why. I want my dd to achieve everything that she’s capable of and not be held back by her family. I want her to do more for herself if I’m honest. I actually did achieve quite a lot when I was a sahm - I retrained, ran marathons, studied - but I do wonder what I could have achieved in the workplace if I hadn’t taken 10 years out. I love my job but retraining at 40 gives you very little time to make your mark. I’m giving it my best shot though.

There aren’t really any sahm role models because it doesn’t take any special skill or determination, anyone can do it providing their dh earns enough to foot the bill. That’s not criticising sahm, including myself, it’s just a fact. And it only seems ‘natural’ because that’s how it’s always been but actually in our circles there were a number of high earning women who’s dh were the default parent. Things may well be changing.

My role models are people who have done more with their lives than raising a family because raising a family, while making me as a mum proud, isn’t actually an achievement. It’s just life and something that all parents do whether they work or not.

I'm so sorry, @brookstar.

Me too xxx

Also sorry @brookstar and also your calm and reasoned approach is awe inspiring in the light of having gone through this. Respect.

Thanks everyone. It's really appreciated ❤️

Women hold the power because men want sex more than they want anything else.

Eek. Turns out I'm not a man.

@LuaDipa

Strongly disagree that there aren’t any stay at home role models. Your role models can be your own mother, people you’ve seen or people in your family. Even people of TV before it became passé to represent such women. I think that raising a happy family is an achievement and not one “anyone can just do so long as their dh foots the bill”. Yes a lot of people can do it. But, a lot of people can work too. So by your logic working isn’t an achievement either, after all almost every man ever has done that and women are capable of it so that’s not really an achievement - just life.

Why is working in some typical company job that so many people have worked in viewed as some big achievement? What because you move up a level from time to time through promotion and it’s meant to be a big deal?

To be quite honest I think some women have been sold the idea of drudgery at work as some kind of big achievement when in reality it’s not. Men in these same jobs don’t seem to have that attitude perhaps because work is not relatively new to them. They go to work, collect their pay and go home, they don’t think they’ve achieved much special.

Call me a cynic but I view my childrens happiness and satisfaction in their life every bit as big of an achievement as being promoted to middle manager at wherever. There are some people who do things most people couldn’t do at work - but that’s not the majority of people. Most people are just cogs in the system who never achieve anything particularly significant that someone else couldn’t do. How is society pressing them into that any better than someone’s “dh footing the bill” to allow them to be a SAHM? (Which they’re doing allows their DH to have a family life they couldn’t otherwise which makes their life meaningful).

@brookstar

I didn’t say your subject is a real subject. Any subject at a University is a real subject. I like many people just give varying degrees of significance to some. I’m sure you do the same. Phrenology was a real subject once.

But your work in academia is actually a good example of what I’m talking about. Your field and job exists because of men. Rather than gaining an interest in something else and going on to progress and do your own original things in another field, you have chosen to study how to get men to provide more for women in the working world (and in the process given yourself a job in a field which entire existence is in essence dedicated to the task of getting men to give women more at work and so dependant on what men are doing).

If women like yourself created more original companies or developed more jobs originally then your field of academia wouldn’t be needed. Yet your job is all about getting more women attached to men at work and in the process you attach yourself to men for your success. You have chosen to be dependant on men even if your not happy wi the what they’re doing.

Thats what I’m talking about, rather than originality, your drawn toward trying to force men to give women more in the working world and that’s is exactly why men and women aren’t “equal” in that working world, because unlike the men who are creating things, your role is to try to find a way for women to benifet from those things. So women are forever chasing men at work trying to get more.

Im sorry but I can’t respect that. At home I do my own thing and am totally in charge of my field (even if it’s looked down on in academia) and my husband is in his and we both give to each other.
But as far as I can see their is no exchange in the same way between Some women at work (as a class) and men. It’s just take. Or just chase after men and try to take.

I find it sad and think they’re lost for doing that.

Wow, you wrote that at four o'clock in the morning? Do you have insomnia or are you outside of the UK?

@Boxowine

If you must know I always wake up now then hopefully go back to sleep in an hour or so. But I might sleep for an hour in the day as well.

Another name change SueToDo? I can't keep up.........

I didn’t say your subject is a real subject. Any subject at a University is a real subject. I like many people just give varying degrees of significance to some. I’m sure you do the same. Phrenology was a real subject once.

Yeah, this still makes you sound clueless ( and a bit of dick tbh). I never actually said what my subject is....you assumed. Actually, I don't place varying degrees of significance to subjects because, unlike you, I have a pretty solid understanding of how HE works and of the graduate labour market.

But your work in academia is actually a good example of what I’m talking about. Your field and job exists because of men.

More assumptions!! You're embarrassing yourself now.

My field and the profession I am aligned to is female dominated. It always has been. While academia has been male dominated, my subject and the industry I worked in prior to become an academic was, and still is, female dominated. I have an ongoing project to attract more men to the subject/sector.
Should I be telling them to go and create their own sector?

Rather than gaining an interest in something else and going on to progress and do your own original things in another field, you have chosen to study how to get men to provide more for women in the working world (and in the process given yourself a job in a field which entire existence is in essence dedicated to the task of getting men to give women more at work and so dependant on what men are doing).

Women's career development is one part of my research. It's something I'm particularly passionate about but it's only one part of my job. I have a PhD which in its very nature is about creating new knowledge - interestingly, my PhD focused on social class. I'd hate to think what your views are on that!

If women like yourself created more original companies or developed more jobs originally then your field of academia wouldn’t be needed.

That's bold statement considering you don't actually know what my field of academia is!!!

Yet your job is all about getting more women attached to men at work and in the process you attach yourself to men for your success.

No is isn't.

You have chosen to be dependant on men even if your not happy wi the what they’re doing.

No I haven't.

Thats what I’m talking about,

Fuck knows what you're actually talking about. You don't make any sense.

rather than originality, your drawn toward trying to force men to give women more in the working world and that’s is exactly why men and women aren’t “equal” in that working world, because unlike the men who are creating things, your role is to try to find a way for women to benifet from those things. So women are forever chasing men at work trying to get more.

See above - absolute gobbledegook

Im sorry but I can’t respect that.

I don't think anyone actually cares if we have your respect.

At home I do my own thing and am totally in charge of my field (even if it’s looked down on in academia) and my husband is in his and we both give to each other.

Good for you. I don't know why you're assuming your role is looked down upon. I've NEVER suggested the work of a SAHP isn't valuable.

But as far as I can see their is no exchange in the same way between Some women at work (as a class) and men. It’s just take. Or just chase after men and try to take.

How do you know this if you don't work? Or are you making assumptions again?

I find it sad and think they’re lost for doing that.

How very patronising. I'm not lost and neither are the other working women I know.

But your work in academia is actually a good example of what I’m talking about. Your field and job exists because of men. Rather than gaining an interest in something else and going on to progress and do your own original things in another field, you have chosen to study how to get men to provide more for women in the working world (and in the process given yourself a job in a field which entire existence is in essence dedicated to the task of getting men to give women more at work and so dependant on what men are doing).

FFS @SueToTo34 you are so obsessed with sex segregation I wouldn't be surprised if you agitate for women to only be allowed to sit at the back of buses.

How about "Your job exists because of human endeavour, & you are now part of that endeavour" ?
Why the need to assign 'ownership' to one sex, & scold the other for having the temerity to gain something approaching equality? It's coming across as a kind of monomania, you really need some help, but are so convinced of your own 'place' within your self-imposed hierarchy that I doubt you are equipped to recognise how disordered your thinking is.

This, below, for example, is so confused, so batshit, & so utterly wrong-headed.

It's as if you imagine that men invented work. What about all the men who join companies originally founded by men? Why do you view them as part of the 'ownership caste' when they are not the original founders? Are those newly-joining men not also just hanging off the coattails of the original founders, by your crazed logic?
Take it to its conclusion - only the people who (you reckon) 'invented work' should ever be allowed jobs. Nobody seeking to join an established workplace can be allowed to, because only the founders own the concept of work.

It's insanity. I hope you get the help you need.

But your work in academia is actually a good example of what I’m talking about. Your field and job exists because of men. Rather than gaining an interest in something else and going on to progress and do your own original things in another field, you have chosen to study how to get men to provide more for women in the working world (and in the process given yourself a job in a field which entire existence is in essence dedicated to the task of getting men to give women more at work and so dependant on what men are doing).

If women like yourself created more original companies or developed more jobs originally then your field of academia wouldn’t be needed. Yet your job is all about getting more women attached to men at work and in the process you attach yourself to men for your success. You have chosen to be dependant on men even if your not happy wi the what they’re doing.

Thats what I’m talking about, rather than originality, your drawn toward trying to force men to give women more in the working world and that’s is exactly why men and women aren’t “equal” in that working world, because unlike the men who are creating things, your role is to try to find a way for women to benifet from those things. So women are forever chasing men at work trying to get more.

And you still haven't answered the compelling question from another PP - are you seriously suggesting that women cannot be doctors, nurses, or any medical professional until they found their own hospitals & clinics? Because otherwise they are just copying men, & that will make men bring on the apocalypse you kept banging on about?

Take it to its conclusion - only the people who (you reckon) 'invented work' should ever be allowed jobs. Nobody seeking to join an established workplace can be allowed to, because only the founders own the concept of work.

Madness isn't it?
It's like saying I can't live in my house because it was built by men. If I want to live in a house I need to go away and think of more original ways of creating shelter and build them. Until then I should stop trying to take the houses of the men who, as their creator, own them all.
Batshit

Part of the problem IS that some men “invent” (ie force upon people) work - eg some men owning vast tracts of land so no one else can take water from it or grow food on it. Other people then have to pay to use that land or work on it for a wage. But by the above logic, a woman who asks for equal pay and access to this land would be told she’s hanging off a man.

I dread the day a human (who will probably be a man) invents a way to control the earth’s atmosphere. People will have to pay to breathe, and women may be told that they should have found their own atmosphere if they wanted equal rights to it.

If I want to live in a house I need to go away and think of more original ways of creating shelter and build them.

People will have to pay to breathe, and women may be told that they should have found their own atmosphere if they wanted equal rights to it.

Am loving these, but now caught in a logic loop.
As SueToDo is promoting this concept as correct, how come SHE's allowed to live in a house created by a man? Or is it allowed, for her, because she has foregone the world of work? Is that it?

As SueToDo is promoting this concept as correct, how come SHE's allowed to live in a house created by a man? Or is it allowed, for her, because she has foregone the world of work? Is that it?

It doesn't make sense does it? Where does it end?
She's using the internet which was invented by a man. Why hasn't she gone out and invented her own version of the world wide web instead of being so unoriginal and using one that was created by a man.

Because she's sufficiently grateful for the largesse of her man and does her part of the bargain gratefully. He earns the money,she washes his pants.

I think sue might be a surrendered wife tbh. But it all seems a bit like slavery to me tbh.

@SueToTo34

your job is all about getting more women attached to men at work and in the process you attach yourself to men for your success. You have chosen to be dependant on men even if your not happy wi the what they’re doing.

Let's put to one side for one moment the batshit idea that men "created" work and jobs....

Why is it OK for you to be totally financially dependent on a man at home and not for @brookstar to be paid by an institution which (presumably) includes and is to some extent financed by men? I don't understand the logic here. Are you saying that its OK for women to earn money via work as long as they are paid by and work only with other women? But that their behaviour is somehow unethical if they benefit financially from men?

Should I therefore not be allowed to use the internal combustion engine or the electric lightbulb because they were invented or patented by men? Am I not allowed to take advantage of antibiotics if I have an infectious disease because a man invented them? Where do you stand on the computer (and in case you don't know a number of women were involved in the invention of the computer). But presumably the internet, as the primary invention of a man, is off limits?

The logic here is making my brain hurt...

👏 👏 but very wasted on the poster, who interchanges between names. Good for you, on your career - YOU have earned it 😀

Where do you stand on the computer (and in case you don't know a number of women were involved in the invention of the computer).

Praise the goddess for Rosalind Franklin, whose original work on DNA means that johnny-come-latelys like Crick & Watson - & therefore by default of their sex & SueToDo's sex-exclusionary rules, all males - are not actually allowed to have DNA.

Once we have declared ownership of all human DNA, women can at last rule the world! And ironically, have @SueToTo34 to thank for it. Cheers Sue!

your job is all about getting more women attached to men at work and in the process you attach yourself to men for your success.

This is also really offensive. My success in my career is my own. The only man who deserves any credit is my husband for doing more than his fair share at home when i'm travelling.
I have a male line manager but even he will admit that I make him look good.

🤣