Could this be why 'men hate us'?

[Floatyoatcake]

When I was young I was in denial about the fact that men hate women (not all men ofc) but now in my 50s I've come to the firm conclusion that a lot of men hate women.

I also know that most men I've been in relationships with over the last 40 years have started off proclaiming that they have a high sex drive and that sex is important to them etc. However ime men's sex drive is often about novelty, power and control, and not always about intimate sex explored in a relationship. Almost all relationships I've been in, after a while the man has stopped being so bothered about sex, although still keen on the relationship. In the vast majority of relationships I've had, after a year or two, I've been the more sexually driven, while they've often been content to be a bit more of a passenger. I think this fear, of women actually having higher sex drives than men is the reason they hate us. It's fundamental to their beings, that they see themselves as the ones with high sex drives and loathe the thought it might not be true.

Men hold themselves up to be these highly sexually driven creatures and yet the lived experience of myself and friends is otherwise. I guess we don't always know how strong women's sex drives are due to being contstrained by the fear of male violence, but I wonder if men are scared of being exposed as only moderately sexually driven, which is what sits behind their hatred of women.

What do you think - is it a possibility?

Mine only reads non fiction, instructions manuals. Rarely a novel.

TV viewing, hunting, fishing, cooking, lifestyle in Alaska , rugby, sailing etc. enjoys westerns, thrillers, men centre stage films. He's an action man type . Rolls his eyes at female leads .

I bought men are from mars woman from Venus once he wouldn't read it.

My eldest is an action man sporty, DIY, loves splitting and stacking a trailer load of logs.

We really are different.

I did think when I wrote "men" that was a little unfair. To be fair men, in general, are less likely to read books about people than they are to read books about things. Its a huge generalisation, but its true on a large scale. That's fine. It doesn't matter if he likes reading books about fishing not people. It will matter though if he suddenly started reading blogs/watching youtube videos by men about women and deciding this is what women are. Because they are saying crap like "female hypergamy, all women will cheat on you." And if he believes it then suddenly he is all angry about the fact that clearly you chose him, a beta man, to raise your children and provide while you run around shagging Chad
I am sure your husband isn't likely to go down that rabbit hole, but lots of young men in particular are. There is a huge (understandable) interest from young men on "what women want"/"what women are like". And their sources are not usually great. It would be better for them to read about fishing/spend time outdoors doing DIY.
I am all for looking at both parties roles in this. But this gets blamed on "the messaging coming from women" making men feel bad. But by and large these men and boys aren't looking at stuff women write/say anyway. So its hard to see how women can fix the messaging.

With respect, that's rubbish.
Your husband and son are not all men.
For example, my DH and DS read fiction, as do, well, most of the men I know.
DS has just finished the Hunger Games, written by a woman as it happens.
There's a big difference between men tending to read books written by men to "men won't read books written by women". That's not true at all.

However, there is a gendered aspect to books ofc. You can see all the SAS books on the men's shelf at Waterstones and all the swirly lettered "chick lit" on the women's shelf, but men and women read books not on these shelves.

Presumably though, your son and husband don't hate you/display a lot of anger towards you? Some men do have serious anger towards women. I definitely know of men who would make grand pronouncements on what women were like but (not only refuse to read books written by women) but completely refuse to listen to women at all. If you don't know anyone like that then I commend you on your social circle/ability to find good people (that's not sarcasm BTW).

OK, using individual family members seems pointless.
The only reason I mentioned mine is that it countered what justasking111 claimed, and a PP on the previous page that "men refuse to read books by women".
Sure there might be some men who hate women so much that they will actively refuse to read a book written by a woman, but there are millions more men who read books written by women so it's a silly claim.
If we're talking "men as a class" then it's more accurate to claim that "men read books written by women".

Men know they are sexual exiles. They wander the earth seeking satisfaction, craving and despising, never content. Thereis nothing in that anguished motion for women to envy.

Camille Paglia

I'm not saying Men don't read books written by women because they hate women
Its more Men hate women because they don't read books written by women but do read books written by men about women and form their opinions therein
(Except, its not all men as you point out, and its not just reading books really. Its a much more general pattern about not registering the opinion of women. This is a broad thing, not restricted to a few Andrew Tate wannabes. e.g. I think on the BBC show "great lives" Female guests are about 50/50 on whether they choose women or men to talk about. Of all the male guests they have ever had on, only one ever choose a woman to talk about. Not all of them hate women. But it would never occur to them to choose one as a role model. Also on fiction: www.thebookseller.com/news/men-drawn-to-books-written-by-other-men-analysis-from-the-womens-prize-trust-suggests)

So a better statement, more accurate and easy to evidence statement is:
The set of men that hate women, are motivated to hate them in part because they form their opinions of women solely or in a large part on what other men say about women. This is part of a larger trend in men (although there are exceptions) not to search out female viewpoints as readily as they do male.

Well my husband is an angry man, but that's age I think. He has a coffee with sailing buddies most mornings down at the marina. He fishes and shoots with buddies. I've known these men decades 50 years in fact. I used to sail a lot until ill health did for me.

So I guess I've socialised in macho circles always. I never had a sister only brothers, we had a wild free outdoor childhood. My mother was a strong clever woman married to a clever but weak man. I think she despised him. Straddling two eras. The modest wife until along came freedom in music, sexual freedom, the pill. She was only 30 when the mini skirt arrived. She felt she'd missed the boat. She bought Cosmopolitan and hid it, read Germaine Greer, Shirley Conran etc. I suspect she quietly raged with her lifestyle which was no different from most women.

She had one friend who arrived from London, a real Joanna Lumley lookalike who was a free spirit, her husband worked for a marketing company in the city. She didn't start a family until her thirties, mother was done at 27.

She seemed so exotic to me, my mother was spellbound and influenced by her. My father baffled. When we had to move away I think my mother grieved, especially because we moved to Wales, to an area where women's lib was unheard of.

@Sjdjb
I think you've hit a good point there, about femininity equalling subservience (in men's eyes). I'm not sure it's to that extreme, but you're on the right path. I get the impression it's more about 'masculine energy'. Women these days are far more assertive, vocal, determined, ambitious, bossy, critical, demanding, etc. This is because they need to be; that comes with independence! Many men equate this with 'masculinity', and to many, it's not attractive.

These sites basically say that if a man goes out to work, he wants to come home to 'an easy life'. It's that spouted cliché that men are easy and only want bellies full, balls empty, and peace and quiet. In the past, that's probably what he would have got!

I think their 'peeve' is that they would probably be ok with 'equality', if women seemingly wanted equality too. Assuming no kids are involved, and work hours are relatively equal, it's either women forfeit some control in the relationship OR some perks.

From what I've gathered, their argument is essentially, "I'm happy to support you, but I'm boss, I make the decisions, and my life is easy when I'm off work" OR "We are 100% equal, but that means you have zero right to demand I pay for first dates, an expensive ring, a big wedding, you fight in wars, protect yourself, we get equal maternity/paternity leave, and I have just as much right to the kids and assets in a divorce, and female quotas will be met in manual labour jobs."

I think you are not wrong OP. Whether they hate women at an abstract level I don’t know, but most of the worst things are done by men who are scared or ashamed. For whom sex is about power. Can't remember who said that women’s deepest fear is that men will kill them, men’s is that women will humiliate them. Don’t underestimate that power just because it’s not death.

bifur, many of those missed perks sound fair, but it's wrong forbit all to be blamed on feminism. I think most women would rather feel they can protect themselves rather than have to rely on their husband, but if not for male violence, neither men nor women would need to worry. Besides, when are women demanding protection? I personally don't go out to remote places at night, & most married people go out less at night anyway. If a burglar breaks in, the husband should obvs help in fighting them off if it comes to that, but I would expect the wife to help in some way as well.
A lot of mothers would want their partner to take equal pat leave. Equal custody will come when men spend equal time.
Women are in the armed forces, I prefer that we try to avoid any situation where civilians are conscripted. Female quotas in manual labour jobs- again, this is one where women are physically at a disadvantage. They may all be done by AI one day in the future, who knows?

Yes, I tried working in a food processing plant and it was too hard on my body to continue

In the event of a future full-blown WW3 or some kind of world event/disaster where society breaks down and chaos and violence reign... the majority of radical feminists (I mean the 'we don't need men' types) would suddenly all but vanish.

As the saying goes, there will be no feminists in the apocalypse.

We had two food processing plants in N Wales. Chicken, it was a very cold environment, women didn't last for two reasons, physical strength and the temperatures.

They'll aalllll get whats coming to them. bwahhahahahaha. [rubs thighs] What do you mean men hate women??? What are you crazy ladies talking about????

Haha. No, if you look upthread you'll see I agree with the overall sentiment of the thread.
I can agree with this thread and also stand by my last post that you so disliked.

So in your opinion, feminism is about being equal to men physically and doing tough traditionally male jobs.

It's not about being treated equally in the sense of being treated with the same respect. Being paid the same for equal work, equal share of labour in the home, equal balance of power in society. It's about working on oil rigs and chopping logs.

But when you say society breaks down and chaos reigns. Presumably you are describing a Hobbes style state of perpetual warfare? The life of people in their natural state being "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short’" But NOT, crucially, (according to Hobbes at least) because we would all be eaten by bears. The implication is, women in that scenario would need men to protect them... mainly from other men. And by the way I do think we need men in today's society for all sorts of things (not just heavy lifting) and besides human value shouldn't be calculated like that. But in todays society individual women don't always need individual men (a partner). If there was no law and order and men were running around raping and murdering them then yes, women might need to swap equality/equal rights/bodily autonomy for protection or die. That isn't the great argument against feminism you think it is. It just makes men look shitty. Especially with the rather smug "no feminists in the apocalypse" (because they would have to shut up or be killed). There is a lot more hate in that saying than you want to admit.

I had never heard of the saying but if men around you are saying it... do consider the possibility they don't like you very much. Its a weird thing to think about.

All interesting. Sorry if I'm "dragging" this thread down, but I think you're right, and boys and men see their peens as being THE world. When they're little they pee thru them and think "oh wow, girls can't do this!"; when they get older and their peens "magically" get bigger (if they're lucky lol) they suddenly think they've got the power to impregnate us, but we can't do the same to them.
For them, all life revolves around a sausage (chipolata?) that we "weaker" humans don't have.

I used to go out with someone who hated women. Really damaged my self- esteem. I thought it was a joke at first

He was just really immature

But then is it true equality? I'm playing devil's advocate here. Assuming no kids, if only men want to, are able to, or will do physically demanding jobs, that society cannot function without, would that not make men more 'valuable' in the workforce, and hence justified in requesting higher salaries? (Apologies if that wasn't what your comments were getting at).

@AliasGrace47
Protection. True, this issue is caused by men, but it will always likely exist as a problem, and women will 'normally' defer to wanting their man to protect them. So, regardless, this will inevitably be the man's responsibility, or rather, an expectation OF the man. Needing to put your life on the line for your partner will inevitably create a power imbalance.

War. Same again. Land, resources, power, etc, are not strictly male-desired. Nine times out of ten they are as a result of men, but the result is the same, men must resolve the issues (soldiers). A few men are causing a large number of men to voluntarily put their lives on the line. Those soldiers are innocent victims.

Paternity. It would be 'nice' if men were equal in this, but how many women would relinquish time off if there was a set allowance? I agree with the sentiment of one I saw on here ages ago that women can 'grumble' until the cows come home about how hard being a SAHM is, but I genuinely believe men get the short end of the stick by not being given that opportunity, i.e., by (normally) being the one who has to work to support the family during those early months and/or years, and not getting that bonding time with the child. I know many men who would kill for that time! (This comment is often rebutted by those saying, 'this is not true for the men I know').

Essentially, what I'm saying is that there are still expectations on men that will persist through 'feminism'/equality; expectations that don't really have a female equivalent.

@QAOPspaceman

I think it's a Margaret Atwoid quote: 'Men are afraid that women will laugh at them. Women are afraid that men will kill them.'

@bifurCAT

In your opinion, strength means superiority. In your scenario a man working in construction would get more money than a female surgeon because construction is more physically taxing.