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?

@bifurCAT

But isn't the equivalent of mens physical jobs the ones that women traditionally find easier. So maybe caring, multi tasking, communicating? We just don't value these as much as the physical ones bc of patriarchy.

When it comes to protection, the only issue I see here is male violence. Without that I don't need protecting from wild animals, hurricanes or similar. I suppose if I was out with a man who was physically larger/stronger than me and I was attacked by another man, I would expect my companion to help me. However if men consistently called each other out on aggressive, misogynistic behaviour, the problem of male violence would diminish, so I do see this as a bit of a collective male problem.

A point about equality. When women talk about equality (usually) they are talking about raising their position up to where men are in that area. e.g. women/girls suffer more sexual violence than men/boys and have to take more measures to keep themselves safe. Equality would be reducing sexual violence and look like women being able to run at night without worrying about being raped the same way men do. (OK some things might be zero-sum - one group benefits at the expense of the other e.g. with board membership).
The argument against this "you want equality in some places but not others" usually involves men being victims of violence/suicide etc. At its crudest, it boils down to "then men should be allowed to punch women. Hah, feminism". But even where it is more subtle, it isn't talking about raising men up to womens higher level (how do we reduce male suicide rates, reduce male on male violence) but bringing women down. "Equality" is always imagined as bringing women down, and of course women wouldn't like that therefore checkmate.

But that's stupid. If I had a magic wand that could make it so no man or boy would ever suffer sexual assault again ever again, (but it wont work for women) I would wave it instantly. So would everyone, even the most radical of feminists. Technically, we have just increased inequality - the gap between female victims of sexual violence and male victims is higher than it ever was. But its still a good thing. I wouldn't say waving the wand is not fair to women. But everytime there is a discussion about making life better for women - e.g. alternatives to prison for women (which is actually designed to help children, male and female) someone pops up to say "this is unfair to men." Crabs in a bucket.

It feels like, if one person suffers in one area its only fair if everyone suffers. In which case, the only way we can have true equality the way (some) men want is if we were to live in a complete dictatorship where no-one has any rights and everyone is miserable.

Nope. I'm simply 'cancelling out' common terms.

If half of surgeons are male and half are female (no reason why they wouldn't be), then pay should be equal. But if 90% of physical jobs can 'only' be done by men, then it's a supply and demand situation.

Surely that's what's being done now as women don't have the strength of men and there are jobs women can't physically do. However, that doesn't mean the work is superior to work traditionally done by women for example, nursing.

@bifurCAT "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."

There are female soldiers. But a much much more important point is that for pretty much every war, throughout history, more civilians die than soldiers. (male as well as female civilians of course). The idea that soldiers are the only ones with their lives on the line has never been true. Until incredibly recently soldiers had far more legal rights than civilians (raping/killing an enemy soldier=illegal, raping/killing a local women=just what happens in war). Having the legal status of soldier was the difference between life and death sometimes (see Germanys treatment of Soviet POWs compared to allied POWs). But actually, in many wars historically more soldiers died of illnesses unrelated to war than died in battle, or of their injuries. And cholera doesn't care if you are a brave soldier, a nurse, the quartermaster or the 4 year old in the village the army is billeted in)

But isn't the equivalent of mens physical jobs the ones that women traditionally find easier. So maybe caring, multi tasking, communicating? We just don't value these as much as the physical ones bc of patriarchy.

Loads of physical jobs aren't valued highly though.
Labourers, binmen, that kind of thing. Unskilled physical jobs (traditionally male dominated) are not highly valued at all.

@Floatyoatcake

Somewhat true. Hurricanes, storms, bears, fire... no, you may be on your own to handle it, but inevitably, it will be men again who rescue you. Some of these will be jobs (firemen, etc) but others will simply be strong swimmers, climbers, or strong volunteers, so the responsibility still falls on men. Likewise, with your comment on violence against women. If all the men suddenly 'went nice' and ignored women completely, it would still be men who would protect against those violent women. You never see female bouncers, and (I'd imagine) it's a fairly even split between mouthy female and male aggressors.

As for 'soft skill' jobs being the 'female equivalent'(?) of those hard labour jobs, are they? True, men probably could not do them, but would society shut down without [insert soft-skill job here]? The most female-dominated roles in society are HR, nurses, childcare, beauty (hair, nails, etc), admin, payroll. The most male-dominated are mining, utilities, agriculture, transport, construction. Apologies for the above comment, I realise it is controversial, but I'm trying to offer other sides to the discussion.

Women have been able to (pretty much) 'choose' what career they want for 100 years now. They could have chosen many of these jobs, but still don't, leaving it to men. You could argue it's almost a conscription.

@deydododatdodontdeydo but how would you then explain that women in traditional roles (at a guess school dinners, cleaners?) have taken successful legal action against local authorities, resulting in their (womens) salaries being raised to that of unskilled traditional male roles (binmen etc) - women's roles were being undervalued/males over valued

It's well known that society runs on unpaid female labour: carers for the elderly and disabled and childcare. Plus it's traditionally women who work in those sectors, they're very low paid.

If course society would shut down if those jobs weren't filled. How would people go to work without childcare or carers?

You've no understanding of sexism if you think women have always had a choice about what jobs they do. At one point women had to leave their role if they got married. You must have heard of the glass ceiling.

Women were coraled into work seen as fit for women such as typing pools, secretaries and assistants.

That's true - notably at universities the cleaners (largely female) fought for equal payment to lower skilled technical staff (largely male).
I think that harks back to the days when men themselves were valued more than women. It used to be possible to employ a man and a woman doing identical jobs and pay the woman less (thankfully not in my working lifetime).
Still, that doesn't mean that a lot of physical labour jobs are valued highly, in my opinion.
The general labourer on a building site, who does most of the lifting and carrying, and women might struggle to do, will likely be the lowest paid person there.

@bifurCAT

In a hurricane aftermath I don't assume at all that I'd be rescued by men. I may need a strong swimmer/climber - but they could be female. I don't know the stats for paramedics/police etc but from what I see a high proportion are female. So I see rescuing as a joint endeavour- if I needed a nurse they would 'probably ' be female.

I think patriarchy encourages us to over value mens input and undervalue females, so yes I do think that traditional roles are around equal in the main, ofc women's roles are made to seem more simple than they are and males more complex and 'manly' - that's patriarchy for us!

2 things:

1. women choose to do low paid work. These are usually "soft skill" jobs like nursing etc rather than higher paid jobs. But this is women's choice, Women also choose to take time out of the labour market to have children reducing their earnings. Again though this is women's choice
2. There is currently (genuinely) a recruitment crisis in care work, and soft skilled lower paid jobs like nursing etc. Also, less women are choosing to have children and those that do have children are choosing to have less. This is a CRISIS and extreme selfishness on the part of women. A 1000 reddit threads are spawned to discuss the declining birth rate and solutions

Besides which in fashion retailers warehouse workers (mostly male) and shop workers are currently not paid equally (including within the same companies). You might argue that that is because the warehouse workers have to carry boxes of clothes. But once those boxes of clothes are put on lorries and driven to the shops they are unloaded/taken from the back of the store to the front and emptied by women. So 2 people are carrying exactly the same boxes of the same weight. But one is paid more because their work is considered manual labour....

@Floatyoatcake

"I read somewhere that the way porn has become so ubiquitous has resulted in women's sexual fantasies being often imagined/viewed from the male perspective. Which is like an actual erasure of genuine female sexual desire, to be replaced by a male fantasy of what it should be like."

Well yeah. Men don't give a fuck about what women want or whether their fantasies are fulfilled. Men put themselves centre stage of everything. I do think the madonna/whore complex exists but mostly men are not naturally monogamous. Many women live with sexless marriages but put their husbands in a strip club or in front of porn and they've got a hard on no problem. Likewise if the woman nextdoor invites them in for a bit of nooky, they'd be like a rat up a drainpipe. Men see sex very differently to us and they've been bred for millennia to spread their seed, not stick with one woman.

@biscuitandcake
It's debatable as to whether women had much choice over going into professional roles such as nursing. It was rare for women to become Drs and nursing was viewed as a traditionally female profession. There are still few men in nursing, however there are now a lot more female Drs.

As a female profession, nursing is poorly paid. All traditionally female roles are poorly paid in comparison to male equivalents. We have a crisis in nursing because it's undervalued and hard work. We therefore have to import nurses from developing countries (which has always been the case).

Women carry children and give birth, that isn't a choice, it's biological reality. Babies can't be handed over to someone else as soon as they're born, a new mother has to take care of her baby.

If men didn't choose to have children, there would be far fewer yet they aren't penalised for becoming fathers. Women taking care of their children means saving considerable money on childcare and that the father can work.

There's a crisis in care work because it's badly paid and hard work. Women are having fewer children because it's too expensive. We have some of the highest rates of childcare in Europe, high rents/house prices and low wages especially for part time work that fits around children.

Women are expected to make considerable sacrifices to have children. They take a financial hit at work, are expected to work full time plus do everything regarding childcare and the home. It's not women who are selfish.

@username3678 Agree! I should have been clearer! The "women are choosing this" line is one that is trotted out whenever pay gaps are brought up. But "aaargh, why are women not choosing this" is brought up whenever the falling birth rate, less care in society is brought up. Very often by the same people! (cough Jordan Peterson cough) who I don't think does hate women exactly but it still shows a certain lack of joined up thinking.

Jordan Peterson doesn't make sense. He says for example that women have never been oppressed. He picks and chooses data without examining the context. He's the intellectual for the hard of thinking.

I think JP makes good sense on many subjects but he has ZERO feminist analysis or understanding. Its his archilles heel.

Its not even about feminist analysis. Its failing to see a very obvious contradictions. You could be anti-feminist and logical. But he isn't

But a much much more important point is that for pretty much every war, throughout history, more civilians die than soldiers. (male as well as female civilians of course). The idea that soldiers are the only ones with their lives on the line has never been true.
I would like to print this out and stick it on the shaving mirror of every MRA. Not that they would listen, because they are so taken with the idea that they don’t have to try and be better men cos women’s fault.

It’s a HUGELY important point. My husband was in the army as a young man and he’s seen war/ the aftermath of war.One of the hardest things he had to deal with (he had ptsd) was seeing the impact on the general population of the war ravaged country he was in. The starving and suffering of children, the destroyed families, the brutalised women (his unit was there to try and keep the peace so aid could get through).
War is not just something brave men take on to protect us little women. It kills women and children too- just watch the news!

No society should treat anyone as expendable, male or female. We need to work towards a world where no one, male or female, is forced to do a life-threatening or back-breaking job through lack of choice.
And I doubt many women would stand by & see their DH attacked & not try to help. Ok, they might not be able to fight back w fists etc, but apart from phoning 999, I'm sure most would do whatever they could to defend their partner.

The whole 'women need a partner to protect them' and Peterson's idea, (in some ways the flipside), that 'single men are violent, so we need to increase social pressure for monogamy' (that's often misquoted as saying every man should have a sex slave, so it's nowhere that bad, but not v good either) have incredibly uncomfortable undertones. To take Peterson's idea, what would that look like? Social shaming of women who don't want to marry, or women like my mother, who couldn't find a suitable partner in time, so have children independently? Pressure on bi women to choose male partners? I fear that for some misogynists, maybe more than we think, it boils down to 'Marry men to stop them being violent, & if you've chosen not be w a man, then you've taken that risk, & haven't helped men to not be violent, so it's your responsibility.' Women need to be able to feel secure living alone or without a man, fear should never be a reason to marry. And it's not good for men either for women to be pressured to marry for safety, and expect their partners to be the ones to deal w violence. These sorts of ideas are taken to the extreme in Saudi Arabia. It reminds me if that horrible book A Natural History of Rape, which recommended women change the way they dress to avoid assault.
I always wonder how people who say, ' Women need husbands to protect them/Women expect their husbands to get hurt instead of them' think all-female households function. I live w my mum & grandmother, & luckily we've never felt threatened in our home, our area is v quiet. It does worry me sometimes, but if there were a man in the household, it would be v unfair to expect him to deal w an intruder alone. & men can't always do v much against an experienced intruder. I've read about the horrible Mr Cruel Australian kidnappings recently. In the 1st confirmed one, the father, & mother for that matter, obvs wanted to fight back, but the intruder tied them up (I think) v fast.
Colette actually mentions this idea in 'The Pure and the Impure' when she imagines that the 18th century Ladies of Llangollen got scared at night, & notes, 'Everything is permitted to 2 women except a certain kind of solitude.' We need to work towards a world where no one is threatened like that, or threatening others, for that matter, not pressure women to get a man as a bodyguard & date men to stop them being violent.

@AliasGrace47 I've also seen him suggest having babies should be a good way for women to cure neurosis/mental health issues. I like babies/children but I don't think they are there to cure anybody of anything. They are just there to be themselves. And he is well aware that lots of neurotic/alcoholic/drug dependent mothers exist so clearly the babies don't always fix women. And then there is a tiny vulnerable new person involved. But at other times he will prattle on about the smothering mother. Sigh.
Its like he has everything back to front. He can see that a lot of the joy/value people take from their life comes from other people and we are worse without it. But then thinks that therefore the value of people comes from what jobs they can do for others (women fix men, babies fix women, men die in wars). And that's a completely circular argument (and also shows a profound misunderstanding of Christian teaching which is frankly impressive for someone who did a whole lecture series on the bible). I don't think he is bad/an evil person. But he is frequently talking outside his own area of expertise (he knows a lot about psychology for example) and a lot of it is just silly.

Feminists do not say we don't need men as part of society. Even the most radical of us will admit men have a purpose for existing, FFS. Some women say they don't need, or want, a relationship with a man.
You are mixing the two up and making a nonsensical statement as a result.

I’m the same age as you, I think (60)
The only men who have abused me, emotionally, physically and sexually, were family members. Dad and brother.
Since then, each man I’ve known has been respectful. Make of that what you will 🤷‍♀️

I am a female and have worked as a bouncer. A bodyguard as well.
Granted, it is uncommon, but that's because most women lack those kind of physical abilities. I was just freakishly strong for my size.
The rest of your post is silliness as well. Women are free to get any job they want, but men aren't? Men are conscripted into physical jobs? Nonsense.
Who's stopping men from jobs like nursing and caring for the elderly?
They choose not to go into those careers.
If they are stuck in jobs involving manual labour, it's because they didn't get much of an education, not because they were "conscripted."
You think society would function just fine without nurses, teachers and child minders, do you. I suggest that the next time you are hospitalized, you tell the nurses you consider their jobs expendable. It will give them a good laugh.

Sure, women mostly choose not to do jobs they aren't physically strong enough to do. They wouldn't be hired even if they wanted those jobs. If by some wild chance they were hired, they would be fired in short order when they couldn't do the job properly. Incidentally, a lot of women use to work in mining back in the day. They used to push the coal carts along the shafts and men would grab their breasts and genitals as they passed by, plus rape them if they could get the chance. This is another very important reason women tend to shun male dominated jobs. The rates of harassment and assault are high, even today. Have you seen the film North Country starring Charlize Theron? Give it a watch.