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?

This poster appears to live on another planet. It sounds great and I'd love to live there.

They hate us but they need us
We generally despise them and no longer need them
= incels
Single is empowering
Don't settle for mediocrity ladies!!
Men can get in the bin

Also this...
" Women have no idea how much men hate them"
~ Germaine Greer
She's not wrong

Also...
If only women knew how much power they have
And they throw it away because the patriarchy tells them they need a man
How disappointing

That only works with people of good will. Incels and other creeps in the manosphere are not people of good will. Don't automatically assume the the people you are dealing with are honest brokers who actually want better ubderstanding, most especially if they are members of a hate movement. Your kindness will only be taken as weakness and you'll be taken advantage of and abused.

Basic game theory says you should also act as if the other person you are dealing with has good intentions (when possible. If they are saying ha ha I am going to cheat you they probably are). But that when someone shows you who they really are (ie cheats you) change your own actions accordingly. Additionally, since a lot of people operate like this its a good idea to be kind when possible because that increases the amount of goodwill in the world. More goodwill=more positive interactions=more winning for everybody. So the advice itself isn't bad.

Where it falls down is where interpreting someone's actions in the most positive way possible brings serious risk to yourself. Which is why women should act on their own instinct/not be afraid to appear "rude". I am happy to be kind if kind is opening the door for someone with their arms full of shopping. I am not going to follow the creepy man down an alleyway to help him put a sofa in his van. What irritates is people use the basic advice (be kind when possible) to shut down women talking about the very real dangers men can face to them and how to mitigate those risks. Women are more often at serious risk from men than men are from women. That's not misandry. Its just facts.

Right, and as I was saying, if you already know somebody is horrible (as in an incel) there is no point in kindness. It won't be appreciated and will be used to exploit you. But yeah, if you have no reason to think you are dealing with a bad person, by all means be polite and kind, while also not putting yourself at risk.

I was reading a 1989 interview w Kate Bush and this reminded me of another thing I think. They're talking about her song about Molly Bloom, The Sensual World, and they get onto gender roles. The interviewer says,' Women give birth, they are physically part of the creative process. Men fuck and that's it, it's a release- something we get rid of rather than something we gain. Then it all builds up again and we can't handle it. Men can't cope with their emotions.' (Later on, he says, ' We think that, bc the sexes should rightly have the same opportunities, we're the same. But women are aliens, we don't understand you at all.' Obvs there are differences in perception, but hmm.. you have to wonder how his marriage works if he sees his wife as an alien..)
Obvs this is a bit .. generalising, to say the least, but I do think the fact that orgasm is mainly automatic for men having penetrative sex (or bjs for that matter) means that it becomes much easier to view women as a receptacle for sexual release, at least some of the time. Obvs lots of men don't think that way, & some women view men that way, which is also wrong. & the difference in reproductive role adds to this. But it's no excuse for men to be horrible.

Except women do do physically demanding jobs, just for less pay and worse conditions. Ask a carer what her day consists of- it can often involve repeatedly lifting adults heavier than her.

I dunno. I increasingly feel that 'not all men' is becoming the new 'I'm not racist but...'. It seems to often be used as a type of disclaimer to preface sexist statements. And I say that as somebody who agrees that there are many problematic areas of male behaviour/culture.

I don't really see this supposed fear posters are claiming that men have of us. The claims that 'they need us more than we need them' and how easy it is for women to go 'dick-free' doesn't really add up for me as it's much easier and more common for men to pay for sex than it is for us and it's much less risky for them to meet a stranger of the opposite sex alone at night. They can get all the sex they want if they're happy to embrace the denigration of women, which most men that use prostitutes likely are.

It's more often the men that walk away from commitment and want to have their cake and eat it - 'trading them in for a younger model' etc. It defo seems the case that a lot of women are so desperate for children/marriage/etc that they ignore glaring red flags and pick utter shitbags for a partner.

Not saying this to be inflammatory. I just don't really see the reality in much of what's being said on this thread. I think testosterone and the evolutionary aspects of many millennia spent fighting play a large part. Men seem to be much more nihilistic and we see this in the way that almost every family annihilator or murder/suicide is male perpetrated.

Many aren't scared of the personal cost their actions might bring and I wonder if this is down to the fact that for almost the entirety of human history men have had to put their lives on the line to achieve success/dominance - i.e. up until recently (and still in many less developed parts of world) the men that lose don't live to tell the tale.

@SidhuVicious "I'm not racist but..." could be used to prefix statements that were very very racist and often is. It could also be used to prefix concerns that weren't racist but people were worried would be perceived as such. e.g. the Rochdale/Rotherham grooming scandals. People trying to raise the alarm were in a double bind because it would be easy to dismiss what they were saying as racism. But if they said "I am not being racist" that was also a sign of racism because its just what racists do say.
That was one grooming scandal among many horrific things committed by many racial groups. but as you say, a lot of those horrific are done by men (not all men). And every time someone tries to talk about it, no matter how much time they waste saying "of course not all men" they are shut down with cries of NAMALT, or with notes on all the other bad things happening in the world, all the bad things that can happen to men. I believe a lot of the time this is done as a deliberate attempt to derail conversations and to shut down conversations to the detriment of women. Your suggestion that we should maybe view a woman prefixing her statement with "not all men" is making it even worse. How are we supposed to talk about male violence ever? If not specifying "NAMALT" is sexism/risks making good men feel bad, but specifying "NAMALT" is also sexism. And, how are women supposed to know not to "ignore glaring red flags and pick utter shitbags for a partner." If we can't ever talk about red flags, or the fact that some men are indeed shitbags?

The one group I have noticed who never ever prefix what they say with gentle words, or reassurances that NAMALT is the decent men with daughters. They tend to range from either forthright condemnation in the Guradian to very angry "hang them all" comments in the Daily Mail (depending on outlook). But I don't know anyone in that catefgory who is afraid of looking like a mysandrist. So maybe we should be taking a leaf out of their book?

Well, yes, this debate has over the years gone the way of many others whereby it predictably descends into soundbites and 'gotchas'. That probably why I can't usually be bothered to engage nowadays if I'm honest.

The responses can often be predicted with incredible accuracy. The 'Rules of Misogyny', the 'MRA handbook/checklist', etc etc.

Somebody points out that men are by far the main victims of violence and the response is always "oh, but who's perpetrating the violence?" as if male/female are the only demographics that matter as opposed to others like victim/perpetrator or innocent/guilty, which completely change the context.

If somebody points out that the main cause of male death is suicide and that men kill themselves at 4x the rate of women, the response is always that 'women attempt it more'.

They're all interesting points but the problem is that a lot of people invested in specific ideologies (feminism, men's rights, anti fascism, BLM, etc) often seem to just parrot the same old catchphrases without really thinking independently.

As with the suicide example, people seem to apply different standards to suit their argument. With suicide we don't just focus on the outcome (which sex suffers the most fatalities) and it also becomes about who attempts it most.

However, with DV it's almost always about which sex suffers the most fatalities. Nobody is saying "well, women lash out at men more and are responsible for 70% of non-reciprocal domestic violence". It's all about the deaths, not the attempts to cause harm. But when feminists discuss suicide it's suddenly judged by a different metric and the suicide attempts are used to counter men suffering more deaths.

I dunno. I'm increasingly put off by all these ism-based ideologies and think I'm leaning more towards caring about an individual's perspective than their biological sex. And their actions more than their words, because the way I see many feminists acting doesn't always align with the purported goal of equality. Often it's more cherry picked equality and feminists don't, for example, want to sign up for the draft like every American male has to (many aren't even aware of this requirement).

I agree with the posters that say we need to build bridges. Certainly our biggest accomplishments seem to have come from working with men rather than against - e.g. women being awarded the vote after their vital contribution to the war effort.

I'm not just having a pop at feminism to be clear. It was just the closest example to hand. I often feel that approaching things from a blinkered male/female approach (whilst no doubt necessary at times) does inevitably lead to a sort of tribalism that to me is reminiscent of the divisions that drive most historical violence and male conflict.

Differences in religion/ethnicity/politics/class/nationality/etc are usually what underpin conflict and I see the same tribalism in many people involved in the male/female debate. Focusing on similarities and shared objectives seems to be much more unifying than emphasising differences which is why I think it works better to tackle problems from a societal level rather than a separatist angle.

It sounds obvious, even a bit patronising, but still many women don't really seem to want to work with men. However, if we don't then ultimately what's the point as we'll never overthrow them by force. We wouldn't even have the vote if they had decided against it. Tough talk feels liberating but it's ultimately just hot air. The hard part is actually making an impact on men and we can't do that without engaging with them, even though it means swallowing our pride to some extent (the hard bit for many).

Sorry if this was a bit of a tangent.

But we can't talk about all the problems in the world every time.
I would have very little patience for someone interrupting a discussion about male suicide with an insistence that we talk about how men rape women. Most of the time that would be extremely innapropriate. Likewise, I have little patience for people who interrupt discussions about the specific problem of male violence against women with men's mental health. One of those happens a lot more than the other IME.
If every single discussion, needs to include every single problem, then nothing will ever be discussed or fixed, or even partially alleviated. Its fine to centre women's problems sometimes, and unfortunately that does involve talking about men as in the case of violence/rape etc its usually men doing it.

@SidhuVicious

Somebody points out that men are by far the main victims of violence.

This is true, men are more likely to be attacked or killed than women. Male on male violence is an important discussion to have with men.

If somebody points out that the main cause of male death is suicide...

This is true. It's an important discussion to have with men.

They're all interesting points but the problem is that a lot of people invested in specific ideologies (feminism, men's rights, anti fascism, BLM, etc) often seem to just parrot the same old catchphrases without really thinking independently.

I agree, some people don't venture far from their echo chambers and discussion becomes entrenched.

However, with DV it's almost always about which sex suffers the most fatalities.

This is absolutely not true. Domestic abuse is a complex issue on a spectrum, the worst of which is homicide.

Nobody is saying "well, women lash out at men more and are responsible for 70% of non-reciprocal domestic violence".

I know where you're getting these statistics from and you're on shaky ground. Like I said, DV is on a spectrum and includes issues like financial abuse, emotional abuse and physical abuse. It's a pattern of behaviour carried out in order to maintain power and control.

If women are discussing domestic abuse against women, it's the wrong time to talk about men. That's because it comes across as centering the male experience. It's best to start your own thread on DV and men.

It's all about the deaths, not the attempts to cause harm.

You're coming across as very flippant about murdered women. As you're aware, men are stronger than women and men generally, don't view women as a physical threat.

But when feminists discuss suicide it's suddenly judged by a different metric and the suicide attempts are used to counter men suffering more deaths.

We can all agree on the facts, more men die by suicide than women.

I'm leaning more towards caring about an individual's perspective than their biological sex.

IMO we should always consider intersectionality, but women are oppressed on the basis of their sex, so it's important. See Afghanistan women.

And their actions more than their words, because the way I see many feminists acting doesn't always align with the purported goal of equality.

There are many different kinds of feminists who hold many different views.

Often it's more cherry picked equality and feminists don't, for example, want to sign up for the draft like every American male has to (many aren't even aware of this requirement).

I can see what you mean. Who takes over the woman's caring responsibilities if she has to go on tour?

have come from working with men rather than against - e.g. women being awarded the vote after their vital contribution to the war effort.

That was very kind of men, to allow women basic human rights.

Also this:
It sounds obvious, even a bit patronising, but still many women don't really seem to want to work with men
contradicts this a bit:
It defo seems the case that a lot of women are so desperate for children/marriage/etc that they ignore glaring red flags and pick utter shitbags for a partner.

How do women "work with men" while also staying alert to the bad men and aware of who they are and avoid falling into what you see as the same cliches when talking about this. How do woman acknowledge that they need men, while also not needing men for marriage/children/sex because as you say this puts them in a weaker more dependant position than men who can leave them for a younger model. How do we acknowledge the fact that you say men are more likely to be family annihilators and can find sex more easily because of biological differences but also can't talk about differences because that contributes to tribalism/ the male/female divide. It just seems muddled.

I agree with a lot of your points and sadly will have to reply properly tomorrow as I'm up in five hours and still need to shower and get ready for bed etc - I've done my classic thing of turning a quick ten minute browse of mumsnet into a detailed debate, doh.

Yes, it sometimes feels almost impossible to discuss things due to the conflict between needing to stay on track but also needing to consider a huge interconnected web of influencing factors.

And BTW I don't mean to be flippant about anything. I'm just posting quickly tonight as I'm in a hurry - got back from holiday at 3am this morn and I'm due back at work at 5am tomorrow, so shouldn't really have got into this but I find it hard to tear myself away from a discussion I find interesting.

That was very kind of men, to allow women basic human rights.

I agree with this in sentiment, but we have to play the hand we've been dealt and we're no more able to overcome men by force than the average woman is able to kill a bear in unarmed combat. This is where I usually annoy a lot of feminists, but it also annoys me to read all the bravado whilst simultaneously seeing how utterly futile it is and how, if anything, it's causing more harm than good.

I'd love to see a positive feminism movement rather than the relentlessly negative one we usually see. It's understandable that many women don't really care what men think but in terms of achieving results it's a bit like trying to achieve career progression whilst not caring what your boss thinks of you.

I think a big part of the issue is that the vast majority of women nowadays don't identify with feminism (they support 'equality' but statistically claim not to identify as 'feminist') and these are arguably the women in the best position to influence men. However, radical feminists often denounce them as handmaidens/pick me's/dick panderers etc and thus alienate them, which just further undermines any progress IMO - I'm not talking about women that genuinely throw other women under the bus for their own ends so much as women that face hostility for actually liking men/recognising the positive aspects.

I'm hugely over simplifying this in my haste but I feel there's a big rift between the posturing element and the actually accomplishing anything element and the cynical side of me feels at times that a sizeable minority are actually quite happy just complaining, not unlike all the knuckleheads moaning about 'jonny forriner taking all the jobs' when they weren't actually making too much of a concerted effort to improve their employability anyway - i.e. misanthropes will always be attracted to blame narratives and they shouldn't be allowed to steer the reins at the expense of others.

Eek, this is coming across more offensive than I intended. Sorry. 😂

You're conflating a lot of separate issues which is probably due to me explaining them in a rushed fashion.

When I say 'work with men' I'm not talking about having children/marriage/living with men etc. I'm talking about engaging with men to tackle issues.

For example, a lot of feminists will say it's up to men to tackle male violence and 'we're not the problem here'. However, at times I feel it's a bit like saying my boss needs to take ownership of sorting my pay rise because he's the one responsible for me being paid less than my male colleagues. Realistically, though, it's unlikely that he will be the driving force and it's probably in my interest to make him understand why he should pay me equally.

How do woman acknowledge that they need men, while also not needing men for marriage/children/sex because as you say this puts them in a weaker more dependant position than men who can leave them for a younger model.

The way I see it, the reality is the reality and selectively choosing what you acknowledge based on cognitive dissonance or the desire to not 'accept' a shit situation doesn't change this reality. I don't think it's a problem that can be resolved by feminist theory/discussion, even if it's an important aspect in recognising the problem. Undoubtedly, it is a crap situation in some ways and there probably isn't at this point a risk free method to 'rely upon a man', especially in a financial sense.

"We are not the problem here" regarding male violence is usually used when men bring up that men are the most likely to suffer violence (from other men). If I saw someone being attacked I would call the police, if I could somehow stop an incidence of violence I would. But unlike the pay rise analogy (where its me and my boss) what exactly are women supposed to do to tackle male on male violence except saying "don't be violent guys"? Its more like if my friend wants a pay rise - I might agree but I can't demand their boss gives them one. And its not fair for them to keep derailing my efforts to get a pay rise, while refusing to do anything to get a pay rise themselves. (Or worse, demanding I am paid less to make them feel better. Which is sort of what is implied when some complain women don't want "equality" re male suicide/murder rates. I do. I would love it if men killed themselves at the same rate of women. But that is never what is meant when people bring it up). Crabs in a bucket.

If you do have a way that women can stop male violence, feel free to suggest it. But otherwise it is just another derail.

@SidhuVicious

Don't worry, I don't find you offensive at all.

I agree with this in sentiment, but we have to play the hand we've been dealt and we're no more able to overcome men by force than the average woman is able to kill a bear

You say this yet talk about women being responsible for 70% violence against men. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seemed to be suggesting that women were more violent than men which is easily dismissed with criminal statistics.

This is where I usually annoy a lot of feminists, but it also annoys me to read all the bravado whilst simultaneously seeing how utterly futile it is and how, if anything, it's causing more harm than good.

You keep talking about this group of feminists. You haven't spoken to all feminists and feminism is usually individual with goals dependent on context.

For example, Afghanistani feminists are trying to fight the Taliban, American feminists may be focusing on abortion and the threat from Trump what they all have in common is the systemic oppression of women. Some feminists ally themselves with a certain kind of feminism eg Marist, Radical or Liberal but it will depend on context.

What is utterly futile?

I'd love to see a positive feminism movement rather than the relentlessly negative one we usually see.

Create your own group.

It's understandable that many women don't really care what men think but in terms of achieving results it's a bit like trying to achieve career progression whilst not caring what your boss thinks of you.

I have no idea what this means. At a guess you're saying that 'feminists' should treat men like their managers and appeal to them for rights.

I think a big part of the issue is that the vast majority of women nowadays don't identify with feminism

This is probably true yet those women will have benefited from the work of feminists.

and these are arguably the women in the best position to influence men.

You need to explain your boss/submissive analogy a bit better. Rather than trying to wheedle favours, women want to be in positions of power so that they can create the rules.

However, radical feminists often denounce them as handmaidens/pick me's/dick panderers etc and thus alienate them, which just further undermines any progress IMO

Some feminists can alienate women and that's a problem. Feminism has long had a problem with intersectionality and can get lost in its own bubble, ignoring the very people they want to empower. Although I don't agree with your boss/submissive picture. Fetish?

- I'm not talking about women that genuinely throw other women under the bus for their own ends so much as women that face hostility for actually liking men/recognising the positive aspects.

Like I've said, there are many different types of feminist and many different types of women. Not all feminists hate men. You have reduced feminism to a caricature.

I'm hugely over simplifying this in my haste but I feel there's a big rift between the posturing element and the actually accomplishing anything element

Feminists in the UK have achieved an awful lot, instead of dismissing them, look into the history.

and the cynical side of me feels at times that a sizeable minority are actually quite happy just complaining

You see it as 'complaining' or perhaps 'nagging', but it's actually discussion. Women discussing their experience of living in a patriarchy. Domestic violence for example, affects a quarter of women, sexual assault, a third. Women will discuss these experiences.

@SidhuVicious

When I say 'work with men' I'm not talking about having children/marriage/living with men etc. I'm talking about engaging with men to tackle issues.

I would like to know where the men are who sincerely want to do this and willing to back it up with action. I have never met one in my entire life. People don't tend to want to work towards anything that means they have to give up priviledges. I can't help but think that your POV on this is based on wishful thinking and an unwillingness to accept unpleasant reality. You appear to be blameshifting male refusal to change on women. We are not responsible for schooling them or trying to influence them. If there is to be real change, it must come from within them. It doesn't look like that's going to happen and there's nothing we can do to make it happen. What results are you looking for exactly? I'd say you were being highly unrealistic if you think women can change men.

But unlike the pay rise analogy (where its me and my boss) what exactly are women supposed to do to tackle male on male violence except saying "don't be violent guys"?

Well, to be fair plenty of women are already helping society tackle male criminality. Female police officers, judges, social workers, counselors, etc etc.

I'd disagree and say that if you have male sons for example then you definitely are responsible for trying to influence them positively. I don't really buy into the male privilege thing as many feminists portray it tbh, despite many seeming to present it as a fact rather than an ideological opinion.

I feel that the sexes are extremely different and face different issues. Depending on the individual these may be more or less of an issue. Like, it's arguably easier for men to be 'dominant' and be taken seriously (e.g. in some business environments).

However, if a man would rather stay at home then he'll usually face a lot of prejudice from both sides as men are still expected by many to act as the provider. People often deny this but the stats clearly show that SAHD and men that earn less than their partner are significantly more likely to be divorced.

This is an area many feminists seem to brush under the carpet IMO as many detest the idea of being dependent on a man. However, a lot of women do want want to be SAHMs and there is a big resurgence of the whole 'trad wife' setup which is a choice that men don't really have.

It's not all domestic drudgery/imprisonment and shattered dreams. I've seen loads of posters on here alone stating how they 'were lucky to marry a high earner who loves his job' and how privileged they feel to be able to spend their time pursuing their hobbies etc. This is undoubtedly a solely female privilege IMO. It's always ladies that lunch not lads lol.

You say this yet talk about women being responsible for 70% violence against men. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seemed to be suggesting that women were more violent than men which is easily dismissed with criminal statistics.

70% of non-reciprocal domestic violence.

'In nonreciprocally violent relationships, women were the perpetrators in more than 70% of the cases.'

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1854883/#:~:text=In%20nonreciprocally%20violent%20relationships%2C%20women,CI%3D0.9%2C%201.7).

It's only really crime stats that show women to be significantly less abusive. According to DV charities like Mankind this is likely because men are something like 2.5x less likely to report DV, often for fear of being seen as 'weak' and also because up until recently there were often no services available to help them (they were literally told to 'go and sleep on a mate's sofa' in some cases). And another factor is fear of losing access to their children.

The biggest DV metastudy to date analysed something like 1800 peer reviewed DV studies and found that women perpetrate it almost as much as men. I actually read it on mumsnet and was pretty shocked tbh. Here are some of the findings.

• Overall, 25.3% of individuals have perpetrated IPV
• Rates of female-perpetrated violence higher than male-perpetrated (28.3% vs. 21.6%)
• Wide range in perpetration rates: 1.0% to 61.6% for males; 2.4% to 68.9% for women
• Overall, 22% of individuals assaulted by a partner at least once in their lifetime (23% for females and 19.3% for males)
• Among large population samples, 57.9% of IPV reported was bi-directional, 42% unidirectional; 13.8% of the unidirectional violence was male to female (MFPV), 28.3% was female to male (FMPV)
• Higher overall rates among dating students
• Higher victimization for male than female high school students
• Lifetime rates higher among women than men
• Past year rates somewhat higher among men

https://domesticviolenceresearch.org/

I have no idea what this means. At a guess you're saying that 'feminists' should treat men like their managers and appeal to them for rights.

Not at all. I'm saying that you can't really expect a demographic whose problems you don't care about to care about your own problems. Like, why should innocent men stand up and fight for women's rights when they already suffer a lot more violence at the hands of the same perpetrators and generally don't receive much sympathy, often being lumped in with said perpetrators due to sharing the same sex in spite of the motivation for assault maybe actually being influenced by things like racism/homophobia which are equally othering, even to members of the same sex.

It would be great if they did care of course but if feminists are dismissive of things like male suicide why should men care about things like women facing microaggresions at work etc? This isn't necessarily my view but it's a position I can believe many men would take and isn't something that's in our interests to dismiss IMO.

You are using a lot of words and I hope it isn't just to avoid answering a question, @SidhuVicious.
So I'll try again. Where are the men you say are willing to work with women to make the world safer for women? Who are willing to change and to stand up to other men? Are you seriously suggesting women just need to have male children in order to solve the problem? I have girls. So what am I supposed to do? Plus, since when are mothers such a big influence on sons? When it comes to "manhood" they are influenced by culture and by the men in their lives, not their mothers. Why would they learn how to be men from a woman? It makes no sense.

Another question arises from your comments; if you fundamentally don't believe that men have any more privilege than women do, what do you even think there is to work with men on? You seem to be contradicting yourself.