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?

And I think the diverse nature of 'feminism' is never more apparent than when looking at these types of issues.

I've observed that you get the type of feminists that are focused on an end goal that benefits women and will be relatively open minded about possible solutions, and also a somewhat different type of feminist that may share the same end goal but only ever seem to approach it using feminist theory.

I'm definitely more of the former and I find the latter often end up going down odd rabbitholes and arriving at conclusions that most people would find a bit illogical for want of a better word. I'm generalising here for the sake of brevity.

That's a fair point and if I've been focusing mainly on physical violence that's perhaps just because it's more quantifiable. I've certainly seen the psychological effects on my father from my mother's treatment of him over the decades. I'm not saying it wouldn't be worse if physical violence was involved but I definitely appreciate how ongoing mental abuse can affect people.

@SidhuVicious

You have to be careful when talking about 'proven links' about a crime which is so underreported.

It's a myth that alcohol or drugs causes domestic abuse. It's more likely that police would be called because alcohol means inhibitions are lowered and the attack may be more violent.

Poverty doesn't cause domestic abuse, it exacerbates it because a woman may not be able to leave due to lack of resources such as affordable housing or legal advice. She may stay in an abusive relationship through lack of choice.

Again you're talking about 'feminist theory', what theory are you talking about and which feminists have mentioned it?

Domestic abuse tends to follow a pattern of behaviour in order to maintain power and control. An alcohol fuelled beating is more likely to be part of a pattern of abuse including for example, financial abuse and emotional abuse. It's not unheard of, but it's unlikely to be an act of violence in a vacuum.

If you would like to learn more about feminism, I'm happy to provide a list of books you might find interesting.

Yes, I agree that alcohol alone doesn't cause DV - plenty of men just laugh and become sociable when drunk. However, I suppose the key is what we consider the word 'cause' to mean. No doubt, there are many underlying factors which contribute more to violence than drinking does, but if being drunk is the catalyst which causes an individual to lose control then in some ways it could be viewed as the cause of the violent incident if they wouldn't have acted in such a way when sober - because despite the underlying factors they're not technically committing DV until they commit that act of violence.

But, yes, I'm loathe to say that violence is 'the cause'. I guess it's more that it can be the critical factor dictating whether somebody manifests their anger in a violent fashion once all the other underlying factors are present to give them that disposition. If that makes sense.

"Alcohol does not a change a person’s fundamental value system. People’s personalities when intoxicated, even though somewhat altered, still bear some relationship to who they are when sober. When you are drunk you may behave in ways that are silly or embarrassing; you might be overly familiar or tactlessly honest, or perhaps careless or forgetful. But do you knock over little old ladies for a laugh? Probably not. Do you sexually assault the clerk at the convenience store? Unlikely. People’s conduct while intoxicated continues to be governed by their core foundation of beliefs and attitudes, even though there is some loosening of the structure. Alcohol encourages people to let loose what they have simmering below the surface.
Abusers make conscious choices even while intoxicated."

-Lundy Bancroft
Why Does He Do That? Inside the Minds of Angry and Controlling Men

Hey, I just realized there is one man doing real work to facilitate change. I would add Robert Jensen to the list as well.
So there's two men actually doing something for change.

For those not familiar with Jensen, check this out;

robertwjensen.org/articles/neither-cis-nor-terf/

@SidhuVicious

Your views aren't unusual, it's very much misunderstood.

Alcohol can act as a catalyst but if you study the cycle of abuse, you'll see how calculated it is. People think of an abuser as someone who is out of control; they're not. They may actually drink as an excuse for planned violence.

Domestic abuse isn't just about violence, some perpetrators are not violent at all. Some are purely emotionally and financially abusive. They normally do enough to keep their victim under control. Survivors are most in danger when they leave because the perpetrator has lost control.

I'm always up for reading new stuff.

To clarify my original post, the first example might be somebody that has escaped DV and decides to try and help other women in similar situations. Maybe she obtains some funding and sets up a charity or shelter etc. She may not be interested in feminist academia but she is focused on feminist causes.

The second type might be somebody that is widely read in the topic of feminist academia, has a degree in Gender Studies etc, and is more interested in looking at it from a societal perspective. I'm not maligning this type of individual as often radical change comes from new ideas and ways of thinking, but I also feel this side of feminism is where I see the most unrealistic stuff like people talking about male curfews, separatist matriarchal societies, etc, and stuff that isn't really going to help people on the ground who actually need somewhere to stay. A lot of that stuff just seems like fantasy to me.

The above is a gross generalisation and of course there are many other strands in between, but I defo see a difference between feminism as an action and feminism as a concept for want of a better way to explain it. I feel like the current trend of young women supporting 'equality' but not identifying as 'feminists' may be part of this, because feminism seems in many cases an ideology as much as just a drive for equality of the sexes nowadays.

I do see the value in discussion as that's how attitudes change but I also see a lot of pointless talking and posturing that IMO doesn't really change stuff. Like endless talking about 'not enough women in xyz' but none of the people complaining about it wanting to lead by example.

That makes sense tbf. My experience is more with investigating individual criminal acts from a technical/evidence perspective, so whilst I've seen a lot more of that than most women I've not had much exposure to the more psychological aspect of male abusers or the events leading up to a violent crime.

And without wanting to go into too much detail I wasn't involved so much on the legal side. It was more collation and interpretation of evidence, so I'd deal with prosecutors etc but not as a legal professional.

Facilitating change is quite distinct from the day to day aspect of removing criminals from our society though. The former is likely more female dominated whilst the latter is undoubtedly mainly undertaken by men.

Agreed, a law enforcement officer is not an agent for social change and isn't supposed to be, he/she is more akin to a garbage person taking out the trash. There's nothing wrong in that and it's vital work, but it's not relevant to a discussion of people trying to facilitate social change. I'm not sure why you even brought that up in the context of what I posted. I was lauding a couple of male agents for social change, not discussing law enforcement.

@SidhuVicious

To clarify my original post, the first example might be somebody that has escaped DV and decides to try and help other women in similar situations. Maybe she obtains some funding and sets up a charity or shelter etc. She may not be interested in feminist academia but she is focused on feminist causes.

She may not be interested in feminism at all, she may just want to help other women. I have known many women who work in sectors that help women who don't see themselves as feminists.

The second type might be somebody that is widely read in the topic of feminist academia, has a degree in Gender Studies etc, and is more interested in looking at it from a societal perspective.

Analysis is very important. It's important to understand what contributes towards the oppression of women and ways of combatting it. It's important to have data and to analyse that data in order to present a case. You will need information to push for change and for funding.

unrealistic stuff like people talking about male curfews, separatist matriarchal societies, etc, and stuff that isn't really going to help people on the ground who actually need somewhere to stay. A lot of that stuff just seems like fantasy to me.

Feminism involves women with trauma, women who have suffered from male violence. Someone who has suffered male abuse all her life, may very well call for societies dominated by women.

When the police were hunting Jack the Ripper, they told women to stay in. They didn't tell men to stay in because that would be ridiculous, right. Women have a right to feel safe both inside and outside the home.

I feel like the current trend of young women supporting 'equality' but not identifying as 'feminists' may be part of this, because feminism seems in many cases an ideology as much as just a drive for equality of the sexes nowadays.

If young women demand equality and respect but don't call themselves feminists, it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter what they call themselves. Feminism is derided as it threatens the status quo.

I do see the value in discussion as that's how attitudes change but I also see a lot of pointless talking and posturing that IMO doesn't really change stuff. Like endless talking about 'not enough women in xyz' but none of the people complaining about it wanting to lead by example

Again, you need to read up on the history of feminism and how much has been achieved. You're dismissing women talking globally about their experiences online. #metoo was an online feminist movement for example.

That sounds a bit dismissive of the people that literally risk their lives for the safety of others. I'm not sure if you meant it to sound like that.

I actually think wider law enforcement and how it's implemented can have a pretty big impact on society in the long run. There are definitely big issues within the police force, for example, but I think the focus on people like Wayne Couzens does sometimes take away from the fact that there are a lot of decent individuals doing unpleasant and largely thankless work that benefits the rest of society.

@SidhuVicious

Here's a selection I think you may enjoy

Susanna Rustin, Sexed A History of British Feminism

Germain Greer, The Female Eunuch

Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, We Should All Be Feminists

Laura Bates, Everyday Sexism

I didn't mean it to sound dismissive and I'm pretty sure it actually didn't. I made sure to emphasize how important the work is. Perhaps you missed that. The subject of law enforcement was just not relevant to the post you responded to. That's nothing to do with the work itself.
Of course it has impact on society, but my point was that in and of itself it is not an agent of social change. Lots of things are impactful and beneficial without contributing to social change. That's not to say they aren't important.

I agree with a lot of what you say. However, I think there can be a tendency for some feminists to use the royal 'we' when talking about the accomplishments of previous feminists but to then very quickly emphasise that feminism is a very diverse movement once they find themselves being lumped in with feminists that hold opposing views - e.g. when radical or GC feminists are lumped in with libfems that view sex work as empowering and support the trans lobby, for example.

I'm not convinced that the blue haired Tumblr feminists with their Male Tears mugs are exactly comparable to the suffragettes, for example.

Truth be told, I'm not even wholly convinced of how much the suffragettes themselves accomplished although I'll admit it's an area I could read up on a bit more. It seems that women getting the vote could equally be linked to their contribution to the war effort and the fact that other countries like Australia had already granted women the vote, making us look a bit backward. Arguably, it was our solidarity with men that gained the vote as much as feminist separatism.

I feel like people can be a bit selective/revisionist about the suffragettes. People tend to omit the bits about them blinding innocent postal workers with their letter bombs and attempting to detonate bombs in places like theatres and churches where they could've easily killed innocent members of the public including women and children. To me, that's a bit too close to things like the Manchester Arena bombing.

Could anybody honestly say they'd be happy for their daughter or husband to be killed whilst at the theatre as a sacrifice to further women's lib? I don't think most people would look kindly on any movement that killed an innocent loved one of theirs tbh. That's the thing that makes me feel a bit conflicted.

Thanks. I'll take a look. Most of those sound familiar but I've not read any of them. I do read a lot of articles and debates (from both sides) but I'm not particularly well versed on the canon of proper feminist theory.

I'm not trying to rail against feminism though, even if it might look that way. I always try and look at both sides of a debate and obviously there are already plenty of posters here flying the flag for feminism. That's maybe why I'm bringing up a lot of the aspects that cause me to question modern feminist narratives.

Ultimately, my goals are probably fairly similar to most feminists. I'm just not sure I wholly agree with some elements - e.g. the patriarchy as a consciously maintained male power structure. I think our society largely evolved organically over millennia where it made sense for women to be the caregivers as work was usually heavily physical, and threats were mainly from wild animals and other tribes that would kill the men and rape/enslave the women.

Humanity was largely like this for thousands of years and it's only the last few hundred where it's changed. I think this is likely a large factor in why men have evolved to be more aggressive, because for most of our existence it was necessary - the human race likely wouldn't have survived without male violence.

Sidhu, I agree some suffragettes did terrible things : I study history & I've read Fern Riddell's work on people like Kitty Marion. The campaign as a whole proved how many women wanted it, (I include suffragists in that, non violent led by Millicent Fawcett) & the escalation to things like chaining to railings brought attention which 50 years of peaceful protests hadn't. These actions were significant, very, I don't think war work alone would've got the vote.
But the actions of the bombers were truly evil. I'm not sure how many they were, prominent ones like Rebecca West & Emmeline Pethick disowned the violent campaign. But like many movements, a significant proportion of followers, & the leaders (Emmeline & Christabel) were corrupted to do terrible things.
But please don't class the suffragists & non murderous suffragettes with the violent extremists. It would be like throwing out all 2nd wave feminism bc of Valerie Solanas, or paedophile supporters like Firestone & Millett.

Sidhu, on the point about patriarchy evolving bc of women needing to be protected by aggressive men while childraising, I partly agree. But the issue is, why is it that women weren't treated equally by men within their tribe, doing different stuff but getting an equal say, but instead were relegated to a subordinate role despite doing the key job of childraising.
I get the aggression point. Aggression is ofc not bad per se, if you're being attacked aggression is good. The issue is men being aggressive to women and men who haven't attacked them. I would argue that there's 2 key types of aggression : to protect your family/tribe or oneself, & aggression to shore up status. Men & women both have the urge to fight to protect their young. Women can be incredibly fierce if their children are threatened, in nature & humans. (I've never seen a more aggressive person than my mum when she was trying to keep my violent father from being given residence-luckily he wasn't) .
I would argue that men & women are equally likely to be aggressively competitive over mates/status, but in different ways. Going back to nature, men tend to be physically aggressive towards mate rivals, partly bc it benefits them to mate more. Women can ofc be competitive over status/mates, but in a more verbal & psychological way, generally.
On the prehistoric tribes patriarchy issue, while women did childraising, roles were not set in stone. Women hunted as well as gathered & one study showed they were stronger than elite female rowers today.

https://time.com/5041744/prehistoric-women-arm-strength-bones/

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/early-women-were-hunters-not-just-gatherers-study-suggests-180982459/

@SidhuVicious

I meant the Yorkshire Ripper in my last post, not Jack the Ripper.

The list of books isn't the canon as such, I've missed the Second Sex which is sacrilege.

However, I think there can be a tendency for some feminists to use the royal 'we' when talking about the accomplishments of previous feminists but to then very quickly emphasise that feminism is a very diverse movement once they find themselves being lumped in with feminists that hold opposing views - e.g. when radical or GC feminists are lumped in with libfems that view sex work as empowering and support the trans lobby, for example.

Feminism is a global movement, and there are international organisations that act from a feminist perspective, for example Womankind. It's a very diverse movement and you can't lump all feminists together.

There is a problem with in fighting and there's always been fierce debate on how to achieve its aims. To me when someone makes sweeping statements about 'feminists' it sounds nonsensical.

Of course feminists can claim victories as their own. They're part of a long movement who are campaigning, lobbying, marching and working towards equality.

I'll have to talk about the Suffragettes tomorrow as I'm tired.

Fair enough. You're clearly well researched on the subject and I can appreciate that there will be individuals of varying temperaments and perspectives within large movements. I just remember going down a bit of a rabbit hole one day reading about the suffragettes and was surprised to read about bombings of theatres and post workers being blinded, because I'd only ever heard them praised as heroines.

I'll be completely honest. I have great respect for individuals that fight against injustices and foster political change. What really puts me off about a lot of feminists is going on forums like this and seeing swathes of hateful posts and generalisations. Things like 'even the good men are mostly bad' and 'they all hate us' etc. Some of it just feels too close to the outlook you see from xenophobes etc. It all feels a bit misanthropic sometimes and makes me wonder whether certain types of people are attracted to it for the wrong reasons.

Whilst recognising that there are quite a few areas where men are privileged, I just don't see the dystopia that so many feminists talk about in my daily life. I encounter both women and men that are arseholes and both women and men that are decent individuals. Most people I encounter at work and in my daily life (and I encounter a LOT of people in my job) just seem like normal folk trying to navigate life and look after their family.

I get on with most people and generally don't have a problem fighting my corner when required. I'd like to be the type of person that contributes positively to society and would say I have in some ways - with my last job contributing to the conviction of criminals (mostly male) and my current job being in an industry where women are hugely under represented.

However, I see a lot of women saying that feminism has 'opened their eyes' and they're now constantly angry, and I can't help but wonder if a lot of them just look for things to be pissed off about and find this through confirmation bias. There seems to be an attitude that if you don't see it you're just naive, but I really don't think I am tbh.

I don't see that things are particularly great for the majority of everyday working class blokes I work with each day tbh. It's true that the majority of CEOs etc are male but that only really seems to benefit a small, privileged circle. I feel that the men at the top aren't just keeping women down. They're generally self serving types that don't care for the people underneath them regardless of their sex.

I dunno. When I see well educated middle class women going on about CEOs it just seems a bit pie in the sky for me. 99% of people aren't ever going to come close to being a Chief Exec (CEOs of dog grooming/nail extension businesses notwithstanding lol).

Middle class men seem to be the ones benefitting most from old boys club dynamics but their wives arguably benefit from their wealth too in most cases (a point that usually seems to be overlooked). I observe that a lot of the feminists I've met are white middle class graduates and the cognitive dissonance for me is that they're often second in privilege only to the types of men they marry.

And many seem to drop down to two-days-a-week at work once the kids are at school and never really resume the career focus they had prior to kids. Of course this is an individual choice and one that doesn't happen in a vacuum (it often makes sense for the higher earner to be the main breadwinner) but no doubt it's a choice that is very much enabled by the privilege of their white middle class high earner husband, because without his earning power the wife might have no choice but to work full time.

Shit, this is becoming a proper rant. 😂 This is one thing, however, that I think is possibly a genuine modern dilemma. Doing what's best for one's family isn't always what's best for the evolution of society - and we commonly hear posters on here saying things like "it was the obvious choice for me to give up work due to his greater earning power".

But ultimately it is a choice and we face a difficult dynamic when many (most?) women will happily exploit the patriarchy for the benefit of their own family, because it perpetuates/reinforces the dynamic and societal expectation. Things would likely change quicker if women deprioritised family wealth when making decisions but that's a big ask of anybody and not all can afford to (although many probably get by with a smaller house, less holidays, older cars, etc).

I've gone a bit off topic here so I'm going to reel it in, but I'm always a bit bemused when people talk about 'very important men' because usually there is a pretty privileged family behind them - I don't see that the majority of women married to wealthy men are oppressed individual that have had to sacrifice their own careers to enable his career despite some feminists pushing this argument.

Perhaps I need to start viewing feminism as a diverse range of tangentially related topics in the same way that it's comprised of a diverse range of perspectives/groups. There's a big difference between things like domestic violence, the rise of violent porn, and then topics like men sitting with their legs too far apart on the train lol.

(although many probably could get by with a smaller house, less holidays, older cars, etc).

Missed out the word 'could' in my penultimate post.

@SidhuVicious

Truth be told, I'm not even wholly convinced of how much the suffragettes themselves accomplished

The context of the Suffragettes is a time when women were oppressed by the law of Coverture, when women were owned by men. They were owned by their dads and then owned by their husbands. Any rights they had were subsumed into their husband's after marriage.

Women were campaigning for the right to vote for years but were ignored. There was a militant wing of the Suffragettes who began a terrorist campaign in order to get attention. They weren't meant to harm people and as far as I know, no people were intentionally harmed including postal workers.

They stopped their campaign with the start of the war and changed people's minds because they become quite nationalist. The vote for women came about because men returning from the war couldn't vote. There was a debate in Parliament and some women got the vote as the law changed.

It's argued that the government wanted to capture Labour voters and didn't want the bombing campaign to start again.

Nelson Mandela was considered to be a terrorist and the ANC a terrorist organisation.

Regarding men being top dog because that's the natural order, they created laws that prevented women from taking part in society. This has only changed relatively recently.