Do men despise women.

[Loomineer]

On another thread read comments about women not realising how much men despise them. It got me thinking how in my relationships I've looked back and thought god. They really despised me.

My best friend is in a relationship where to me her dp treats her like he despises her.

I am not a man hater by any means. I just wondered what other people thought.

That's not to say my fear response isn't sexist, as it is based purely on the person's sex and not on any individual trait of theirs.

cailin, I think the phrase used was 'standard expectation'. That's not sexist - it is a fact that in the animal kingdom many (not all) of the responsibilities of raising the young fall to the females. I made the point in response to suggestions that it is a conscious decision by men to force those duties onto women. Unless you think that male animals are consciously discriminating against their mates?

No bumbley. It's a fact that some females in the animal kingdom do all the raising of young. It's also a fact that in the animal kingdom some males do all of the raising and sometimes both males and females do the raising together. There is no single pattern that goes across all living creatures.

There is no evidence to suggest that it is better or worse or more "natural" for men or women to raise children. Yet you are assuming it is "natural" for women to want to stay at home with children and then using that as the explanation for why most women do the childcare and therefore hold less of the power in the world.
It's a fact that biologically only women can bear and breastfeed children. But there is no biological reason why men can't raise children equally with women. You are making a sexist assumption based on your own experience, same as I do when strange men approach me. I have no evidence the next strange man approaching me is dangerous, you have no evidence that women raising children is natural, both of our assumptions are based on sex alone, both are sexist.

I wonder who feels the most despised, the Mum at home looking after her little ones, or the Dad at work all day in a job he hates.
Also, who is it that is nurturing these young boys into their patriarchal status quo attitudes so many here ascribe them ? Their Mums perhaps ?

Also, who is it that is nurturing these young boys into their patriarchal status quo attitudes so many here ascribe them ? Their Mums perhaps ?

Of course. It's all women's fault, all of it. Nothing to do with peer groups or wider society at all.

My DS has been brought up by 2 feminist parents (my DH is def a feminist in words and deeds- how could he not be with 3 DDs?), yet I have still had some fairly spikey conversations with him. Some of them are obviously due to the immaturity of his thinking through adolescence. Some come from external influences. I can pretty much guarantee that none of them come from home.

cailin, shall we look at what I actually said earlier?

"Offred, the raising of most young mammals falls primarily to the female. It is what we are biologically designed to do so that is probably why it is the "standard expectation"."

Where have I suggested that there is a single pattern across all living creatures or that the woman does all the care. Yes, there are examples of where the male is more involved than the female but these are the exceptions. (it's why I used the word 'most') So yes, it is more usual for the females to do most of the raising of the young and therefore I don't think it is reasonable to argue that this has, in some way, been forced on us by men.

"you are assuming it is "natural" for women to want to stay at home with children and then using that as the explanation for why most women do the childcare and therefore hold less of the power in the world."

Where have I said this?

"there is no biological reason why men can't raise children equally with women"

Where have I said there is?

I never said child rearing is forced on us by men. The issue with childrearing is that is an extremely important pursuit, absolutely essential to the survival of the species in fact. And yet, raising children is a low-status pursuit in our society, one that is usually carried out by women. If you are a SAHM you are in a very precarious position in our society because you have no independent means of support other than the very small amount given by child benefit and tax credits, if you're eligible. Rather than childrearing being seen as something essential that women sacrifice a lot to pursue, it is seen as an inconvenience that causes women to cost employers money by taking maternity leave. Add to that the fact that single mothers are villified in the media (despite being the ones trying to bring up children single handedly while the fathers bugger off and do nothing) and it seems to me that the "standard expectation" that women will do the majority of childrearing disadvantages women hugely.

Society should be set up such that everyone has the opportunity to do whatever job they want and are capable for. If they want to take time out to have children, something that is essential for the species, then that should be seen as a great thing that is supported by our society, not a costly annoyance that we so generously give maternity leave for. Thankfully things are improving on this front with men being allowed to share leave after a baby is born but there is still a long way to go.

bumbley I pointed out several pages back that you were confusing biology and social conditioning & you're still going on about it now.

Cailin is right there is 'no single pattern across all living creatures' and anyway we're Homo Sapiens distinct from animals.

You're just using poorly digested Darwinism to justify age-old sexist presumptions. Men like to dominate (yes I did say men and not some men, I think it's a gender characteristic, and yes I'm aware there are some very submissive men around), so historically they have always preferred women at home and dependent.

Women give birth, they breast feed, beyond that there is no particular reason for a female rather than a male to be responsible for child-rearing.

poorly digested darwinism

Yup.

But on a serious note, poorly digested Darwinism can, and is, used as a justification for existing social injustices by certain people - who have an interest in either persecuting or oppressing other "groups."

I'm talking poorly digested Darwinism here, otherwise known as evo-psych. I hate evo-psych.

I can safely say, and I have researched it, that I DESPISE evo-psych. It is a total pile of worn out old clichés about things we really know fuck all about.

Drives. Me. Nuts.

I haven't read the whole thread but just wanted to say that yes, there is a minority of men who really do seem to despise women. I had access to a certain football website last year and read quite a few of the threads on there. Some of them were really funny, some silly, some OK. but there were several that made me feel physically sick with the attitudes some of the men displayed towards women. They really were foul and full of hate.
I removed myself from the site as I found it that upsetting! That sounds horrendously dramatic but I really felt that reading the contents posted was making me feel intense dislike and distrust of men. Jokes about rape, posting pictures of women they had slept with (without their permission), jokes about domestic abuse. The men posting these things certainly didn't see women as equals or even remotely worthwhile, other than in an "any holes a goal" context.

Evo psych = mechanistic, deterministic cack.

Evo psych is supported by lowest common denominator, lobotomised losers.

Never been on a football site but I can honestly say I had no idea how many men hated women until the internet.

Just look at the comments under any article by a female broadsheet journalist on a news website, it's just mad misogyny.

Never been on a football site but I can honestly say I had no idea how many men hated women until the internet.

Yes, I'd agree. Plus it's the old adage, the comments underneath any feminist article, justify feminism.

Of course individual men love their wives, mothers, sisters, daughters etc. But there is absolutely an inherent misogyny towards "women" in general going on. I think it springs from men's desire for women, in conjunction with a fear of women. That fear has been engendered from the story of the temptation of Eve to the present day. It's an old book now, but I'd still recommend "Eve was Framed" by Helena Kennedy - it's an excellent piece of work.

• Plus - the fear of women gaining liberation and power. Women's fertility used to be the thing that kept them in men's control. Now, women can largely (in many countries) control their own fertility. They have contraception, and the choice whether to continue a pregnancy. I think a lot of men resent that freedom - it was an age-old tool to keep women in check. It used to be one of the cornerstones of the patriarchy - in the last few generations, that cornerstone has been eroded.

Women's fertility used to be the thing that kept them in men's control. Now, women can largely (in many countries) control their own fertility. They have contraception, and the choice whether to continue a pregnancy. I think a lot of men resent that freedom - it was an age-old tool to keep women in check. It used to be one of the cornerstones of the patriarchy - in the last few generations, that cornerstone has been eroded.

^^ this

And this is why, in many places, women's rights to bodily autonomy are being eroded. They are even trying it in the UK, parts of the UK, women still have no choice at all. It's sickening.

They are desperately trying to reverse Roe vs Wade in the US - why are men so desperate to control women's fertility? Or ensure that women don't have that bodily autonomy in the first place?

It's to control them, for power over them. Because they think they are lesser, vessels for childrearing and domestic work. While the men have all the real power.

also (until DNA testing) only women knew for sure that a child was their own. massive reason for controlling women if you work on a father --> son inheritance system

and there are plenty of advocates for compulsory DNA testing at birth, too

cailin, I think the idea that it was forced upon us by men was suggested by someone else but it was one of the reasons I brought up other mammals. It may be the 'standard expectation' because we are the ones who give birth to and nurse our babies. This does not mean that the man plays no part in the raising of the child (I have not said that). The idea that it 'disadvantages woman' again seems to be setting this idea that career is the be all and end all of success. Perhaps you should change your perception of that.

"Society should be set up such that everyone has the opportunity to do whatever job they want and are capable for."

Do you feel that you haven't had the opportunity to do something that you wanted to do and are capable of?

twinkle, I think I addressed that post of yours earlier and iirc you didn't reply. I haven't argued that there is a reason a man can't raise a child.
Why do you say 'men' rather than some/most men and yet admit that you know that some non-dominant men exist? You seem to like generalisations. How would you like it if someone made the general statement - "women (yes, all women because I think it's a gender characteristic) are better at raising children because they are more nurturing - " (although I know some women aren't nurturing but I'm still saying all anyway)

"there is absolutely an inherent misogyny towards "women" in general going on."

I disagree. Can't say I'm too keen on the idea of bible conspiracy theories either.

I do find it fascinating what the pro-life feminists in the US say about men convincing women that they need abortion - basically turning them against their unborn child. I know already that the MN feminists disagree with that though.

bumbley - I'm just going to disengage with you now - we will never agree.

I recognise the inherent misogyny in patriarchal religion - you don't.

I believe in women's bodily autonomy and right to control her own fertility - you don't.

"The idea that it 'disadvantages woman' again seems to be setting this idea that career is the be all and end all of success. Perhaps you should change your perception of that."

In a society where you need money to survive, expecting women to pursue childrearing, which causes many women to have no income of their own, disadvantages them. That is a fact. It doesn't matter whether a career is or isn't involved, a lack of money is a problem in a society where money is essential to survive.
I find it interesting that you say "perhaps you need to change your perception of that." I have already told you (but am now used to having to repeat everything) that I don't consider career to be the be all and end all. But what if I did? As a woman, am I not allowed to think career is important?
Incidentally I am a very capable teacher but the government has now made sure I will never teach again. If you take five years out of teaching your qualification is considered expired. It used to be the case that you could do a "back to teaching" course to remedy that. But now the government has cut the course in many areas, including mine, meaning that at the end of next year my teaching qualification, that I worked very hard for, will be worthless. What's your opinion of that situation?

sabrina, that's fine. That's the first time you've mentioned religion by the way. "I believe in women's bodily autonomy and right to control her own fertility" So do I - we just draw our lines in different places - just like many other people do. Have a good day.

caillin - women do not have to raise children. They can choose not to have children at all or they can return to work - many women make those choices and people do not get in their way.

Of course someone can think that career is the be all and end all if they like. (I'm getting quite used to having to correct assumptions and address generalisations) If it was so important to you though then I would imagine that you would decide not to have children or you would decide to return to work very soon after having a baby. If you do take time off to have children then I don't think you should compare yourself to a man and think it is unequal that they have advanced further in their career than you. Why should someone focus on men anyway - why not women who haven't had children? Do you resent being the sex that has children?

re the teaching course - I'm not sure why the back to teaching course has been cut in your area. I doubt that it was done specifically to target women if that is what you are suggesting. Yes, it's sad that you will not be able to use your qualification but there are many careers that would be difficult to return to after not working in them for 5 years. I have had to keep up to date (and go back and retrain in some areas) and I know others who have had to the same in other industries. Why do you think teaching should be an exception?

Petula, why should a father not be allowed to know if a child is his? What about the child's right to know who it's father is? Also, DNA testing serves many purposes - it may very well become something that is done routinely for medical reasons.