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.

Surely a woman withholding information (or being the only one who knows) about a child's father would be an example of women controlling men. Do you approve of that?

Cailin 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?

That's really sad, and does unfairly impact on women for completely obvious reasons. It's frustrating that society tells women that they must look after the children because of a stupid and misguided belief that women are just built that way and then slaps women in the face for doing just that. If women complain about this, we are told that we're just whining and what do we expect when we want children?

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 - "

Erm: my 'generalisation' is based on the hard facts of the last 4,000 years of history: male dominance and the subjugation of women. Since the rise of feminism, men are developing out of this trait in the West. In certain pockets of the East, not so much.

Why would the male gender subjugate the entire female gender for 1000s years, if it did not like to dominate? Do you think that happened by mistake?

Unfortunately, there's no such hard evidence for your claim that women are 'better at raising children because they're more nurturing'. And plenty of evidence that both claims - that women are a) better at raising children, and b) are more nurturing is false: there are many examples of amazing, nurturing fathers, and crap un-nurturing mothers.

caillin, re the teaching qualification - that is awful, and I think discriminatory. In that it adversely and disproportionately affects women who have children. But then most of the government's austerity cuts have disproportionately affected women, haven't they?

They have indeed Sabrina, and I wonder if that's what's behind the huge upsurge in misogyny over the last few years? The Government have done such a successful hatchet job on women, especially mothers, and most especially mothers who have been left behind to look after children on their own. Woe betide you if you're the mother of a disabled child as well, because you get hit from both sides...

It feels like, because of this government and establishment sanctioned and instigated misogyny, a lot of men, in fact the majority of them have been allowed to give free rein to their underlying beliefs about women. Not only that, but because of the immediacy of the internet, those beliefs are shared and approved of by more and more men, and very sadly, some women. I don't hate men at all, and I don't hate the women who prop up outdated and frankly stupid ideas about women's bodies and beliefs, but I do pity them, no matter how much their words display how much they despise women.

I think that also if you (as many men do) come from a position that all things are equal now and any inequalities are based on women's free choices (made in a vacuum natch) then the specious argument is that anything that disproportionately favours them (or rather, falls shorter in the cost-benefit/ROI analysis in the short term than things that favour men) is legitimately first in line for cuts

I feel the need to clarify that I do recognise that the lack of a 'back to teaching' course will impact on more men than women but I doubt that it was scrapped purposely to discriminate against women or slap them in the face. If a man took a 5 year career break for any reason they could not expect to walk back into a job without having kept up to date either. I do think you could argue that it is indirect sex discrimination though.

I dislike blanket terms like 'society'. Not everyone thinks the same way.

Twinkles, my 'generalisation' was based on several thousand years of history (and evolution.) Women (and other female mammals) typically raise their young. There are plenty of examples of non-dominant males and dominant females. Interesting how your back goes up when a generalisation is made about women as a group but you think it is acceptable to do the same to men as a group.

"huge upsurge in misogyny over the last few years" Really? Confirmation bias perhaps?

Petula, no answer for the DNA questions?

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?

That's rather ironic bumbley given the wild and inaccurate generalisations that litter your posts. In a discussion of this type, speaking in general terms is inevitable. Wholesale swallowing of patriarchal assumptions without analysis, is not.

With regard to your next point: having children is a joint venture, and it does not make rational, logical sense that a mother should be penalised for taking time out.

Why can women not compare themselves go men? Men have children too. Why should they be considered a special case?

If a man takes 26 weeks paternity leave, do you expect his earnings and subsequent job prospects to suffer? Perhaps they will, if so men will not take it, however they will continue to have children.

petula I agree. It's also been very telling which sex has been shown to be 'shirking' and therefore a legitimate target for cuts.

Bread, circuses and distraction techniques.

I think the rise in misogyny is related to the rise of women in professional and prominent positions, the rise in academic performance of girls, the rise of laddism and internet porn, and simply the rise of the internet in general.
The internet shows misogyny that was always latent, out in all it's shameful glory.

I also think the rise in misogyny is related to the rise of social inequality. I think that disadvantaged men particularly feel the rise of women has been at their expense.

I'm sure you're right there about disadvantaged men there twinkle. And of course the irony is that when a greater proportion of women enter a particular profession/working environment the work then becomes devalued

"wild and inaccurate generalisations" such as? I think you find that I use some/most etc rather than simply grouping people by sex (and explicitly saying that you are doing so because you think it is a 'gender characteristic')

A person who takes time out of their career will be 'penalised' (don't think this is an appropriate term - they will, logically, be a bit behind when they return). It's not like men can give birth so of course a woman will have to be the one to take some time out if they (jointly) decide to have children. Do you think a man should be able to take 26 weeks or a year off and walk back into his job on a payrise and on the next level of his career alongside all the people who didn't take time off?

"when a greater proportion of women enter a particular profession/working environment the work then becomes devalued" Really? Confirmation bias again?

Twinkles, my 'generalisation' was based on several thousand years of history (and evolution.) Women (and other female mammals) typically raise their young. There are plenty of examples of non-dominant males and dominant females. Interesting how your back goes up when a generalisation is made about women as a group but you think it is acceptable to do the same to men as a group

Your generalisation was not based on any fact. It is simply a hard fact that men have dominated and subjugated women for the last 4000 years. There are no facts to indicate that beyond giving birth and breast-feeding, female humans are any better equipped to be primary carer than men.

Simply wittering on about furry animals does not make your point any more valid, particularly given the role of fathers and communities in rearing of young animals.

I'm quite happy to make generations about women if they're accurate, such as women have been subjugated for the last 4000 years, and treatment, rights & status of women in some parts of the world is still abysmal.

I the West women are often primary carers, but there is no hard evidence that this role is due to anything other than social conditioning.

You think it isn't fact that both historically(and in nature) females typically raise their young?

"There are no facts to indicate that beyond giving birth and breast-feeding, female humans are any better equipped to be primary carer than men." Where have I said that they are better equipped?

To use your phrase, 'withering on' about 'gender characteristics' doesn't make generalisations of an entire sex acceptable.

Maybe you should try using some men and see how much further you get when you engage in discussions with other people. You don't like it when people make assumptions about you based on your sex.

Bumbley My point about liking for dominance as a male characteristic is based on rock hard evidence of 4000 years of such behaviour. You may disagree, but evidence could not be stronger.

Your claims about mothers as better nurturers has no evidence to back it up beyond examples of some mammals, completely ignoring the role of fathers and communities in the rearing of young in the animal kingdom, quite apart from the fact that you're not even talking about human beings.

Perhaps you think other mammals are 'socially conditioned' as well?

See, better at nurturing does not mean the only ones capable of/actually nurturing so I'm not ignoring anything.

claims about mothers as better nurturers has no evidence to back it up beyond examples of some mammals, completely ignoring the role of fathers and communities in the rearing of young in the animal kingdom, quite apart from the fact that you're not even talking about human beings.

YES! And this is what completely floors me about ridiculous evo psych bullshit. It's all about false equivalences and what Terry Pratchett calls 'lies for children' science. I cannot see why anyone with more than half a firing synapse would place any credence in it at all. Unless they have some sort of agenda of course?

It is a fact that women have historically raised their children, but there is no evidence that this is rooted in anything other than convenience and social conditioning. Once a child is weaned there is no particular reason to being raised by a mother over a father, it's simply that, historically, men have had other things to do, like running countries, fighting wars.

It is of no relevance whatsoever what animals do, particularly given that once animals can walk and feed themselves, they are on their own.

Given that you have not grasped the difference between fact and opinion, biology and social conditioning, animals and humans you're not really in a position to attempt advice: if I meant some men I would say so ok?

It is a fact that all men were dominant until around 100 years ago, it is a fact that all women were subjugated, that is both a general observation and a fact.

It seems that you are happy to accept that males have certain characteristics but not women - why? Why do you think men are more dominant?

because if you have more power, you can be more dominant and you need to be dominant to maintain your power.

So now better at nurturing does not mean the only ones capable of it, but it still means better at nurturing, no?

I am perfectly happy to accept that women have certain characteristics if the claim is based on hard evidence.

Bumbley I notice how you ignored me when I said that living in our world requires money and because women are expected to carry out childrearing, which brings in no income, they are disadvantaged by that. Do you disagree with this statement?

My actual quote was not that 'men are more dominant' but that 'men like to dominate' an observation based on 1) the last 4000 years of history and 2) the current retention of power at the top of professions and politics worldwide. You may disagree with my interpretation but you can't argue with the facts.

Historically, men have had to want power, want to dominate, want to subjugate in order to end up in a position of unilateral authority as a gender, it's not something that happened by accident. Women were subjugated by taking what may be termed their natural rights away, and enforcing this position.

Now, in the west, the world has changed, men and women have different concepts of themselves, of their genders, than even 50 years ago. This has not happened so much in many areas of the east. Even so, men still rule the world.