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.

See, I think that anyone "with more than half a firing synapse" would look at the similarities between other species in their class, see those similarities, deduce that it is unlikely that the males of other species are 'socially conditioned' to discriminate against the females and would therefore look a bit further into it rather than simply accusing men of forcing things upon women in our society. (unless, maybe, you were a creationist)

You could, however, say that some men have benefitted in certain areas of modern life from women's tendency (historically and currently) to take a more nurturing position. This includes the fact that they are more available to earn money.

Now,cailin, let's see how many of my points you 'ignored' shall we?

twinkle, why do you focus on '4000 years'?

Bumbley, given that in our world taking time out of a job to look after children disadvantages you economically, do you think it's fair that it tends to be women who are disadvantaged more than men? Do you recognise that there is an inequality in the fact that the "nuturing" role women are expected to take means they are less likely than men to have an income of their own?

caillin, given that only women can have babies - what do you expect to happen? Again, "expected' to take or "more inclined" to take?

I may as well ask you, do you recognise that there is an inequality in the fact that women give birth and men don't? Well, yes, that is unequal, what do you want to do about it? Find a way for men to get pregnant? Are you resentful of the fact that you are a woman and are the only sex capable of carrying a child? It certainly seems that way.

I expect our economic system to be set up to allow parents, mums or dads, to stay at home without being disadvantaged in the workplace. As it stands, the workplace is set up to suit people who don't take any time out to have children, so that if you do take time out to have children it is much harder to maintain and income or progress. It is usually women that are disadvantaged by this system. We could say "Oh well, if you want a career don't have children," but I would rather say "Ok, the current system doesn't work, how can we change it."
It doesn't seem fair to me that men can have children and a career while women must choose one or the other.

The fact that women bear children is unchangeable biological reality. The fact that the workplace disadvantages women is not unchangeable. Therefore I would like to change things that are possible to change.

So how exactly does that work without being unfair to the people who do not take time out to have children? Someone stays in the job and progresses up gradually every year with small pay increases and gradual steps up the ladder and someone goes off for 12 months, comes back and has the same level job and pay rise handed to them. Does that really seem fair to you?

When that 'going off for 12 months' involves doing something which benefits all of society, including you, then yes.

Yes, it does seem fair. The person isn't going off to scratch their arses for a year, their going off to add a new member/members to the population and give them the best start in life. It's not some frivolous pursuit, it's essential, and penalising people for it makes no sense. Or, if it is essential to put the parent's career on hold while they're out on leave, then make it compulsory for the father to take half of the leave so that they are penalised just as much as the mother. I am sure if men were expected to take as much leave a women then the disadvantage would mysteriously disappear.

Also, I'd like to see an end to questions like "Ooh who's looking after the children?" which are invariably directed towards the working mother. Things like that are small but significant in making a mother feel like she is neglecting her children by being out of the house to work.

women who don't have children are penalised anyway during childbearing years based on the assumption that they might. men could potentially father a child right up until they retire but none suffer discrimination on that basis

what i mean by that is, it's at the forefront of many hiring managers when they look at a female employee, but not male employees. unless you work on the basis (which some people do) that women shouldn't be in the workplace anyway, that's not a sustainable way to employ people

Whether you believe that women are more nurturing or not, it is a fact that becoming a SAHM puts you in a very precarious position. You are then depending on another adult, who may or may not be a kind person, to support you and your children. If that relationship ends, you are in deep trouble as you have no income. That is a huge disadvantage, and because it is usually women in that position, it keeps a lot of women in bad relationships because they don't have the money to go out on their own.
Even if you don't become a SAHM, if having children damages your career then you will automatically be in a less stable position that you were pre-children, which doesn't happen to men. The fact that men can have as many children as they like with no damage whatever to their earning power puts them in an automatically more powerful position in relation to child-bearing women.

It's not just the maternity leave period. Employers expect women to be the primary carer at home even after that. They expect mums to want to take flexible working, sick days, school plays etc. Well somebody has to do these things, right? So mum much more often than not does. OTOH they expect dads to be more committed to work, fulfilling the breadwinner role. More ambitious, keener to progress. More tied, I suppose you could say.

It has to be done, you're expected to do it, you do it, it's a circle. It's very shortsighted to say, It's Nature, End Off.

That is the greater, more subtle discrimination.

Over a 40 year career you wouldn't expect 2/3 years of maternity leave to have such an effect on pay, seniority etc, but it definitely does

absolutely 7days

Petula, i've just asked my partner and she assured me that when she is interviewing a candidate she never makes any assumptions about women of child bearing age!

Ive been following this thread and thought it worth pointing out that whilst some posters may believe that having children is a noble thing that is of enormous benefit to society and the species, that is just merely your opinion. There are many who believe your actually doing society a disservice as the world is already dangerously overpopulated, not myself but you get my point.

Petula, i've just asked my partner and she assured me that when she is interviewing a candidate she never makes any assumptions about women of child bearing age!

That's ace.

Sadly, research shows over and over that an equally qualified man is almost invariably employed over his female counterpart. Exact copies of CVs with only the name changed sent for the same jobs showed that male names get called for interview more often.

The nicest construction we can put on that is that the company is worried about the possibility of maternity leave etc, the not so nice one is that HR managers are inherently sexist.

Sadly, on your second point.... if women don't have babies, the species dies out, presumably you don't want mankind to go extinct in order for women to have a better chance in their careers?

I am half joking about that btw.

i'm talking about in general, not specific people

though i have my very own sample of one - i have been told in a social situation by someone who hires people that they categorically would not employ me based on my age and sex

Hi Capt, the reason i asked my partner is that she is a HR manager and all the members of her HR team are women, the majority of the HR team at the company i work for are also women. I'm not denying that there are some people who make such assumptions but i don't think it is nearly as common as it once was.

I don't think there is any danger of the species dying out! However although it's unfortunate that women bringing up children are economically disadvantaged it is not the job of society to pick up the bill.

I actually wanted to say i was surprised to find out i despise women (apparently!) but the discussion kept moving so quickly i didn't get the chance!

"However although it's unfortunate that women bringing up children are economically disadvantaged it is not the job of society to pick up the bill."

So is it your opinion that it is just something women have to put up with lurker?

Oh and just to add, no one said having children is noble, I said it was essential. And it is essential, because if no one has children the species will die out. I would also point out that once women gained control over their own fertility, through proper birth control and access to abortion, then the birth rate went down dramatically, so dramatically in fact that in many European countries, Germany and France notably, there are incentives for people to have more children because there is a genuine worry that there will a lack of people in 20-30 years time.

Globally, the population is too high, but in countries where women have full human rights and access to birth control, there is little or no native population problem, the difficulties only occur with immigration.

Not 'women' it depends on your individual circumstances, my on partner went back to work almost immediately, that was her choice. I realise it's not possible for everyone to do that but if someone is left struggling a bit because they have to take time off work is it fair to ask others to pick up the slack? Should we ask childless couples to subsidise those who do have children?

I'm not denying that there are some people who make such assumptions but i don't think it is nearly as common as it once was.

Interesting, but not borne out by research. As I said, I'm sure your partner and the other sources you've cited for your anecdote are perfectly lovely and telling the complete truth.

although it's unfortunate that women bringing up children are economically disadvantaged it is not the job of society to pick up the bill.

I don't think anyone has asked for society to pick up any bills, have they? It's not something I've seen on the thread, maybe I missed it, could you link? I'm sure you didn't mean to sound like you thought women wanted hand outs.

It depends on the outlook of society. My opinion is, having children is an important pursuit that society should support. But, if that's not acceptable then if there is a penalty for having children then both mothers and father should be penalised equally. It shouldn't be the case that the vast majority of men carry on their careers with little or no impact from having children while women find themselves economically disadvantaged.

Wow! Now i see why nobody ever complained about men having a monopoly on being patronising on here!

cailindana -"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."

If women are disadvantaged as she say's then who will remedy that if not society? If your talking about maternity leave perhaps you think it's the companies that employ women who should pay?

For the third time, lurking, I said either society should pick up the tab, or men and and women should be equally disadvantaged, IMO by making it compulsory for men to take half of the parental leave after a baby is born.