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.

Late to this thread!!

I think that part of the problem is what some see as "fair" and others dont.

If a woman takes time out of her career to have babies, then it is not comparable to someone who has not taken time out.

If there was a lesbian couple, and one took time out to have a baby, she is not going to be at the same stage careerwise, as the other partner.

But some think that this is "unfair".

Therefore the two sides of the argument are not going to agree.

Also, some posters could benefit from using the word some more often!

No.

(Not keen on Katie Hopkins though)

It's not really about that setting. It's way more complicated than that.

agree, no. The question doesnt even need asking,after all do women despise men?

Misogyny and misandry exist side by side and after reading a few posts here, I see clear example of the latter .Or maybe its fear, mistrust and frustration that make certain women believe that "men hate women as a class " I have no idea what that means but I do take exceptional at the very idea that ALL men are responsible for a patriarchal system which has led to SOME women being victimised, and that based on the ludicrous notion that we aren't all protesting for change. Fact is we have lives to lead ,bills to pay, mouths to feed and whilst many of us hate the jobs we do and the bosses we work for, the pressures are such that w dont have the time or the energy to fight for causes that may well bring more problems on rather than solve any.People tend to act when things directly impinge on them and unless someone can show there is a better way that benefits everyone ,they will tend to stick to what they have.A case of a devil you know is better than one you dont .
There has never been a matriarchal system and there is nothing to suggest it would be better as the balance of power would just swing to the the other gender.What would be better is a balance between the two concepts but that implies equality not only between the genders but between individuals too. It also implies a lack of hierarchy, something which has only existed in hunter gather groups.Each gender would most likely have clearly defined roles but nether would be subservient to the other rather they would be complimentary.It was Kar Marx who suggested true communism could only exist in such societies

a patriarchal system which has led to SOME women being victimised

I cannot think of one woman i know who has not been disadvantaged by being a woman.

and we are successful women with many advantages in life so I would expect us to suffer the least. tis bullshit to think only 'some women' are affected by patriarchy.

its either all or most. but as a starting point, I would say all.

and equating misandry and misogyny is like equating racism against white people with racism against black people. both are wrong but they are not the same size problem.

"Life's a bitch and then you die " There is no system in existence where there aren't some PEOPLE who are disadvantaged in one way or another.Are we to assume that matriarchy which would shift power from one gender to another ,would not create disadvantaged victims ? I believe it would .As i said I think we need to have a balance between the two .

.Personally i would like like to live in a culture where there is no hierarchy to speak of and where wealth differentials are at their minimum , but thats pie in the sky stuff."Success" for me is more about the collective as in successful communities where everyone has a stake and which exists reasonable harmony.Its not about three houses , five cars,rolex watches or whatever designer brand name.The success of an enterprise that provides work , which in turn supports and nourishes a community is more important than one or two individuals milking the acclaim for that success and massing great wealth whilst their employees are nothing more than wage slaves to be ever grateful for the crumbs that land on their table

Of all the women i have known and know now I would say one( my sister) is disadvantaged as she lives with a control freak who doesnt understand "needing ones own space" or why his partner cant fit in exactly with him..Then again she chooses to remain with him so she makes her own bed .Using rudimentary psychology my guess is she subconsciously chose her partner because he most resembled my father who was even more of a control freak
Of the others i would say most are 50/50.in one case the female most definitely has supremacy .David does as he is told . Another is a househusband because his wife is the main bread winner whilst he does an excellent job of raising their child and attending to all the domestic duties
In our household my wife has the the supremacy, but only just.She has never been one to feel disadvantaged or a victim, preferring instead to get on with her life as best she can
Looking at the previous generation i would say i have come across several examples of where the female has been disadvantaged by ruthless egotists who knew how to manipulate them and the system to their advantage.But the laws have changed and nowadays such cavalier attitudes are not so easy to express .I have met three women who have been left by arseholes who wanted a younger totty to reflect their own "success", so wife and kids became appendages to be ditched asap.I have no time for such pigs.

All we can do is evolve and make necessary changes that do the least amount of damage.The church has taken generations to do what it should have done years ago but then no one likes to see their cozy hegemony disturbed..Perhaps the day a female becomes archbishop might not be too far away provided we dont end up with a Thatcher clone of course.

Would it be at all possible to feminize the business world i.e. bring in more female attributes such as compassion or would they as they seem to now, behave like their male counterparts i.e. ruthless ,conniving, duplicitous and egotistical?

You know, I actually think that most women I know have had some kind of an advantage at some point or another because they are a women. Even things as simple as getting into a club ahead of men or being offered the next taxi so they don't have to wait in the cold.

Daft, you mentioned 'female attributes' - be prepared for a major backlash!

In fairness to daft he refers to emotional attributes rather than physical!

Which, as a female, I do agree with on the whole.

At its most extreme, I wonder whether separatists, led by women, for example, would chose to shoot down a civilian aircraft from the sky. Or bomb the crap out of civilian settlements.

Or would they choose a less violent way? Or perhaps a female led world wouldn't have needed a war in 1939 at all....

Feminism doesn't ask for a matriarchy. It asks for women's equality, in a male-dominated world.

Daddypig, people earlier objected to women being described as more 'nurturing' so I'm not so sure!

At its most extreme, I wonder whether separatists, led by women, for example, would chose to shoot down a civilian aircraft from the sky. Or bomb the crap out of civilian settlements.

I happen to be a feminist who agrees with this ^

Why that is, is a question that feminist theory often debates, and ponders. I'm not nearly knowledgeable enough on this subject - but there are some very knowledgeable feminists on MN who could tell you. Well, there are some still left - many have been chased off here by trolls.

Welcome to Mumsnet, btw, daftasabrush6.

V interesting first posts.

*At its most extreme, I wonder whether separatists, led by women, for example, would chose to shoot down a civilian aircraft from the sky. Or bomb the crap out of civilian settlements.

I happen to be a feminist who agrees with this ^

Why that is, is a question that feminist theory often debates, and ponders. I'm not nearly knowledgeable enough on this subject - but there are some very knowledgeable feminists on MN who could tell you. Well, there are some still left - many have been chased off here by trolls.*

of course they would look up Ayelet Shaked.

That's like saying "Margaret Thatcher is typical of all female politicians' though. Which is blatantly false.

Yet you seem happy enough with generalisations about men...

One anomaly (Margaret Thatcher) is not a generalisation.

xena I suspect I'm considered to be feminist although I'm not sure i agree.

But in my head, feminism means equality whilst recognising the obvious differences between the genders. I would hate feminism to mean women have to strive to be the same as men, for the reasons outlined above.

Sadly, and hugely generalising, I find females more likeable than males. And I feel increasingly world weary at present and pondering this issue more and more.

I am prepared to be flamed by the true feminists!

*At its most extreme, I wonder whether separatists, led by women, for example, would chose to shoot down a civilian aircraft from the sky. Or bomb the crap out of civilian settlements.

Leaving aside the fact that we don't know if that was deliberate, women are just as capable as men of committing acts of violence, although I'm sure someone will tell us men are much more violent than women generally.

Violence against women has come up again and again through this thread as evidence that men despise women but men commit far more acts of violence against other men, there are men who would never hit a woman but think it's acceptable to hit another man. I think that's where that argument falls down.

women are just as capable as men of committing acts of violence,

And yet, they don't.

Around 80-90% of people convicted of violent crime are men, according to UK crime stats.

Thanks, I did say someone would point that out!

I'm sure there are some men that despise women, just as there are some women that despise men - but I'd like to think that both those groups in a minority.

as a slight aside, I worked for four years in a female-dominated office. Ages ranged form mid-20s to mid 50s. 12 females and one male (me). Individually they were all great, but as a group they were a nightmare. Constantly bitching about other women being too fat, or too thin, too ugly or too pretty. And when they weren't moaning about other women they were moaning about their husband/boyfriend or the fact that they couldn't get a husband/boyfriend or just moaning about men in general and how useless they were.

Completely did my head in.

anyway...

A lot of men choose not to hit women because they see them as lesser though, because they feel paternally protective. Men not hitting women is not an indicator of equality.

Re the violent events mentioned; you are only assuming they were committed by men which makes your argument even more ridiculous.

I am sure that all humans are capable of violence and cruelty but undoubtedly I think women as a class may take a more conciliatory approach than men and there is historical evidence to support this. Many people try to argue therefore that women are naturally more compassionate and better at talking etc but I think this is a massive assumption. Women have been subjugated by men throughout history in various ways and I think it is natural for the dominant class to exhibit more aggression and the subjugated class to be more conciliatory. I think it has nothing to do with men/women's 'natural qualities' and everything to do with their relative positions in society.

I'm sure there are some men that despise women, just as there are some women that despise men - but I'd like to think that both those groups in a minority.

as a slight aside, I worked for four years in a female-dominated office. Ages ranged form mid-20s to mid 50s. 12 females and one male (me). Individually they were all great, but as a group they were a nightmare. Constantly bitching about other women being too fat, or too thin, too ugly or too pretty. And when they weren't moaning about other women they were moaning about their husband/boyfriend or the fact that they couldn't get a husband/boyfriend or just moaning about men in general and how useless they were.

Completely did my head in.

which is why I prefer to talk in terms of individuals or groups of individuals rather than a whole gender.Erin Pizzey recently referred to feminists in very negative terms because she saw them as man hating people hell bent on blaming the male population for the worlds ills .She once attended a feminist demonstration and noticed they were carrying "all men are bastards and rapists", placards and rightly concluded that if the word men was substituted with black , they would be arrested .The police did nothing because ,in the words of one , they were scared of the women, although I dont know how much truth is in that because there must have been WPCs present .
My guess is that she had some issues in the past with a group of feminists which has formed her opinions because i cannot believe they are all man hating harridans.i am all for female emancipation in whichever field but also recognise that they ,like us, also have a dark side which can manifest itself in the cruelest way.Mothers can be particularly so with their children , a fact made clear by Erin with regard to her own mother.