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.

"is natural for the dominant class to exhibit more aggression"

Perhaps males are dominant because they display more aggression as a result of their biological make up.

Maybe white people are dominant over non-white people because they are naturally more aggressive... Or maybe dominant groups are simply those who have best exploited opportunities which have been presented to them.

See dominant groups have always exploited these ideas in order to retain dominance. I don't believe that women are natural nurturers anymore than I believe black people are savages.

Have posted this before but it's always worth posting when someone mentions "misandry"
www.adonismirror.com/10152006_leader_misandry_and_misanthropy.htm

Offred, have you seen any studies that suggest that white people are more aggressive than black people? There are studies to support the view that aggression in men is genetically influenced which is why I made the above statement.

There's a bit of a difference between saying that women may have biological influences that tends them towards nurturing and calling people 'savages' based on nothing.

I find the whole idea that 'misandry doesn't exist' a bit ridiculous. So you think that men despise women but women can not ever despise men? Really? Bit of inequality there, no?

I've said at least three times that I don't agree that 'men despise women'. I've never said anything about misandry not existing nor has anyone else on the thread. How weird

Offred, the last para was in relation to bifauxnen's post. People have come out with the 'misandry doesn't exist' gem on other threads.

No answer to my question to you or comment on anything else?

What 'biological influences' tend women towards nurturing exactly? Are you conflating birth and feeding with nurturing again?

The studies about gender differences are about the influences of hormones and about neurological differences. Since we know that brains are plastic too much weight should not be given to neurological differences. In all the studies into gender differences there is a greater difference between individuals at either end within each gender group than there is between the gender groups so if there is a difference it cannot be particularly significant or relevant.

Yes people did studies to try and prove white supremacy, of course they did! Have you forgotten the bloody nazis?! Jeez... It's called scientific racism...

Do you agree that men have a biological tendency towards aggression?

I have read some interesting papers about hormones and genetics and I think that there is evidence that there are biological influences at work.

I didn't ask whether people did experiments to prove white supremacy, I asked if you had read any papers to support the idea that white people are more aggressive than black people.

I said savages but yes there are studies into race related aggression.

As I said studies into hormonal and neurological differences find a greater difference within groups than between them. Also, you didn't answer the question.

So you think there is evidence that white people are more aggressive than black people? Just trying to clear things up.

There is research into racial differences in terms of aggression.

I've never said I thought white people were more aggressive or that there was 'evidence' they were. I was replacing genders in your statement with races to help illustrate why it was silly. My point was about dominant groups exploiting opportunities not dominant groups all being aggressive or more aggressive. I had previously said I thought it was natural for dominant groups to display more aggression.

Why are you incapable of making rational points if you disagree but are confident in your view? Instead are trying to twist and pick holes in the way I've worded my points...

So there is no evidence that white people are more aggressive than black people? You just made that statement up to illustrate a point? Well, there is evidence that males are more aggressive than females due to hormonal/genetic influences so it wasn't really a great comparison was it? It certainly doesn't negate my point:

"Perhaps males are dominant because they display more aggression as a result of their biological make up."

If one sex/race was more aggressive than another then it wouldn't really be that surprising that they were more likely to be dominant would it? I'm not saying that it is the only reason, just pointing out that it could contribute.

You think that a group displays more aggression because they are dominant. I think that they may be dominant because they display more aggression.

The oppressive belief which related to white/black people was not that they were weaker or more docile. The oppressive belief was that black people were savages who could not control their urges (including aggression) as well as white people and as a consequence they could be used by white people without guilt as they weren't fully human or they were naturally lower down the hierarchy and in need of civilisation/guidance.

That's my analysis of it anyway. It's just a different oppressive belief about 'innate' characteristics used to control and absolve the powerful of responsibility for abuse and yes studies have been done to 'prove' this belief.

This is simply racism coexisting alongside sexism because applying the same assumption to black people in order to discriminate would rather undermine the domination of women by men.

What is your actually point bumbley? How is racism even relevant to this thread and why are you asking me to go into so much detail about it? What 'biological influences' make women better nurturers? In your opinion.

And I am asking you to justify your opinion yes because I think the default should be equality unless there is strong evidence to prove the opposite because there are negative consequences for people who are considered lesser. Given there is not equality and you appearing to be justifying this by saying it is natural for men and women to not be equals I think you should have something more than just a feeling or an opinion. I think you should be able to say very confidently that an equal society is untenable and give strong scientific support for your view.

Offred, if you look up, the point that I made was:

"Perhaps males are dominant because they display more aggression as a result of their biological make up."

This is the one that you disagreed with and it was you who brought race into it to try to dismiss it. Do you actually have anything to refute that point? As I said in my last post, you seem to think the aggression is the result of being dominant whereas I think it is possible that aggression may be what has made them more dominant.

I'm not using the above point to say that equality is not possible.

No, as I said. Given the implications of saying men are naturally dominant over women I think it is you who is required to prove it tbh. I've already explained why I don't think studies into hormones are significant/relevant/justification.

What 'biological influences' make women naturally more nurturing? That's a point you have been labouring since you've been on this thread alongside the idea that men are naturally more aggressive.

See here;

^bumbleymummy Wed 16-Jul-14 11:50:00
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". However, women can and do make the conscious choice to leave the labour market and to return. Again we seem to be thinking that paid employment and having a successful career is the be all and end all.^

People have pointed out to you several times that what women are biologically designed to do is pregnancy/birth/breasfeeding and that this is different to child raising. Also that humans are not the same as other mammals and that even though most child raising falls to women after pregnancy/birth incapacitation most women are not breast feeding during all or most of this time.

"Given the implications of saying men are naturally dominant over women I think it is you who is required to prove it tbh."

To prove what exactly? Men are naturally more aggressive than women. You don't seem to dispute that fact. I just disagree with your idea that it is because they are dominant that they are more aggressive. If you look again at the animal kingdom, the more aggressive animals will try to fight their way to the top. They get to the top because they are more aggressive and prepared to fight. The ones that do not fight will not end up as leaders. I don't think it's too much of a stretch to apply similar logic to humans and think that the ones who are prepared to fight will be the ones who come out on top.

Your initial point was:

"... 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."

See, I think that men were only able to achieve that 'relative position in society' because they were naturally more aggressive. Women did not fight back. Now, they do 'fight back' so we're seeing a shift. How do you think men achieved that position in society if they weren't being aggressive?

Re the nurturing point, I haven't exactly been 'labouring it'. I only mentioned it again in response to this comment of yours:

"I don't believe that women are natural nurturers anymore than I believe black people are savages."

As I said earlier, I have read papers that show that hormonal/genetic influences may make women more nurturing. I have not read any papers to suggest that black people are savages. That was why I said:

"There's a bit of a difference between saying that women may have biological influences that tends them towards nurturing and calling people 'savages' based on nothing."

I'm not sure why you think it has anything to do with the comment that we are discussing now which was:

"Perhaps males are dominant because they display more aggression as a result of their biological make up."

You don't get to decide what we are discussing.

You have made several statements which you apparently can't justify.

I have never accepted that men are 'naturally' more aggressive. I accept there may be truth in the idea that men behave more aggressively than women although this is not for certain and I think this is likely to be down to the necessity of behaving in a conciliatory fashion when you are a subjugated class and the usefulness of and ability to behave aggressively if you are a dominant class. I am saying if male domination of women is the natural order of things then you should justify that, I don't need to disprove it.

Ok, you haven't read it. It doesn't exist then.

I don't get to 'decide' what we're discussing? I don't need to 'decide' it - I was addressing one of the points you made yesterday to do with aggression and dominance.

How/why do you think men became more dominant in the first place? Your position that they are being aggressive because they are dominant puts them in the dominant place to begin with. How do you think they got there?

Is bumbleymummy asking how the patriarchy came about?

I mean, often enough people deny the patriarchy altogether- it's happened already (albeit from a different poster) and this was why I joined the thread in the first place.

Are you simply admitting that there is a patriarchy, or justifying it bumbly?

A patriarchy can't exist without men, on some level, conscious or unconscious, despising women, and feeling they are lesser.

Men are not naturally more aggressive. However, they are taught from a very young age that they should be. The language used in adverts aimed at boys, the games they are supposed to like. They are conditioned to be more aggressive from birth. It is such nonsense. I work with kids and they are just kids, some are arty, some are feisty. this is not determined by their sex, just their nature.

Its the same for girls being nurturing. Just listen to the language aimed at girls from birth. They are conditioned by society to be that way. Bloody obvious when you start to look.

Words used in adverts for toys