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.

Sabrina, I'm asking how offered thinks that men got themselves into the more dominant position.

Lumpy, there is biological evidence that aggression is influenced by hormones/genetics. It is not all a result of social conditioning.

Why don't you read the posts instead of repeating the same questions that have already been answered. I explained before that I think dominant groups gain dominance because they are better at exploiting opportunities presented at the time they are presented to them.

Will you answer the point that these 'studies' which demonstrate difference between genders demonstrate a greater difference within groups than between them and are therefore not evidence to support your assertion that men are more aggressive and women more nurturing.

Can you also explain what 'biological influences' make it natural for women to raise children.

I'd also like to know the answer to what sabrinnnna is asking because it seems you are arguing that it is ok that men are exploiting women because that's the natural order of things.

Exactly, offred.

If men are dominant over women, does that mean they despise them ? I mean, you could be dominant over your child, decide what it eats, how it should behave etc... Would that mean you despise it ?

muggins point reminds me of something an acquaintance from the Deep South said about slavery.

she claimed slaves were well treated because...as she said they were assets. so you looked after them well like you looked after your cows well.

but black people are not cows and women are not children and if you wish to remain domination over them you need to take something away from them. their humanity. their equality. and to do that you need to see them as less than you. and to do that you need to despise their difference.

Offred, I am reading the posts. My questions were:

"How do you think men achieved that position in society if they weren't being aggressive?"

"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?"

Your answer seems to be: "I think dominant groups gain dominance because they are better at exploiting opportunities presented at the time they are presented to them."

So, what made men better at exploiting the opportunities that were presented to them? You don't seem to think that their aggression has in any way given them an advantage. Personally, I think it is very feasible that it was. Historically, men would have had to fight much more to protect themselves/their families/their land and possessions. The better fighters would come out on top. Men are physically stronger than women so they would, naturally, be better equipped for physical fighting. With their strength and their aggression, men would have been in the more dominant position in those scenarios and they would, in many cases, have been acting to 'protect' the women.

This brings me to a point that Sabrina made.

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

Why would you try to protect women if you despised them? If men despised us, they could have wiped us out fairly easily in the past.

"...these 'studies' which demonstrate difference between genders demonstrate a greater difference within groups than between them..."

Offred, I'm not sure which studies you are referring to. I haven't read them. Would you like to link to them? Although I'm still not sure why you're trying to drag the conversation back to a point that was made 3 days ago in relation to women when I am addressing a point that you made about aggression and dominance in men.

"it seems you are arguing that it is ok that men are exploiting women because that's the natural order of things."

No, actually, I'm not arguing that. I think that men achieved a dominant position in the past by being aggressive in a society where aggression was necessary to survive. I think that, at the time, it was beneficial for men to be in that dominant position. I think that now, when it is not as necessary to fight, (and aggression is actually perceived as a negative characteristic in many instances) men no longer have that advantage. I disagree with your opinion that men became aggressive as a consequence of them being in power. I don't think you have explained how , in your scenario, they managed to gain their power in the first place.

Yet it is men who are expected to unblock the sewers, fight in the trenches and rescue cats stuck up trees. If they dominate and despise women so much, they would send them off to do these perilous activities.

Way too simplistic, Mugg1ns.

It is far more subtle - it is about ownership too.

Ownership? How so?

Have neither of you heard of benevolent sexism?! I'm sure bumbley can remember this being raised previously on the thread.

Bumbley no-one really knows precisely how but in my opinion men took and take advantage of women's physical incapacitation during pregnancy/birth. I have already said this on the thread.

I am not bringing up things from 3 days ago. I'm still interested in the answers you haven't given. They are relevant because you didn't only say men are naturally more dominant. You said also that women should not expect 'special' treatment for raising children and that raising children naturally falls to women because of 'biological influences' which does rather imply you believe that subjugation of women by men is acceptable because it is the natural order.

You haven't read the studies you've seen? Just taken the findings without analysis? I've read a review of the evidence for gender difference. I'm referring to the studies you are referencing.

"men took and take advantage of women's physical incapacitation during pregnancy/birth"

So you think that their biology gave them an advantage then?

"You said also that women should not expect 'special' treatment for raising children and that raising children"

Where did I say this?

"You haven't read the studies you've seen."

Yes, I have read the ones that I am referring to. How do you know which ones they are? Which review have you read?

"Ownership? How so?"

Up until very very recently - in living memory - a British wife was not regarded as an individual but the property of her husband. Married couples were taxed as a unit, also until quite recently. Fathers 'give' women to husbands at the altar.... transferring possession, in effect. The ownership aspect is well-documented and still flourishing in many parts of the world.

Cogito I was asking sabrina why she thought what muggins said:

"Yet it is men who are expected to unblock the sewers, fight in the trenches and rescue cats stuck up trees. If they dominate and despise women so much, they would send them off to do these perilous activities."

had to do with ownership.

I think Muggins made an interesting point. If men genuinely despise women then why wouldn't they have been put forward for the more perilous activities?

And my answer was 'because it's about ownership too'. Ie. the patriarchy.

And benevolent sexism, and control, and male privilege.

Cogito's and Offred's answers are spot on.

While we're at it, Iloveagoodnamechange's post was also spot on - and worthy of repetition here:

muggins point reminds me of something an acquaintance from the Deep South said about slavery.

she claimed slaves were well treated because...as she said they were assets. so you looked after them well like you looked after your cows well.

but black people are not cows and women are not children and if you wish to remain domination over them you need to take something away from them. their humanity. their equality. and to do that you need to see them as less than you. and to do that you need to despise their difference.

I disagree with namechange's statement.

I do not think that you necessarily despise someone's differences if you see them as 'less than you'. Seeing them as 'less' may actually encourage you to protect them. It really depends on what you mean by 'less'. Women are physically less strong than men so, historically, it made sense for them to rely on men for protection and for men to act as protectors. Were the men taking something away from them by acting as their protectors? Were they protecting them because they despised them?

Sorry bumbley - but men don't always act as women's protectors. Far from it, in fact. You sound like you're writing a romantic novel here - with noble heroes, and fainting heroines

One of mugg1n's points was sending men to the trenches. When men in power sent other men to the trenches, it wasn't for the protection of women, it was about power, politics and land. Women are casualties of war too - rape is used as a weapon of war on a massive scale.

And yes, to oppress people, you do need to despise them. Even if it's only subtly, or unconsciously.

It's not to with the protection of women - it's about ownership and control over women (and their children).

The fact is majority of crimes are committed by men and I think we all know someone in real life either ourselves or another woman who has been assaulted by a man be it physically or sexually.

The older I get the more sexism I notice and men rule the world so yes I do have an disliking towards men in general because it just pisses me off how they behave.

Sabrina, it's an example. Do you think, in those instances where they were acting as their protectors, that they were doing so because they despised them? Were they taking something away from them by protecting them? Why don't you want to answer those questions? Are you afraid to acknowledge that, historically, women may actually have needed men to protect them?

"I do have an disliking towards men in general"

Lovely. I wonder how you would feel about a man saying the same thing.

I don't think 'protection' is the relevant thing here. I think it's about control and power over women, as I keep on saying. I suppose 'protection' may be part of that - just as a man protects any other piece of his property.

And as cogito says, women were until very, very recent times, seen as the property of men - and still are in many parts of the world.

Lovely. I wonder how you would feel about a man saying the same thing.
*
They do and they make a lot worse comments such as jokes about rape and how women are only good for sex. This is from men of all ages and comments I heard in real life and read online on different forums. I know not all men are pigs but a large percentage are and I think we all know that, just look around you.

Lovely. I wonder how you would feel about a man saying the same thing.

They do. All the time.

Yes, Sabrina, I realise that you are focussing on control and power. I was offering a possible explanation into how men may have come into control and power and why that may have actually, at one point, been beneficial for women.

Rebecca, some men do. I think it is sad that you judge all men 'in general' by the opinions and actions of a few but you are clearly not alone on this thread.

Rebecca, some men do. I think it is sad that you judge all men 'in general' by the opinions and actions of a few but you are clearly not alone on this thread.

It is because there are so many of them...that is why. I am 25 now but I have noticed sexism more and more, men have even taken the word feminist and have made it dirty, made women feel ashamed of saying they are one as then they are a "Man hater."