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.

There is no obvious reason why women cannot compete with men in most sports other than tradition/misogyny

The obvious reason they can't compete is because they are smaller and physically weaker, i don't see how that is a controversial statement. Female athletes, tennis players, golfers etc etc presumably train just as hard as the men but are not able to compete with them. Lionel Messi is a strong as an ox although he may be short in stature.

it's not really true in most cases

So your position is that most women are physically as strong or stronger than men ? Really ? Well if that is true i withdraw my position that men came to dominate repress women at least initially due to their physical advantage.

Sabrina,

I know that you think that it's all about power and control and that men despise and fear us. I disagree. How sad to think that no man has ever done something for a woman out of love or respect - only to further his interests.

"carrot of 'male protection' is held over us, as some sort of consolation prize."

Actually, in some examples here, it is being used to show you that it isn't always about men trying to control women or because they despise them. Sometimes it's because they love women and want to protect them.

Offred,

I've actually been consistent in my responses against the idea that men despise women. I would be interested to know what review paper you have read.

Do you think it is impossible that a man would protect his wife and children because he loves them and not simply because he thinks they are his possessions?

"If men did not seek to oppress, control and own women then rival men would not have tried to take possession of them or harm them in order to threaten their rival."

Do you not think it is possible that men could be fighting to take over land and that women and children were often the casualties because they were physically weaker? Why do you think it was always about taking possession of or trying to harm women?

Keep it hidden

" The underlying thinking is that women are weaker, less able, than men so the two are seperated. "

But men are (usually) physically stronger than women. That is a biological fact. We are different. In the same way that boxers/wrestlers etc are categorised based on weight, it makes sense separate men and women for many sports. In sports where there isn't separation it is usually because an advantage in height/weight/build doesn't matter. Rugby? Seriously? You think men wouldn't have an advantage over women in rugby?

"To be fair, Offred, some of the posting on the subject (by women) reads like 'it's all men's fault'. I think some feminists do subscribe to that view, and there are handful of posters on this thread (the minority, and not you) who seem to be here to stick the boot in. I do think this is massively unhelpful. Feminism is not going to 'smash the system'/dismantle the patriarchy on its own - it needs to win hearts and minds, including those of decent men. Man-bashing - and indeed Greer's 'men despise women' quote (when she actually meant to say nothing of the sort) move things backwards, not forwards, imo."

Good post dancing bear.

Sorry folks, I should clarify. I think the physical difference is far less than commonly nmade out and I think it matters far less than most people think. I do not disagree that there is a physical difference and in sports such as weightlifting, this is going to be very apparent. In others where skill and technique are more important, the differences are going to be far less.

Also, just a couple of reponses:

I think rugby is a poor example of your argument as it is so dependent on brute strength

Except when it comes to dodging and weaving, throwing and kicking? Other than that, you're right I could've used a better example!

train just as hard as the men but are not able to compete with them

Well, we don't know that as they haven't had the opportunity! It's kind of self fulfilling no?

So your position is that most women are physically as strong or stronger than men ? Really

No, my position is that they probably are, but the differences are overblown and conditioned by society.

Do you think it is impossible that a man would protect his wife and children because he loves them and not simply because he thinks they are his possessions?

Of course I do. I sincerely believe my own dh would - as I said earlier individual men often love individual women. But we are talking about men as a class, women as a class - all living within a patriarchal society here. Should say, I'm discussing that. It's clearly going way over your head.

*Of course I think it's possible.

men as a class, women as a class

Please can you define what you mean by men/women 'as a class' in this context.

No. Do some reading on feminism.

The FWR section is good.

^No. Do some reading on feminism.

The FWR section is good.^

Weakest post I've ever seen. You can't, can you?

Why the aggression btw? It wasn't an aggressive question, it was a genuine one? Do you speak to everyone like that?

I don't know I'm afraid VFXdad, my knowledge of rugby is pretty limited and my knowledge of the professional game even more so.

I could guess that the team would be weaker in some areas, but maybe stronger in others. So any good coach/manager should play to the teams strongest traits, maybe better acceleration or agility? It may change the way the game is played (within the rules) but would they be weaker? I really don't know. As PP said rugby may not be the best example, particulalry as I'm lacking knowledge and it is quite a physical sport compared to say snooker or table tennis.

Ok dancingbear - have a read of this if it was a genuine question

It was a genuine question, and thank you. I will have a read over lunchtime.

Why the presumption that it wasn't? The definition of 'as a class' is pretty key to understanding your post.

I don't think pitting women against men would do women any favours. The medal winning potential would vaporize.

Of course it would, same with golf tennis etc etc - if they didn't have a "womens british open" then i predict no women would make the cut, tennis would be even worse, they wouldn't even qualify. Football rugby etc are all the same. I know that many men were upset when the golfer Michelle Wie got to compete in mens events, arguing, validly, that they ought to get to enter womens events where they would stand a much better chance and be able to pick up prize money they were not good enough to win on the mens tour.

As for your argument that somehow professional female athletes over the past 20 or 30 years do not train as hard or try as hard as men because of social conditioning, and without that then they would be as good as them, is just ridiculous.

Sabrina, it's not 'going over my head'. Just because someone doesn't agree with you does not mean that they don't understand you. I'm pointing out the flaws in your generalisations. Men 'as a class' is made up of many men just like your husband. Why should you lump them all together under an umbrella statement that doesn't even apply to the men you know? The article you linked to is discussing the privileges of men 'as a class' - that is, they are saying that all men benefit from it consciously/unconsciously . Referring to them 'as a class' makes sense in that context. Using it when you make blanket statements such as 'men as a class despise women as a class ' is not comparable.

"As for your argument that somehow professional female athletes over the past 20 or 30 years do not train as hard or try as hard as men because of social conditioning, and without that then they would be as good as them, is just ridiculous."

One could argue that women may be disadvantaged slightly by interruptions to their training due to pregnancy/childbirth but that has nothing to do with social conditioning.

I wouldn't bother, bumbleymummy, I think you're banging your head against a brick wall with that one. Thanks for saving me the effort of setting out my exact thoughts on the article she linked to.

Sabrinnna do you not see that picking rows and speaking sarcastically to people who are trying to engage with and understand your viewpoint achieves absolutely nothing?

Thing is, bumbley, I don't think think you do understand it. Your posts suggest that you don't.

You agreed upthread that men are dominant over women in society - that is an analysis of men as a class, compared to women as a class. Not every single individual man is dominant over every single individual woman. However, as a class, men are dominant over women.

It's a class analysis.

dancingbear, if you want to engage, then engage. I linked you to the article - if you don't agree then

If you don't understand a class analysis then

I understand a class analysis, don't be so bloody insulting. As stated, you don't seem to be able to interact with others without going out of your way to be rude. You're not worth bothering with.

dancingbear - if you understand a class analysis, then why on earth did you ask what I meant by 'men as a class' ??

Because I wanted to understand how you were using it. Bumbleymummy has explained upthread how your analysis is wrong. Your response to this was ''.

End of conversation, I think. Cheerio.

I was using it as a class analysis - how else would I be using it?

RE: Sports - Fair enough, this is all a bit of a theoretical debate and I accept that many people don't agree with me. Mostly those in charge of professional sports organisations! I just don't think the differences are as big as many would like to make out and if women and men were given a chance to play together in many sports I think it'd be interesting to find out how each gender faired and how the game faired. I suspect that the games would become a lot more skilful and less physical mass driven, but I could be wrong.

Regarding the Golf, I think there should be a better way of organising things than by gender. Isn't that what the handicap system is for? again it's another sport I'm not familiar with.

As for your argument that somehow professional female athletes over the past 20 or 30 years do not train as hard or try as hard as men because of social conditioning, and without that then they would be as good as them, is just ridiculous

Well, yes that would be ridiculous if that's what I was arguing. I wasn't and I don't intend to. Athletics is probably one of the areas where gender differences are more apparent.

However, there is a significant gap in funding provided to both professional and amateur female sports compared to their male equivalents. There is also a significant amount of conditioning in genders growing up whereby boys are encouraged far more to pursue sports, use their phyisque, accept and deliver physical force etc. Therefore they are better at that when they grow up, they have more opportunities presented to them and there is a far bigger pool from which to draw the professionals.

I think to ignore both of these is to miss a big part out of the debate.

I played squash in my local league ladder, and it is joint male and female. I think this is A Good Thing. The top divisions still ended up dominated by men, with no women even getting into the top one. If the professional competitions were joint, I doubt any women would even get through the qualifying. Whilst there are undoubtedly things which mean women are at a disadvantage (primarily the difference in participation levels), you cannot ignore that the physical differences would make it next to impossible for women to compete effectively against men.

As it happens, some sports are open for women to compete with men. These are primarily more on the skills end of the spectrum. I don't know of any sports where there is much of an athletic component where women can compete on an even footing. Shooting was joint male and female at the olympics for a time, and women managed to win a gold and a silver in a couple of events. They changed it back to separate genders though. I think there is no bar on women competing in darts and snooker, though none have ever got through qualifying I believe. But then so few women play compared to men, so it's difficult to say whether there is something inbuilt so that men would be better. Steve Davis got into trouble recently because he said women wouldn't get to the same level as they are not as 'obsessive'....