Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

WHY do so many (it seems) men hate and fear women?

205 replies

Hullygully · 17/09/2013 14:27

I was thinking about this the other day. Women earn less, get killed more, are objectified blah blah we all know the stats. They are real stats, the facts are that women have it worse. So why do men fear and hate them so much that they can't bear it pointed out? The "ball-breaking" language of the 70s continues in a different form. BUT WHY?

OP posts:
BuffytheReasonableFeminist · 20/09/2013 09:19

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

BuffytheReasonableFeminist · 20/09/2013 09:20

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Hullygully · 20/09/2013 09:20

yes

OP posts:
BuffytheReasonableFeminist · 20/09/2013 09:42

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

ErrolTheDragon · 20/09/2013 09:49

Buffy - yes, spot on. 'othering' is so strong that when the enlightened (for their time) Founding Fathers proclaimed 'all men are created equal' it was a given that meant 'all white males'.

Beachcomber · 20/09/2013 10:05

Yes to biology.

There is a difference to the following (not exhaustive) male behaviours;

a) actively hating women as a group and being openly offensive/aggressive towards women as a group. (e.g MRA)

b) actively hating the individual woman/women in one's actual circle and being abusive/aggressive towards them. (e.g. abusive husband/boyfriend/father)

c) actively benefiting from (and perpetuating) male dominated society. (e.g paying women less than men knowing that one will get away with it or sexually harassing women and knowing one will get away with it).

d) passively benefiting from (and perpetuating) male dominated society whilst in general behaving in a nonaggressive/abusive manner to the women in one's life. (e.g. talking more and finding it normal to be more heard than women. doing less housework or childcare than one's partner whilst thinking one does as much. being promoted/employed over a woman who is better than you and accepting the job. participating in a political system where your class is over-represented. internalizing and (unconsciously) acting on negative female stereotypes, general and unconscious feelings of entitlement, failure to recognise dangers of PIV sex for women, etc, etc...)

All of the above are manifestations of misogyny but a lot of people stop recognising that at behaviour c) and consider behaviours d) to be the status quo and acceptable/normal (that is when they are even aware of behaviours d)

And this is when we hear 'not me/my Nigel'. What that means is I/my Nigel doesn't do a, b, and c .

Resisting behaviour d means resisting all cultural influence, socialization and socio-cultural learning about the very fabric of our society. Quite a feat...

Beachcomber · 20/09/2013 10:06

And yes to strong parallels with racism.

SinisterSal · 20/09/2013 10:41

Yes to the othering thing. I think that is what a little 'harmless' objectification does so well. The likes of pg 3 etc. That's why i tend to see the pg 3 issue and the porn issue as two quite distinct things, rather than different points on the one scale.

People tend to sympathise with and respect more people with whom they identify. That's why othering is dangerous. You unconsciously belittle other peoples' struggles, triumphs or even little everyday niggles.

Beachcomber · 20/09/2013 11:04

Yes, from me too on 'othering'.

It is what allows so much of behaviour d to happen and be considered hunky dory.

weregonnaneedasmallerPan · 20/09/2013 17:44

Interesting that the blokes here undermine the strength of 'procreative/child production' power of women, and the women insist this is the very defining case. There obv will be powerful social/political and practical forces at play, it's just that we blokes (here) discount the effects.
For me it's an overall respect for peoples right to self-determination which had been made v plain to me when growing up. It doesn't mean I'd be very happy having a partner who was shagging around, nor indeed be over the moon about raising another man's child, though the needs of said child would be first and foremost.

The consequence of the 'othering' I'd go along with and has been fairly apparent to the point of being a truism - it provides the basis of sooo much poor, deathly behaviours, from refusing to recognise and responding to other's needs, eg in the workplace, to mass anihilations of people who are ethnically 'other'.

weregonnaneedasmallerPan · 20/09/2013 17:45

yes, that cross out should be peoples self-determination . I obv don't do 'bold' very well.

BelleDameSansMerci · 20/09/2013 18:07

Pan, that post surprised me. Would you really be troubled by bringing up another man's child or do you mean where you would be being deceived into thinking the child was yours?

weregonnaneedasmallerPan · 20/09/2013 18:59

Crumbs BDSM, I guess looking back I asked for that.

I have 'brought up' another man's child in the past, a boy from when he was 11 until 15 when me and his mother separated, and by all measures it was a comparatively very good time for him, which I'm told has lasted him well.
I'd think ( theoretical now) a deception would be an issue. Having little ones is the biggest thing adults do in their lives, so to premise that on dishonesty would be a marker on everything else we did. It would be really tricky to deal with as there is now a small person in the world who needs love and caring for, no matter what has happened between the procreators. So in that theoretical world, yes I wouldn't be "over the moon", but knowing myself, I'd be open to fairly hard-nosed talk esp re the intent/commitment of the bio father. I'd think that's reasonable?

Couldn't you think of an easier question?Smile

BasilBabyEater · 20/09/2013 19:16

Ooh I love that list Beachcomber, it's really useful.

Will be nicking that one.

Grin
BelleDameSansMerci · 20/09/2013 19:33

Pan Grin

It was rude of me to ask really but was interested to I understand what you really meant.

weregonnaneedasmallerPan · 20/09/2013 19:43

Did I say too much?

nah it wasn't rude. Essentially, little ones come first and the grown ups have to deal with that fact.

The issues of 'deception' though is quite a biggie for some. The 'petition' of some mens groups to have paternity testing is 1. such a big own goal and 2. in the big scheme of things doesn't really matter imho.

BuffytheReasonableFeminist · 20/09/2013 20:41

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

DebrisSlide · 20/09/2013 20:57

I think that there are a lot of men out there who fear having to compete with women on their own merits and be found wanting. Or have done so and really resent it. Actually, resentment is probably the most common word to describe what I see and hear on a daily basis, rather than hatred. Not that the effects are any less harmful for women.

Great post, Beachcomber. I would add to d) - taking advantage of the fact that some men are violent, in order to play into the fear of male violence and dominate a situation, even if they have no intention of being violent in action.

weregonnaneedasmallerPan · 20/09/2013 22:07

Buffy - I'll have a stab at some of your post?

I think the social construct of the modern 'family' as we know it (and the sexual stability it demands) was a function of capitalism and it's need for a single consuming unit - though oddly capitalism as an economic system thrives on instability. The Victorian notion of 'romantic' love (one man, one woman, and concomitant with the growth of capitalism) binds us into that deal ,which natural action abhors. Fredich Engels, Marx's collaborator, lays this pretty much bare in his thesis on 'the family'. I don't recall the title of the published book, poss "Origin of the Family in Working Class England" (?) as he researched heavily in England as this country was in the vanguard of capitalism's development.

So most things became 'property' in fact, incl women, and esp children. We of course see that being played out today, even on MN threads.
'Investing' in other men's children is a direct connection to that, imho, ie in the world of survival and business, why 'invest' in a competitors 'production'?
The continuance of that is sexual 'rights' over women. In contrast, I am def. the least sexually jealous person I know, based on, I think, the notion of self determination for all, which is okay as I am equally questioning of capitalism as being a good 'blue print' for anything at all.

No, we can't 'know' and prove universal theories, but we can do a fair bit of informed analysis and look for answers from 'where we came from' and fairly recently historically.

Well that reads back like a clumsy broadsword.

weregonnaneedasmallerPan · 20/09/2013 22:18

and sorry if you know all of that capitalism stuff already, it just seemed aprop to your enquiry.

BuffytheReasonableFeminist · 21/09/2013 09:41

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

KaseyM · 21/09/2013 09:59

Once we've done answering this question we should probably ask why women hate women so much, if the current thread in AIBU is anything to go by.

weregonnaneedasmallerPan · 21/09/2013 10:18

yes, I said I'd have a stab at it Buffy - I wasn't thinking it would be anything you'd be satisfied with.Grin

KaseyM - you should probably have a look upthread.

Beachcomber · 21/09/2013 12:14

Nick away BasilBabyEater Smile

With regards to Engels His book on Victorain England was The Condition of the Working Class in England and was a critique of the industrial revolution's effect on the quality of life of the working class. He analysed the origin of the family in "The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State". And both he and Marx analysed the organisation of the patriarchal family as being a miniature version and precursor of the state organisation (capitalism) which was to follow.

In this text he identifies the beginning of patriarchy (as we conceive of it) as originating in the change from mother right to father right as a result of inheritance customs concerning farming assets and paternal lines. Pages 63 to 66 of the pdf are the relevant sections.

On the death of the herd owner, therefore, his herds passed, first of all, to his brothers and sisters and to his sisters’ children or to the descendants of his mother’s sisters. His own children, however, were disinherited. Thus, as wealth increased, it, on the one hand, gave the man a more important status in the family than the woman, and, on the other hand, created a stimulus to utilise this strengthened position in order to overthrow the traditional order of inheritance in favour of his children. But this was impossible as long as descent according to mother right prevailed. This had, therefore, to be overthrown, and it was overthrown; and it was not so difficult to do this as it appears to us now. For this revolution — one of the most decisive ever experienced by mankind — need not have disturbed one single living member of a gens. All the members could remain what they were previously. The simple decision sufficed that in future the descendants of the male members should remain in the gens, but that those of the females were to be excluded from the gens and transferred to that of their father. The reckoning of descent through the female line and the right of inheritance through the mother were hereby overthrown and male lineage and right of inheritance from the father instituted. We know nothing as to how and when this revolution was effected among the civilised peoples. It falls entirely within prehistoric times. That it was actually effected is more than proved by the abundant traces of mother right which have been collected, especially by Bachofen.

The overthrow of mother right was the world-historic defeat of the female sex. The man seized the reins in the house also, the woman was degraded, enthralled, the slave of the man’s lust, a mere instrument for breeding children. This lowered position of women, especially manifest among the Greeks of the Heroic and still more of the Classical Age, has become gradually embellished and dissembled and, in part, clothed in a milder form, but by no means abolished. The first effect of the sole rule of the men that was now established is shown in the intermediate form of the family which now emerges, the patriarchal family.

He then quotes Marx - The modern family contains in embryo not only slavery (servitus) but serfdom also, since from the very beginning it is connected with agricultural services. It contains within itself in miniature all the antagonisms which later develop on a wide scale within society and its state. Such a form of the family shows the transition of the pairing family to monogamy. In order to guarantee the fidelity of the wife, that is, the paternity of the children, the woman is placed in the man’s absolute power; if he kills her, he is but exercising his right.

SinisterSal · 21/09/2013 16:13

How come the property was the man's in the first place to bequeath?