Please help me to not hate men

[LastGirlOnTheLeft]

I have a wonderful dad and husband. I have sons, and I love them all to pieces. But I do believe that I am starting to hate men. When I read about their abuse of women and children and animals as well, I really feel HATE!!

I don't want to hate them. I don't want to be anything like those god awful woman haters, those soulless losers who obsess over women and who are lost, probably forever. I am NOT like them, because I do feel love and like for the men in my life. Just no other man.

Any advice?

It is a horrible hang on from the distant past dating back ages and it has nothing to do with men "oppressing" women and all to do with stupid "rituals" (which can be mainly traced to religious beliefs) which have been handed down generation to generation, which includes by women to women.
I was going to write a reply to this but italian wrote a far more comprehensive one than I could.
You must be very hard of thinking to think FGM has nothing to do with mens oppressing women. It's one of the most uncontroversial examples there is.

rufus I am impressed you got far enough though the wall of text to notice

devi

I did doze off in the middle but i persevered

I like to think that people wouldnt go on and on and on and on unless they had something interesting to say

I am usually right in that thought...

But occasionally i am so so wrong

Regarding FGM, which is performed by women to make girls marriageable, a campaign among the Masai is working to change the expectations of men. The thinking is that as Masai men have been raised to expect their wives to have been mutilated it's more likely to be stopped by managing their expectations rather than tackle it from the women's angle.

Interesting article prawn.
Let's hope it does spread.

Italiangreyhound thank you for taking the time to respond. For what it's worth I will genuinely reflect on what you've said. I think your analysis of hunter-gatherer societies is spot on. I will go over that link with an open mind. Take care.

Thank you AntiSocialInjusticePacifist but it is not my analysis, I heard it on the radio! Radio 4, doncha know!

i was pleased to find the link, it is massive, but it makes a lot of sense. It is cartoons so easier to read! I am a cartoon and radio sort of person!!

FGM If you have a very strong stomach you may wish to watch

www.channel4.com/programmes/the-day-i-will-never-forget

The girls towards the end have gone to court to prevent FGM being done on them. They are inspirational.

Badcat if you want to understand a bit more about FGM you could also read this www.jstor.org/stable/2096305?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

This is not my opinion, it is considered comparison with FGM and Foot binding. Foot binding lasted for 1,000 years and ended (in the most part) in a single generation.

You can only see the first page but I think it is clear it is all about controlling females - now who do you think may have an interest in doing that!*

Been thinking about this a bit more.

I think we need to draw some distinctions. There is hating men because men have done something awful to you personally. This I believe is the OP's situation and it is entirely understandable that she hates - or is struggling not to hate - men. No one can judge her or that. Then there is hating systems of male oppression and the rapists, pimps and domestic abusers who uphold it. Again, a completely justifiable righteous anger.

Of course these distinctions are not clear cut and do overlap, but I think we need to be wary of adopting the hatred of men as a class as a political position. That's problematic for a number of reasons. For one it suggests that there's something wrong not with a culture of masculinity but the condition of being male itself: that, in other words, men are intrinsically morally inferior to women, which is obviously not true. And also no good can come of it. Even Gandhi, Mandela and MLK knew no good could from hating white/British people as a class. Indeed I'm sure Pankhurst and Davison would have felt the same about men.

Mouse "For one it suggests that there's something wrong not with a culture of masculinity but the condition of being male itself"

Can you explain why you think this?

With the exception of one or two clearly deranged people there are no people, male or female, who hate people because they are male.

Despite the titles thread we all understand when this phrase is used - by the OP and me - that we do not hate all men personally.

So we are thinking of a class, males as a group. And, I feel sure, no woman (or man) hates all male babies or male young children, or male animals.

Yes there is lunatic woman on the internet saying kill male babies - let's not bring the deranged into it.

So we do not intrinsically hate males, but many feel men as a class, as they are socialized to become under patriarchy are. 'worthy' of a feeling we could label 'hate'.

I still feel when we use this we do all understand it is not the same emotion we have for someone who has personally hurt us. And again the thread is asking how the OP can not hate all men.

So we do not intrinsically hate males, but many feel men as a class, as they are socialized to become under patriarchy are. 'worthy' of a feeling we could label 'hate'.

I agree with much of what you say, but the above distinction seems murky. Are you saying that only men who exhibit patriarchal traits are worthy of hate? Or that all men are socialised by patriarchy and therefore all men are worthy of hate to some degree until that socialisation ceases?

If it is the latter then you are in effect saying that men as a class are worthy of hate, surely?

"Are you saying that only men who exhibit patriarchal traits are worthy of hate?" Yes.

"Or that all men are socialised by patriarchy and therefore all men are worthy of hate to some degree until that socialisation ceases?"

Well, to be clear I feel pretty much 'all men are socialised by patriarchy' but actually some come out very nice and kind and manage to get through life without being total arses. But they never get it totally. My dh is amazing and great but if I were to say there is a war on women, he would not understand, and when I explain, he can't see it.

But to be clear I do not WANT to hate anyone. I am a very loving and nurturing type person and do not want to hate anyone!

"If it is the latter then you are in effect saying that men as a class are worthy of hate, surely?"

Well, i am not saying that, and I am trying not to say that, but I feel men are just unaware that their class, their people do a lot of awful stuff, just as I am not aware of all the horrible things white people have done to people of colour.

Hate is a strong word but simply expressing a strong emotion - it is not doing hateful things.

I do agree. Although I'm by nature an individualist so I'm reluctant to see myself as a member of a female class or any type of class. However I recognise that a class based analysis does have its place.

msanonymouse wrote - "I'm by nature an individualist so I'm reluctant to see myself as a member of a female class or any type of class."

How about the class of individualists?
How about the class of humans?

Don't you think that part of the issue is the lack of recognition that there is a problem? And sometimes a deliberate unwillingness to see the problem?

I was at a talk the other day and the speaker was making the point that the media and society make such a huge deal about the relatively small innate differences between men and women with regards to things like spatial reasoning and linguistic skills but when it comes to the glaringly huge differences in crime statistics no one expends any energy investigating that.

And if you point it out there's always someone who pipes up with "but women do it too".

I think that leads to a kind of reluctant resentment, not because I want to dislike anyone but I just want some men (and women, because let's face it there are plenty of upsuckers) to stand up and say "yeah it's a problem".

ballpark totally agree. Not sure if you saw a lot of posts up thread debating the very small number of female sex offenders. We just want to talk about anything other than men being fucking horrible (Not all men, not all the time)

I was at a talk the other day and the speaker was making the point that the media and society make such a huge deal about the relatively small innate differences between men and women with regards to things like spatial reasoning and linguistic skills but when it comes to the glaringly huge differences in crime statistics no one expends any energy investigating that.

Yeah, it is fascinating. This is so very obvious, much more obvious than any possible small differences in linguistic skills, etc., but no one seems to want to talk about it.

The thing about female sex offenders kicked off because someone suggested that a load of 'feminists' were right to try and derail a conference about them. I was disappointed that the sisters on here were not as outraged by this poisonous view as they rightly would've been had someone suggested a load of men were right to kick off at a conference on rape.

I only raised the issue to illustrate a point and would've left it at that had not such a dubious view been expressed.

It is entirely possible to argue that men are the major problem while acknowledging that women do sick, evil shit too. I don't see a problem with that. This isn't a competition.

Indeed, as feminists it is important we remember that women are not all passive, maternal nurturers like patriarchy tells us; that men do most of the bad things because they have the power to do so and are socialised to believe they are entitled to that power; and that women are human beings too and just as capable of doing awful things. They don't do awful things as much because of patriarchy. This is a general rule but on an individual to individual basis it does not apply.

mouse not again, please. Feminists need to think about the big picture and talk about the big picture. ANY and ALL abuse of others, adults, children, women, men, (animals) all is WRONG.

"This isn't a competition" of course it is not. But when we talk about logical concerns about the massively more violent part of the male population there will always be someone, male or female, who wants to talk about the minuscule violent part of the female population.

"Indeed, as feminists it is important we remember that women are not all passive, maternal nurturers like patriarchy tells us"

No feminists say they are.

"That men do most of the bad things because they have the power to do so and are socialised to believe they are entitled to that power" OK....

"...women are human beings too and just as capable of doing awful things. They don't do awful things as much because of patriarchy."

You know I have never really thought about this but as I think about it now that women are of course human beings too and just as capable of doing awful things ... but they don't do awful things as much ... and maybe we should find out why that is. And maybe whatever it is that makes women less likely to do awful things could be expanded to the whole population.

And maybe even the awful things women do are also "because of patriarchy."

Because maybe:
women grow up in homes where men are drunkards that batter their mothers, and they think, 'Not me', and become quite tough and hard to cope
maybe they end up in abusive relationships where they are coerced to abuse others (I am trying to not taking away any autonomy from these women but maybe they release that autonomy because of 'love' for the terrible men who embroil them in their lives and evil plans)
maybe they end up in situations through poverty, drugs or abuse where they make poor choices for their children or where they are neglectful or abusive because of things done against them

I will not go so far as to say behind every bad woman is a bad man, but I wonder how much bad men influenced by patriarchy have actually created the bad women.

What do you mean by "I would say that actually This is a general rule but on an individual to individual basis it does not apply."

And maybe even the awful things women do are also "because of patriarchy.

Sorry but BS. Just like lots of people who are abused don't go on to abuse, lots of women with violent husbands or fathers don't beat or interfere with their own children.

No excuses for child abusers. None. Ever. If you abuse a child it's because you're a piece of shit and that's it. Male or female.

mouse I am not talking about child abusers. I know that some women end up in abusive relationships and because of this they neglect their kids. Neglect is not child abuse but can have just as devastating affects, in fact even more devastating on the brain of the child as the brain develops. Some women lose their children because they cannot leave their abusive partners. Do you think it is always love that keeps them there?

I am not saying I have made up my mind I am saying... You know I have never really thought about this but as I think about it now that women ... don't do awful things as much ... And maybe even the awful things women do are also "because of patriarchy."

Not exclusively, of course. I am not saying women are all good. Far from it. But I wonder if the toxic mix of society that is patriarchy, affects women in this way as well as affecting men in this way.

I am NOT speaking about child abuse now, can we leave that one out of it, but all the other violent acts and crimes. Women who compete with males in the world of business are they 'tougher' because they feel they need to 'compete' with men?

Right in the spirit of this class analysis I guess the question I'd want to answer is why are men more violent as a class that women? Now unfortunately I do not have the answer to that question, but I'd like to suggest a place to start. Although I suspect I am going to get some pushback thanks to the direction of enquiry.

Spanking and corporal punishment of children. I dug up this article from 2007:

www.livescience.com/1257-study-reveals-spanked.html

Now I would like to add the caveat that I think it's always wise to apply a healthy dose of skepticism to science journalism as often findings are misrepresented or taken out of context to get clicks. I have no idea how good this particular site is or isn't. I also haven't dug out the relevant studies and gone over them in great detail.

However I had a hunch, found an article and here it is (the hunch itself is evidence of my own confirmation bias that I do not like the notion that non-volent men are somehow culpable for violent men's behaviour). I am not making a truth claim that I have found the answer I'm just following a line of enquiry. The sample size in the study is only 800 so it is by no means definitive.

The article finds two things, firstly that boys are more likely to be spanked than girls, and secondly that mothers spank children more often than fathers do (although the article mentions no specific figures on what more often means). Is it therefore reasonable to theorize that sons being spanked by their mothers lays the foundations towards a violent attitude towards women? In addition the abuse is more likely the younger the child with a 3% decrease in liklihood of spanking with each year the child ages.

Now my intention in linking this is not to present some "ah-ah it's not men's (as a class) fault" argument which at this point is specious and that one article is not enough in way of evidence to say that anywhere near definitively. However is it reasonable to pursue this line of enquiry?

I think the men who become violent will no doubt have needed the foundation laid that set them on that trajectory when they were very young. If we're focused on this men as a class line of enquiry might we not overlook something like this as being the reason, and also something we can easily fix? i.e. if this idea has any merit if we just don't spank or hit our children might that fix the problem?

I was not spanked by my mother, and I am not violent, but I can see if how a man's first contact with womankind is one defined by patterns of abuse there can be a whole cornucopia of complex emotional and psychological factors. First that love for the mother is complicated by emotions of fear, and those patterns that get repeated later on in life.

AntiSocialInjusticePacifist Well it is interesting you day that...

"Is it therefore reasonable to theorize that sons being spanked by their mothers lays the foundations towards a violent attitude towards women?"

I've log felt men's violence against women may have some links to her disappointment in their mum! Maybe on some level they are jealous that mum had dad, maybe that mum let them down, etc. I had not considered that mum may be more likely to beat them than dad. My own experience was my mum hit me with a rather pathetic slipper etc and my dad only hit me a couple of time but it was much more horrible and made more of a negative impact on me.

Certainly violent parenting doesn't help. But I was smacked and I am not violent.

Generally both my parents were loving and kind and are now both dead.

I can't get the link to open fully so I've only read a bit of the article.

BUT well done for even caring why men are more violent. Wider society as a whole seems to be utterly unconcerned.

I've long felt men's violence against women may have some links to his disappointment in their mum!

The article finds two things

I counted ten. They even put them in bullet points to make them easy to count. The other 8 are nothing to do with your attempt to blame mothers for men's violence, even if you allow an unevidenced 10 year old newspaper article as being authoritative.