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?

PS my comments about mothers were not to say that mothers were responsible for men's violence.

Rather that men held women responsible for any perceived feelings on their part towards the first woman/person they ever loved, mum.

Although of course the flip side is that the first women/person we all love is usually mum and women don't use this as an excuse to hurt other women!

Night all.

"sons being spanked by their mothers lays the foundations towards a violent attitude"

That's quite the random cherry you've picked.

Girls don't learn violence from getting spanked by mom because...?

Also, remember that "men were perpetrators in 99% of child rape".

I suppose one of the questions to answer in the why of it all is : do other species of animal have the same pattern of male dominance and how much does it correlate to differences of size, patterns of female promiscuity etc, seeing as that seems to be such a bugbear for men traditionally? Does rape exist in other species of primates?

As for the spanking and child abuse theory well yes that will surely have an effect because it establishes a pattern of response but it doesn't explain why the adult paths of abused boys and girls are still so different.

Gorillas are very sexually dimorphic. The larger males compete between themselves.

Does rape exist in other species of primates?

It does in orangutans.

There's been research on mating systems in primates re: testes size v how dimorphic they are. Basically it seems you don't need big balls if you're a big lad anyway. I know I have the reference for it in a book, not sure if its on the net.

"Does rape exist in other species of primates?"

It's an interesting question but I'm not sure how it would be answered as the cognition to determine consent/willingness is surely not there?

X post Cadno

Would be interested in orang utan point if you find the link.

Have a look at the entry in orang utans on Wiki. There isn't much there, but I've read it elsewhere too - maybe the book i referred to. From memory it was called '100 years since Darwin' and published by Nature

I asked that question before. And the consensus was the reason is testosterone (probably). Which doesn't really explain why some people with high testosterone aren't violent.

Although it wouldn't surprise me if there wasn't some link to parental behaviour.

For instance, I don't think Jimmy Savile was violent, as such, but he certainly had a thing for sexual control. According to the Louis Theroux documentary, his relationship with his mother was downright weird.

Violence by men gets sensationalised all the time in media, films, etc, and is provided as entertainment - being violent in and of itself doesn't come across as negative to the public, it's frequently shown as a positive thing.

The balance tips when it becomes grossly unfair, ie towards women, or perverted, i.e. towards children - which everyone seems to agree on.

So testosterone might make men more prone to violence, but there is something else going on when that violence becomes twisted.

For instance, I don't think Jimmy Savile was violent, as such, but he certainly had a thing for sexual control. According to the Louis Theroux documentary, his relationship with his mother was downright weird.

Interesting. It depends how you define violence. Volence isn't just physical. It's better defined as the purposeful infliction of suffering, whether physical or psychological.

Saville did have a messed up relationship with his mother - but then I'd venture the majority of paedophiles, rapists and serial killers had dysfunctional childhoods. The question is why do some people who have dysfunctional childhoods not go on to be violent or abuse? And also why do disproportionately few women with dysfunctional childhoods go on to become criminally abberant?

I'd say it's partly an issue of anatomical capability. Upper body strength and a penis do make men capable of violent and sexual crimes that women are not. But it's also socialisation. Females are socialised to believe that women are not violent or sexually dominant, so it maybe never occurs to them to express aggression in that way. The only time they do is in very masculinised environments like the military, prisons or even on a hockey pitch - all places where that kind of aggressive energy is given a green light. Otherwise women tend to demonstrate sadism and manipulation in very subtle, covert ways - or in conjunction with a man.

I have been sexually abused as a child by both a man and a women. I was never in any doubt that I had been abused by the man, but it took me years to realise I had been sexually exploited by the woman because it was disguised as affection and care. It was very different.

I guess I'm trying to say that not only are men overall more violent, but that when women are violent it is often in a very different way.

"Basically it seems you don't need big balls if you're a big lad anyway."

I understood it that the bigger the balls the more promiscuous the females of that species. Competing sperm and all that. Which would lend itself to the idea that it is natural for primate species with large testes to want to control women's reproduction and therefore sexuality.

And equally natural for the females of that species to not want to be controlled because they need to maximise the amount of sperm as well as make paternity uncertain (to protect the offspring from being killed by the new alpha)

Also, women being physical less strong means that "fight or flight" is not such an option for them because, well, pointless. Especially if you have kids with you.

So females developed the "tend and befriend" response to anticipated danger instead.

So our instincts are different. But society tends to see "fight or flight" as the norm and pretty much every action film is an extended glorification of the "fight or flight" response bouncing between fights and chases.

And also why women's lack of fight or flight in many rape cases is so misunderstood. When faced with a male who can easily overpower you your best chance is to talk yourself out of the situation yet people generally react with "why didn't you fight back?"

I understood it that the bigger the balls the more promiscuous the females of that species. Competing sperm and all that. Which would lend itself to the idea that it is natural for primate species with large testes to want to control women's reproduction and therefore sexuality.

And equally natural for the females of that species to not want to be controlled because they need to maximise the amount of sperm as well as make paternity uncertain (to protect the offspring from being killed by the new alpha)

Chimps - that's chimps that is. See Nature Vol. 293 pp 55-57; 1981. Article is somewhat boringly entitled 'Testis weight, body weight and breeding in primates'.

So females developed the "tend and befriend" response to anticipated danger instead.

I didn't know that. But it makes perfect sense. It is my first option if someone is against me. I suppose it comes from a viewpoint of if 'they truly knew where I was coming from, they would understand'. Which explains why many marriage guidance counsellors is say that this tactic is all but useless within a warring marriage.

Thanks Cadno I'll have a look. I was assuming that the principle of ^testes = ^ female promiscuity applied to all primate species and that human testes are somewhere in the middle, bigger than gibbons, smaller than chimps

Datun, it is interesting isn't it? I looked into it because when someone insults me I find myself being overly nice (and annoyed with myself after for being such a wuss). The original fight/flight theory was developed on mostly male participants. It never made much sense to me.

I suppose one of the questions to answer in the why of it all is : do other species of animal have the same pattern of male dominance and how much does it correlate to differences of size, patterns of female promiscuity etc, seeing as that seems to be such a bugbear for men traditionally? Does rape exist in other species of primates?

It surely exists, because being much less inteligent than we are, they are much more dominated by their instincts, don't have the same capacity for empathy and didn't develop concepts like individual rights and so on.

However, this theme reminded me of an article I read some time ago about how female bonobos (along with chimps, the closest species to humans) somehow developed in a different way from other primates and actively fight rape/harassment:

www.nytimes.com/2016/09/13/science/bonobos-apes-matriarchy.html

The article is a bit long, but between other things, it tells that when a female is being attacked by a male, other females nearby will side with her. This system garanties that females are colectively protected from being raped by stronger males.

Kioka it's normally chauvinist men who argue that male aggression is predetermined by nature - thus legitimising patriarchy as inevitable. There are some very conservatives views being flung about on here.

*conservative views

It's simply not the case that the vast majority of abuse is carried out by men. ONS stats for domestic abuse for example have it at around 65% Female victims and 35% Male . Other reports have it more like 50-50 or even women being majority of abusers when you take into account the the vastly hidden and under reporting that goes on with male victims

I totally disagree with your reading of the statistics.

Jms, welcome to Mumsnet and thank you for taking the extraordinary step of joining a website for parents simply in order to post a roundly debunked and generally laughed at misreading of statistics.

People like you are why statistics and critical thinking should be mandatory subjects in schools.

Xenophile, thankyou for the personal attack - a sure sign that you've lost the argument!
I agree that people should think critically for themselves and not accept the traditional narratives that get trumpeted over and over again ( ie all women are victims, men are perpetrators).
That's why I urge ALL readers on this thread to look at the stats for themselves. Go on! Have a look ! It won't take as long as you might think! Go to the official government website (ons.gov.uk) or Google it and look for yourself before you form an opinion.
The summary page is here;
The CSEW estimates that 8.2% of women and 4.0% of men reported experiencing any type of domestic abuse in the last year (that is, partner / ex-partner abuse (non-sexual), family abuse (non-sexual) and sexual assault or stalking carried out by a current or former partner or other family member). This is equivalent to an estimated 1.3 million female victims and 600,000 male victims.

There were 6.5% of women and 2.8% of men who reported having experienced any type of partner abuse in the last year, equivalent to an estimated 1.1 million female victims and 500,000 male victims.

Overall, 27.1% of women and 13.2% of men had experienced any domestic abuse since the age of 16, equivalent to an estimated 4.5 million female victims and 2.2 million male victims.

Yawns

Has it gone yet?

You need to do some research if you want people to take you seriously, jmsl. With men responsible for 90% of violent crime and 98% of sex crime your claim that women are the violent ones is piffle. When it comes to DV 44% of female homicide victims are killed by partners/ex partners compared with 6% of men. Men are responsible for the lion's share of DV.

Reading about sex differences in crime would aid you if you're interested in debate on the topic. The tired old phoney DV claims you're making are MRA tropes and you'll find it hard to get anyone to bother engaging.

HTH.