What makes men angry with women?

[Italiangreyhound]

What makes men angry with women?

Is this article of any interest? Does it offer any incites?

goodmenproject.com/featured-content/hidden-reason-men-angry-women-over-nothing-chwm/

Thanks in advance if anyone reads it.

That should say...

I'm not disputing men wanting sex leads to a spread of the human race, woman wanting it as much would lead to a further spread of it.

I'll have to disagree with you, sorry

I generally dislike it when people focus on the "right" words rather than what the topic is but in this case it matters.

I'm talking about men fancying girls from first visible signs of puberty. Not about our
Pre pubescent girls - which is paedophilia. These men are not paedophiles. And it's not a small number at all. Loads on men eye up schoolgirls on the street. In fact loads men publicly say that men are "hard wired" to want to fuck girls as soon as puberty hits because babies. This is rubbish as per my previous post. I'm surprised you think these men are not all over the place.

I believe that average men are plenty intetested in secondary school age girls.

For sure.

It may look like I am batting away all your points with a fly swatter! I am not.

A lot of what you say, I recognise as totally true of abusive of men.

And it may be anger leads to abuse, and abuse leads to (or stems from) entitlement, or leads to anger and.... What is the starting point?

For me, I do not believe this anger is innate, biological, evolutionary in a biological sense, about procreation or propagation of the species, or about testosterone or other hormones. If it is, we are fucked.

My natural optimism leads me to believe it is human socialization.

But is it pre or post are hunting gathering days?

And where dors it stem from (anger not abuse)?

woman wanting it as much would lead to a further spread of it.

But again, evolution isn't about the 'goal' of spreading the human race. It has no 'goals'. It functions purely by causing the more successful traits of each individual (reproductively speaking) to spread among the population over time.

So a male who takes every opportunity to have sex that he can, often does so at no (reproductive) cost to himself. Men can (and have) had hundreds of living offspring. If some of those offspring have traits that lead to them not being reproductively successful themselves, well he still has plenty of other chances. Quantity rather than quality, in other words, is a strategy that can work for him.

A woman can have only a limited number of children, and at the time we were evolving, would have been at high risk of either dying herself in the process, or of having her children die, and her genes never being passed on. It's possible to think of a number of reasons why women who just had lots of sex with lots of men would be at an evolutionary disadvantage in those circumstances. Not least because strong male jealousy and possessiveness would be likely to put her and her children in danger. Remember, in plenty of species, males will kill existing cubs who were fathered by a different male once they have mated with their mother.

As I said above; I believe inequality is the starting point for this issue, which has its roots in biology (unequal strength and vulnerability). The anger comes about because despite being physically weaker than men women are of equal moral worth and therefore men experience shame when they use and abuse us or even think about it. This is not something that is replicated at all in the animal kingdom (because animals do not have a sense of morality; this requires self reflection, language and (eek) identity.) Hence the anger defying evolutionary logic.

For me, I do not believe this anger is innate, biological, evolutionary in a biological sense, about procreation or propagation of the species, or about testosterone or other hormones. If it is, we are fucked.

But not necessarily, surely. Because civilisation exists partly to control our more destructive urges and desires. And civilisation wouldn't exist if we didn't also have positive, pro-social urges and desires. This is so important - we are a mixture, and lots of our desires conflict and so neutralise each, other, or allow the good ones to win out, or can be suppressed via socialisation.

However, my own belief is that if we pretend the negative stuff in human nature doesn't exist, we put ourselves in danger of being overwhelmed by it, and of making mistake after mistake. So, to take a current example, the whole problem with the rise of transactivism taking away women's sex based rights arises, IMO, from too many people out there wanting to close their eyes to the existence of biologically based oppression of women, because they would rather pretend the world is a happy rainbow place.

NothingOnTellyAgain it's ok to disagree.

I don't know how we judge it, how do we know how many men are sexually interested in school girls?

Some people have recounted here appalling stories of they themselves or their teenage daughter receiving unwanted male attention from adult males when adolescents.

I am not trying to minimise that at all. It is vile

I am simply saying it doesn't answer my question for me but I am not trying to stop you talking about it, especially if you think it is relevant.

I don't believe guys are hard wired in this way and even if they were there is still the option not to act on or allow such thoughts.

Myself I never received unwanted male attention pre 16. That does not mean I do not believe you, it just means I do not believe it is a universal male or female experience.

I am sorry of I used 'pedophile' as the wrong word, it was not intentional. I thought pedophile refered to sex or attraction to children, e.g. under 16. I was not attempting to mislead.

'I'm surprised you think these men are not all over the place.'

I do think these men (as you described) are all over the place, I just don't think they are the average man or that this explains male anger at women to me.

'I believe that average men are plenty intetested in secondary school age girls.'

I find this hugely sad, possibly true, but still do not see why that explains anger.

Even if men want to fuck anything in sight, which I do not believe to be true, logic must come in somewhere!

So I think middle aged men do not want other men having sex with their young daughters. I would expect not. This is the civilisation process. That is how society develops, thinking of others etc. I don't think men's sex drive over rides this except in criminal cases which are the exception.

I do believe we are going forward. Women's rights are being recognised, it's fucking slow but it is moving.

But I fully accept it is a lot more men than we probably think it is.

But back to the anger, for me, even if men are interested in something and sometimes get it, why the anger?

Personally, I think the patriarchal affect on males explains it more for me.

I think looking for an ancient evolutionary driver for men’s anger towards women in 2018 is to look for excuses which don’t hold up to scrutiny. Humans are able to adapt quickly and I believe that is how we’ve kept going. We’re also capable of self reflection in the main and in 2018 being angry with women, regardless of your reasoning process, is not going to get you a mate if that’s what you want.

I think it is more of a modern phenomenon than we think, or, at least, we have to be careful not to use modern parameters of gender.

For example, Roman women had quite extraordinary control over their fertility, but it didn't necessarily influence the paterfamilias system.

Again, prior to the Georgian period, there's a fair amount of evidence to suggest that females were perceived culturally in England as the sexually dominant sex and men as the more passive.

What we need to remember is that the notion of masculinity has changed massively over time. What defines maleness today is not what defined it five hundred years ago. During the Tudor period, it was firmly believed that a woman could not conceive unless she had an orgasm during sex. Just imagine how that affected sexual relations when a family required a male heir.

Yet in England, the structure of society has tended to place the male as the "maker" and "governer" of society post the Roman/Christian period.

Personally I think men are taught their attitudes to women through ideology: be it religion or cultural and political ideologies about masculinity.

Because if you look at misogyny, it is a maladaptive practice. You cannot propagate the species successfully if you hate females.

I do have one odd thing to throw into the pot though. I've wondered for some time if females were the key driver for civilisation, in the sense that it was females that pushed for static geographic settlement rather than males. And this created a kind of tension in males that has never truly resolved and is responsible for a lot of male violence.

In short, males aren't supposed to live in one place in large societies with lots of other males that are not their kith or kin.

kesstrel

'But again, evolution isn't about the 'goal' of spreading the human race. It has no 'goals''

I disagree. Evolution (biologically) is about goals IMHO. So is this goal defunct? It may be both evolution evolution and crap at the same time. Or rather not fit for modern purpose.

So for me biology doesn't explain it necessarily but some excellent answers and things yo ponder!

Are men also pondering this!

SarahCarer yes, maybe shame etc, good argument. But if they do not see us as human why the shame?

Lastly...we might not be fucked...

"But not necessarily, surely. Because civilisation exists partly to control our more destructive urges and desires. And civilisation wouldn't exist if we didn't also have positive, pro-social urges and desires. This is so important - we are a mixture, and lots of our desires conflict and so neutralise each, other, or allow the good ones to win out, or can be suppressed via socialisation"

kesstrel I do hope you are right.

I really do not want to deny biology. And I could be wrong on everything I type.

With regard to your last paragraph I really do not want to get into that here, please.

There are So Many threads on it. Please can we stick to the general theme and leave such issues out even if I might actually agree with you.

I must get on and will check back later. So many brilliant answers. I might try and summarize them all if I have time, like one line answers. If anyone has any one line summeries we could build up a picture.

Thank you

I think looking for an ancient evolutionary driver for men’s anger towards women in 2018 is to look for excuses

I think that's unfair. I haven't read any posts here as "looking for excuses". Just people trying to understand. If you can't consider and identify the causes of something, it's difficult to counter it.

Humans are able to adapt quickly and I believe that is how we’ve kept going. We’re also capable of self reflection in the main and in 2018 being angry with women, regardless of your reasoning process, is not going to get you a mate if that’s what you want.

Absolutely agree with this. And it's why I think there's hope.

'We’re also capable of self reflection in the main and in 2018 being angry with women, regardless of your reasoning process, is not going to get you a mate if that’s what you want.' Golden so true.

PackingSoap Fascinating. Can you link please? For the Georgian period of whatever.

"I do have one odd thing to throw into the pot though. I've wondered for some time if females were the key driver for civilisation, in the sense that it was females that pushed for static geographic settlement rather than males. And this created a kind of tension in males that has never truly resolved and is responsible for a lot of male violence"

That is fucking fascinating. Is that your own theory? That does fit with men and their sheds and sports, their outdoor expeditions and mostly liking to BBQ as opposed to actually cooking in the kitchen!

I'm not being flippant!

It really does make a a lot of sense.

"And it's why I think there's hope."

I am delighted there is hope because my next question might be how we deal with this anger!!! That really is a question for men thought!!

See you all later.

Italian WRT evolution having goals, we'll have to agree to disagree. But if you want to read more about the issue, this describes my understanding of it:

crucialconsiderations.org/science-and-philosophy/evolution/why-evolution-has-no-goal/

Sorry to introduce the trans topic - there are plenty of other examples I could have chosen, but that one happened to be the one to leap to mind! No surprise there Won't do it again.

Ah sorry wasn't explicit

The fact lots of men want younger girls, because they are easy to control manipulate etc
Is a symptom of them seeing women as objects that should serve them
It is easier to get girls to behave this way
However, even those girls, and of course lots of women at work, in the pub etc keep behaving as if they are people, they shouldn't behave like this, they sound be subordinate, deferential
Hence permanent anger

Also the rats thing

I grew up in NW London, got loads of inapproprite attention when young

From MN I think things are not as bad less crowded/ smaller areas

Maybe less anonymity
Maybe the rats thing

Packingsoap really interesting idea re settling

kesstrel will check out the link. I am not a biologist, I could be wrong! It's not unheard of.

No worries. Just as t to keep thread going it is fascinating and I am so grateful for all your fab replies.

NothingOnTellyAgain personally I think it is easier to control older, down trodden, vulnerable women than young ones! So the 'desire' (I am memtslly vomiting) for younger women/girls is about aesthetics/culture/ and social status for males maybe - IMHO.

My lord and master is back from the hunt (at Sainsburies) so lunch calls.

Xxxx

I am so grateful for all your fab replies... That was to everyone.

Yes great thread Italian!

Kesstrel

Thanks for that evolution link - it looks really very good.

Good thread

Wondering if this is a factor. Men are at risk if they fight other men for dominance/ control. In a "civilised" society it's taboo to fight to establish dominance but the urge would still be there. So they take it out on women instead, who pose no physical risk or threat.

Further thoughts... Which they know is wrong since it's not a fair fight, which as noted seems to be a hard wired part of being human (the notion of fairness). So in agreement with the projection/demonisation of women as a sub class, to justify the abuse dished out. But angry as well because they know and feel it is wrong. But cannot reconcile that without breaking open the reality. Which would lead to uncontrolled male on male violence at their own personal risk. Despite the fact "masculinity" is supposed to face and conquer personal risk.

So there is a lot of shame mixed in which I think is what makes it a toxic combination. It is really self hatred projected outwards, which is what makes it so unstoppable and why abusers never learn from experience or see how irrational they are being. They aren't looking at their own reality, just seeking an external source of the fear and shame, which they can then control.

Interesting about the link between fear and testosterone. Fear is a survival trait and quite useful actually. Would be co-morbid with increased alertness and quick response times. I guess like many other biological/evolutionary traits it has just turned toxic from the point of view of our modern day culture.

The other thing is

men could control us and make sure we are having their babies and make us do all the work and all of that WITHOUT having toxic masculinity - all the crap that the put on themselves with their no crying and their hierarchies and their no fear and then with the violence and teh suicide and all of that

They are in charge - they could have it set up differently, so that they get ALL of the benefits -

So why do they bother with toxic masculinty? They must WANT to be this way?

I think toxic masculinity is an excuse tbh

I don't think in the general population men feel that way. they have close relationships with parents, children, siblings, and yes even friends. They have a joke and a laugh. they have multiple bonding rituals and lots of freedom (see weekend "sports widows" etc). They have most of the money. Most women work these days >> the idea that men HAVE to provide is not borne out by the squillions of single parent families headed by women with no support from an absent father.

We are told that it's all very hard for men. Is this true, or is it a story? Is it not that's it's hard, but that they expected it to be easy? Entitlement again.

(Notwithstanding the men doing backbreaking work in all weathers but but but >> loads of women do backbreaking shit work as well).