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.

They have the aggressive urges but no longer the entitlement to act on them

This is interesting, because sporting competitions are a peaceful, socially sanctioned way of letting off excess aggression, but it seems that the 'letting out' only makes it worse, for example football hooliganism and the increase in domestic violence when England play.

Perhaps thouhh the danger is more about men joining together in aggression though.. ponders .

I think it goes

Men are brought up / socialised / etc to see women as an inferior servant class who should be respectful to men and keep them happy.
Society also says that you "shouldn't" go around beating and raping women who say no / aren't deferential enough (although in reality society also says this is often understandable).
Men who are heterosexual (ie most of them ) want to have sex with women
Women however have a pesky habit of >> saying no to men, not wanting to have sex with them, not being happy to make them sandwiches whenever, and talking back rather than being suitably deferential

The conflicting feelings of women are lower >> but I want to fuck them >> but I'm not supposed to force them >> and they keep saying NO!
Results in anger towards us

Plus what must be a very discomfiting feeling that while obviously women are inferior >> what if they aren't? Then how they are treated isn't fair. But I want to treat them like that! But I am fair etc etc. If someone genuinely feels something is inferior they generally don't take time out to express their dominance / be fucking horrible to them. eg I don't spend my days belittling earthworms and being cruel to them. When you have this cruelty, this urge to belittle, I think it comes from this place where they have to prove out loud that they are better than us and squash us down, as they fear that maybe they are not better, and that makes them angry too.

Take incels >> super angry, hate women, it's all about thwarted sexual entitlement.

That's what I think anyway.

Very good NothingOnTheTelly

And this cuts across society and comes out in subtle ways amongst even the most "modern" men.

Studies around workplaces and how much women talk vs how much men perceive them to talk are a good example.

When men say women in meetings are talking "too much" or dominating the conversation, they are not comparing how much the women talk to the men. They are comparing how much the women talk to how much they think women should talk >> which is generally, not at all except to make supporting noises, defuse tension, offer biscuits, maybe keep an eye on the time and let people know when it's coming to the end etc etc

this was a revelation to me as when I heard it I just thought well fuck me that's just 100% true isn't it, how did I not twig that before.

Very true again

WhereDoWeBegin

It's been said that sport is instead of war.

This kind of makes sense.

DV is by the by - soceities are very concerned about men going out and causing trouble in society. When men are bored / angry etc then you tend to get violence on the streets, criminality that impacts on society etc

When women are bored / angry etc we tend to do things other than go out on the ranpage so society is less concerned.

same for DV - it's in the home so has no obvious immediate effect on society (although obviously there are impacts on society generally but that's a little down the line / so less interesting).

So having sport as a replacement for war (tribal conflict)/ outlet for male aggression is seen as an immediate help to society.

DV is not seen as detrimental to society but only the women and children involved so, much much less interesting.

The conflicting feelings of women are lower >> but I want to fuck them >> but I'm not supposed to force them >> and they keep saying NO!

• the earthworm thing is why they work so hard to dehumanise us all the time. To turn us into stereotypes, objects of lust or ridicule. To justify their treatment of us.

Many men - again even the "modern" ones >> really do have troublse seeing women as real full people. Especially with women they don't personally know.

Agree with all of that nothing good on the telly

**This is interesting, because sporting competitions are a peaceful, socially sanctioned way of letting off excess aggression, but it seems that the 'letting out' only makes it worse, for example football hooliganism and the increase in domestic violence when England play.

Perhaps thouhh the danger is more about men joining together in aggression though.. ponders .**

I would suggest this is to do with these activities increasing the levels of testosterone and as you say, groups of men together having a pack mentality that further works as an amplifier for the behaviours.

Men are socialised to see penetration as an act of dominance (having someone, taking them etc). This way of thinking sees sex as having one dominant partner and one submissive one, and the act itself enhances the power of the dominant one. It's a zero-sum game where the man gains power through the woman losing it.
From this it follows that anyone who is penetrated is worthy of contempt and low status. I think this is partly the reason why men struggle with women bosses (and are likely to make lots of 'wonder if she takes it from behind' type comments emphasising that being penetrated undermines her authority).
It's also why straight men often both disrespect and fear gay men - why would you willingly consent to be penetrated when it debases you?
In short, male sexuality is based on sticking your dick in things and feeling powerful as a result, women can't do that so they're not worthy of respect.
I'm not saying it works this way either consciously or universally, but it's a power dynamic that runs through a lot of sexual politics.

Everything in life is about sex; except sex. Sex is about power.

cholka yes good post

Anyone who is ??? around the truth of this just needs to have a very brief look at even the names of some porn films, let alone watch it

Het porn as standard is about the man dominating the woman, often including acts that are painful / considered demeaning increasingly as "standard". Hair pulliing, throttling, spitting, slapping, and of course acts that we all know are difficult / painful unless you are exrtemely careful >> deep throating / anal. A lot of the language is around destroying / ruining etc

Gay porn that I have seen in the past (not much) seems to be much less violent and "standard" is more about 2 people together and less about one dominating another often with a side helping of humiliation / violence (although I'm sure there is plenty out there - not saying it doesn't exist! Just that the entry level more "vanilla" stuff is way nicer than het stuff.

Can't deny that exists cholka and Telly, but I don't think it's universal?
What about the dominatrix angle?
Still there's a sub-dom relationship but it's reversed.
The aggressive porn is relatively recent isn't it? I don't remember porn being like that in my youth.
I'm not convince that women lose power by allowing men to penetrate them, that seems archaic, sexist thinking to me. Or are you saying that's the man's point of view?

In the first research around Lucy, the australopithicus fossil skeleton in the 70s, I remember reading the theory there that females for evolutionary reasons including slow maturation, needed to be able to raise more than one child at a time which was the root of monogamous relationships: ie a female's freedom of movement and ability to hunt was limited by having several small children to protect and care for, which meant requiring a helper to leave the group, hunt and bring back resources, and to help with care. Not sure how much that theory has stood up over the past 40 years, it would seem more likely that a group of females together would be better positioned to provide and share care for multiple young than small nuclear families. The social relationship between male and female would seem to be relevant though, the drive from early adolescence is towards a pairing and a strong emotional bond. (Anyone with any suggestions on reading around this enthusiastically welcomed!)

Articles about the dropping birthrate in China talk about how the limiting of one child per family (and a heavy preference/skewing of this to have boys) has produced a generation of men who were very precious and waited upon sons and have grown up expecting a partner to continue the treatment they are used to. However the women of the generation to be those partners have been raised with education, the ability to make their own incomes and lifestyles, and simply don't want to be treated in the way these men wish to treat them, or waste their lives being the carer of a not very pleasant man, being not very well treated. No thanks. Other ways to get pregnant and have children. South Korean women apparently feel the same way.

This is the Incel argument: women have got much too educated, too entitled, and are no longer willing to do their basic duty which is to provide each man with an obedient, serving wife. Whose job is to provide service, care, sex on command, and shut up, while accepting a much lesser right to be happy, make choices, direct their own lives or have their consent respected. Women however basically choose whose genes make it to the next generation. Someone not willing or capable of making themselves sufficiently attractive to a woman to procreate has had it in evolutionary terms. Hence rage.

Man's point of view 're penetration obv!

Re the hunting thing, I think women and men and children all joined the hunt and tracked the bison or whatever to the point they killed it. Having killed a massive animal they could not then very easily drag it back 30 miles to the start of the journey.

So early men (and woman and children) were all hunters and equal. That's what I heard and I believe that.

Fast forward to setting down, to farm, and surplus created wealth. So then roles changed. More hands made more work and more food and more wealth, so then women's labour was of more value and they produced children who could work. Maybe they needed to kept in line!

But why do the control by anger etc? Why not be so bloody nice the woman just wanted to stay?

NothingOnTellyAgain you made loads of good points but a lot of what you describe is modern life. Do you think it has always been that way? Women free to say no, and saying it!

I'm not sure it isn't modern life to be honest.

I agree with germaine in that if women knew how much men hated them etc

It's the sense of entitlement to being dominant and in charge that remains prevalent.

The recent event at a hotel where waitresses were groped; so many many examples of this kind of stuff reported and not reported. Use of prostitutes; the use of porn; violence, war.

I have struggled in more recent years, since reaching my late 30s to agree with NAMALT.

I think they are. It's on a spectrum and some are much worse than others, as with anything behavioural.

But it does go back to wanting to ensure their genes are the ones being incubated. The only way to ensure that is control and dominance. Giving women freedom is dangerous to that goal. That's the point of measures in more oppressive societies; the big one, don't educate women. They treat women as other men. This is where the empathy gap and different hormones come into play. You don't see cowboys asking horses if they will be rounded up nicely do you? It's by force.

It's very complex and simple at the same time.

Maybe I am too biased now to see it any different.

Baumederose

'I'm not sure it isn't modern life to be honest.' Does that mean you think it is modern life?

'But it does go back to wanting to ensure their genes are the ones being incubated.'

I don't buy it. It's not efficient. It's defunct.

I am not disagreeing with you that it happens, it is the reason it happens that I am disagreeing with.

Yes, I think alot of what telly wrote applies today. To modern life. It's better than it was but we still live in a patriarchy. Men still make the rules and overwhelmingly hold the wealth and power.

Do you mean you disagree with being sure they are the father as the reason for the anger and control?

There is another slant, or strand that is complimentary to all said before.

Men rely on women for their emotional support, more than women rely on men.

Some argue that men view sex as an expression of love; a safe haven; one of the only places they can let their defences down. And that this is of great importance to men overall who wont want that jeopardized. Hence wanting to control and keep that in place; the fear of loss is high.

I personally think it's a mix of a few things. But I still view the biological prehistoric drivers as the main root of all. The other stuff arrived after in my view as society and roles evolved. But the aggression is still the same because it's biological and hormonal and to a great extent innate behaviour, driven by reproductive urges. Reproduction and women have evolved and changed over the centuries but the drivers havent. It's the only constant in a very changed and changing landscape.

Apologies if I've missed the entire point of what you meant.

Deydo>>

"The aggressive porn is relatively recent isn't it? I don't remember porn being like that in my youth."

There is a social aspect obviously - we are in the "west" in the middle of a big pushback against the gains that women have made, I feel.

Also remember that eg in UK rape in marriage was legal until 1992 I think it was. In general rape and csa were brushed under the carpet,hidden, not reported. Men who wanted to be sexually violent had plenty of outlet and little chance of punishment >> now that women are finally getting some autonomy recognised and things like rape myths and so on, things are changing. The response of men seems to be fantasising about putting pesky women back in their place via sexual dominance. This is a common incel theme, also on the net women who speak out get a barrage of rape threats. The porn is reflective of this, and conversely encourages it, as it dehumanises women and presents them to men as objects to fuck, which then makes men even angrier when they can't have one in real life.

There was an interesting study that had men be mildly put down by a woman >> afterwards they were much more interested in porn that depicted a woman being dominated, mistreated etc.

Side note >> who the fuck thinks up these studies??? I'll see if I can find it.

Baumederose

In my life, and this is totalanecdata, Ihave come to the conclusion that men need women much more than women need men.

I wonder if men suspect this deep down, and this makes them feel both angry and scared. This is the incel thing and overseas - when we get independence - contracpetion, abortion, enough money etc (so we can't be tied down with kids) - we start opting out. No kids. Lots of divorce. Or no marriage in the first place. We stop taking shit. rather than step up and behave decently, they hate us for it.

Note: Many men are not awful alpha abuser types. But lots of men are quietly expectant that they will be looked after, that they will be looked up to, etc

There has always been violent porn. Just maybe not in live streamed visual format.

The marquis de sade (where the word sadist originates) wrote about things that had been happening for centuries.

None of this is new, with respect.

Hardcore porn was just much harder to come by (excuse the pun) before the internet but it definitely existed.

Yes telly. Concur entirely.

It's on a spectrum, I agree. Not all of them are raging controlling wife beaters.

Relationships benefit men more than women. Lots of studies to support this fact. Emotional labour, child reading, social activities, house work; men get a good deal. When women didn't work (generalizing again) and the only role of man was to put food on the table, it was dandy for men. That's all been fucked for them by the advance of women.

You only have to look at the number of ever increasing singles, and women choosing not to have children. As well as more women getting degrees than men and thus not being able to find a suitable partner.

re the sex and penetration-
I remember reading a book once which depicted a matriarchy which pretty much mirrored our society but the other way round
Men were considered very vulnerable because of their poor soft defenceless genitals which could so easily be damaged, hence they needed women to take care of them - all their inferior staus came from this IIRC, and sex was seen as a dominant act against the as the woman would engulf the poor vulnerable penis