Why Do (some) Men Hate Women?

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (423 of them)
but reported crime also doesn't include eg unreported boy-on-boy hazing and bullying, esp. if it's not considered a "crime"

i think lexrese is making quite an important subtle point, albeit in a defensive and accusatory way (so that for example when i agree with him and cite the fashion thing as a way to see what he's saying more clearly, he jumps down my throat)

the point about gay culture, lexrese, is partly this: that for some men — i'm one in fact — gay culture is less valuable because it gives me space to jump into bed with men than because it gives me space to refuse routine norms of manliness IRRESPECTIVE of who I'd prefer to go to bed with. This space wasn't there 30 years ago: now it is. So it;s an index of potential fluidity, but ALSO a sign of the need for (yearning for) such fluidity. I'm not saying gay men stand for all men: I *am* saying, the huge take-up of the "queer" option is NOT just a reflection of previously impossible or illegal genital sexualities — gender of partners for some (many?) may well be a secondary draw, compared to availability on non-conformist versions of masculinity. I also think there are drawbacks and problems to this situation; that it's an uneasy waystation en route to a solution, which elicits more resistance than assent.

mark s, Sunday, 3 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

I think that's true mark. A few things just fell into place for me there - I used to moderate on a popular 'women's' message board (part of what is now chick.click) and had to admit that during my time there I was a little bit mystified by the way having a bisexual identity was almost coveted, almost trendy. Many of the girls there were very young (under 15 some of them) and it felt... forced sometimes. What you just said might explain it though - perhaps it's just an obvious way of redefining your gender role, rebelling against expectations and restrictions. Obviously has a huge ground breaking change potenial - but I don't think I'm convinced it's entirely healthy either. (apologies if that wasn't what you were getting at)

Kim, Sunday, 3 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

First of all, I find it intrigueing that it is presumed I am male. I am in fact female. So now you will probably wonder why I am writing the things I am writing...well let me answer this: I am actually very into gender studies and I am currently doing a lot of research in this area. I had just come across this website when I decided to add my two cents. It is almost amazing to me that people automatically presume one to be male if they can see another side of the gender debates. In my studies, which started off as a bi product of my interest in feminisim, I began to notice a lot of tainted information. The more I learned the more I became intrigued by the other side of the coin. Many young feminists are also coming to this conclusion and I think that this is because my generation has seen more freedomn for women and we have not been so "angry" as some other generations and are therefore able to look a bit more objectively at the matter. I purposely left out my name to see how long it would take for someone to call me by a male pronoun. As for the question of the veracity of the statistics of violent crime, not only are they accurate but also one point that maryanne brings up, domestic violence, is actually reported MUCH more frequently by women than by men eventhough men are also victims of such violence.(see earlier post). In response to Mark, I hope I was not jumping down your throat but rather wanted only to respond to you, blame it on my english as I am swedish. I do see what you mean with the gay movement but again think that there is a different perspective between gay men ad straight men. There is a need for straight men to actually assert their rights as well because their gender roles are defined slightly differently than gay mens. In the social construction of gender if you can imagine a frame and within the frame falls all things considered "normal" and generally acceptable for males and females repsectively you will see that the female gender role is much broader and the male gender role much more narrowly defined. A MAJOR fact is that male homosexuality falls outside the acceptable male gender role. Virility and heterosexuality falls inside this. Therefore any comparison is slightly obsolete as you are dealing with a disenfranchised group to begin with. Female homosexuality is now marginally within the female gender roles definition. Strides made by gay men only benefit straight men peripherally. If all this is put into perspective then we see clearly there is a need for changes within the heterosexual male gender definition that in turn would benefit everyone, both males and females. Just to add a little more spice to the discussion, I recently researched teen sexuality issues in western europe and North America. The VAST majority of young males that were sexually active said that they felt pressure to make their sexual debut by their partners. It was in fact an even higher number of males reporting this than females. Again, my own opinion on this matter is that males are stuck in a gender role that is now outdated by the progression of the female gender role. Time to catch the men up to the women.

, Tuesday, 5 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

As for the question of the veracity of the statistics of violent crime, not only are they accurate but also one point that maryanne brings up, domestic violence, is actually reported MUCH more frequently by women than by men eventhough men are also victims of such violence.(see earlier post).

i think that you are ignoring some very important factors with this statement... such as that domestic violence is perpetrated against women and children much more than it is perpetrated by women against men. hence probably reported less.

di, Tuesday, 5 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

furthermore you haven't provided any stats like maryann asked you. and whats more is how are we to believe you whatever gender you say you are? if you hadn't noticed, this is an INTERNET forum, for all we know you could be saddam hussein.

di, Tuesday, 5 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

domestic violence is perpetrated against women and children much more than it is perpetrated by women against men. hence probably reported less.

It's important to note that there's some very real dispute on this point: some studies have reported that the percentage of domestic violence, instigated by women in heterosexual couples, has approached 50% in some parts of the world (e.g. America and Western Europe, but probably not the Middle East). Even if that statistic is inflated, which certainly it might be, there's certainly little doubt that female-on-male domestic violence is very underreported, for reasons that are fairly obvious -- embarrassment, fear of not being taken seriously, fear that the abuser will claim to be the victim and take advantage of police expectations of gender roles, etc.

This doesn't much affect your point on children, however.

Phil, Tuesday, 5 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

(Obviously, subtract the commas from around "instigated...couples")

Phil, Tuesday, 5 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

lexrese, point taken, but it should make a difference to you that I actually didn't just assume that you were male. The thought crossed my mind, but I eventually deduced that you were likely male based on the agenda presented in your posts. Granted, some of that agenda may have been perceived rather than real, but I think it's almost a disingenious trick considering that the source *isn't* unbiased. You've deliberately argued your neutral points by countering them from the male point of view. Considering such an unscientific method, it's hardly surprising or that deeply telling that people would conclude that you are a male. Aside from that, I will conceed that your posts read differently the second time around.

Kim, Tuesday, 5 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

Yes Lady Di, you are right, I could be Saddam Hussein, hope not though. As for the statistics, I cited two sources for those statistics in an earlier post, the original post actually that I made this statement in. And Kim, I do not really think I was deceptive in how I argued my point, I never referred to myself nor did I refer to either gender as "my" gender. I simply wrote from a neutral point. There are several books that are out right now by young rather well known feminists that deal with exactly the issues that I have been bringing up.

, Wednesday, 6 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

You said that the statistic about the majority of physical abuse victims being aged 15-29 was from US Justice Department reports, which isn't specific enough to check. The other evidence you quoted (Ringel et al) was for incidents of reported physical violence outnumbering those of sexual abuse, which is no doubt correct, as in New Zealand where 4% of reported crime is violent and !% is sexual abuse, but this doesn't say anything about the gender of the victims.

maryann, Wednesday, 6 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

Lexrese - you are right about (black) males being the victims of more reported physical violence in America.

"For violent offenses, males have been victimized at higher rates than females, but the rates are getting closer. [If you look at the line graph they provide, in 1973 about twice as many men were the victims of violent crimes, and now about 42% more men are victims].

Rape and sexual assault were the exception to the gender pattern; females were raped or sexually assaulted at a rate many times that of males in 2000.

* Intimate violence is primarily a crime against women -- in 1998, females were the victims in 72% of intimate murders and the victims of about 85% of nonlethal intimate violence.

* In 1998, women experienced an estimated 876,340 rape, sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault and simple assault victimizations at the hands of an intimate, down from 1.1 million in 1993. In both 1993 and 1998, men were victims of about 160,000 violent crimes by an intimate partner. "

here

The use of guns alters the demographic profile of crime. From this evidence it seems that in a country where men have access to guns, they are more likely to kill each other, whereas in countries where access to guns is more difficult, they will victimise women and children.

I don't really have any opinion on what the solution to this problem is or who is more at fault, by the way. I just hate random statistics.

maryann, Wednesday, 6 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

Actually I wish I hadn't bothered to find all that stuff out, because now I am looking at men with a jaundiced eye, whereas my general attitude towards them tends to be more of the, 'ah, the cute buffoons!' type of thing. Very few people commit violent crimes anyway, and a fair proportion of violent criminals are women - I mean, 110,000 women committed crimes of domestic violence agains their partners in America last year. So ... anyway ... I just wish I hadn't even started finding out about this and I feel great sympathy for people who do gender studies and crime research as a job, and then have to re-adjust to the 'normal' world, which really doesn't resemble the world of crime much ... I don't think.

maryann, Wednesday, 6 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

This is just going to seem nitpicky now, but once again I didn't say it was dishonest - I said was disingenious, meaning that you obviously had an expected outcome in your mind. That's a pretty clear bias, and although you did an admirable job of not letting it affect how you said things, it did affect which things you chose to say. Hopefully you don't think I'm totally against what you're saying, because I do agree with it in part. As I was coming close to saying earlier, I'm not especially swayed by the fact that a lot of current feminists might also be saying the same things. I was an observant of /participant in all that not so long ago, and as I said, I see a lot of confusion there. A lot of actions that feel (to me) more like reactions, a 'playing into their hands' thing if you will, but that's really difficult to elaborate upon as I've still not got it fully sorted out for myself. The parallel to racial relations that you mentioned up there is interesting because it really does bring a lot of the grey areas 'into relief' and illustrates why the things you are saying in about hardships facing the average male seem to disturb on a base level. I'm imagining how it would've played out, (perhaps similarly) if this *had* been a discussion about racial discrimination and someone 'undefined' had come in and done a similar thing to you, and had presented reams of ideas criticising how our society is treating white men unfairly, finally revealing themselves to be black. Like yourself, I'm sure we would admire their ability to be so non-partisan, but still I wonder if many of us wouldn't also be thinking that the person was duping themselves, even just a little bit.

Kim, Wednesday, 6 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

Considering that I hadn't seen it before I posted the above, Dan I.'s post on the unpopular protest thread (about the newspaper ad) seems very serendipitous.

Kim, Wednesday, 6 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

oops... pls read "a similar thing to you" as a similar thing to what you did, not a similar thing TO you.

Kim, Wednesday, 6 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

two months pass...
Women tend to see sexuality and other things that tie the sexes as a way to get things for men hence men start hating how sexuality is used against them

bnumsi, Saturday, 1 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

one month passes...
I think we should all work towards making things better for all gender.

mid, Saturday, 13 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-one years ago) link

I don't hate women, I just find most of them very uninteresting.

Marc, Monday, 15 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-one years ago) link

two months pass...
People hate people when they hate themselves. Its that simple

Scott, Friday, 4 October 2002 00:36 (twenty-one years ago) link

I'm noticing that I was unsually 'posty' on this thread. I wonder what got into me?

Kim (Kim), Friday, 4 October 2002 01:05 (twenty-one years ago) link

The obvious point is that a lot of men who hate women hate them because rightly or wrongly they feel they were humiliated by their mothers or sisters at an early age.

I think often men are emotionally terrified by women in a way that isn't clearly discernible to women. (other than through the horrible experience of being beaten by them)

"Leslie", Friday, 4 October 2002 12:16 (twenty-one years ago) link

three months pass...
I feel constantly threatened by the opposite sex because I think that they are judging me on terms that I don't understand. This pisses me off and makes me uncomfortable around them and yet I want their love and approval more than anything. I also want to have sex with the cute ones. This makes me "hate" them.

quid, Saturday, 11 January 2003 23:14 (twenty-one years ago) link

oh my...

Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Saturday, 11 January 2003 23:17 (twenty-one years ago) link

it's been such a mind-fuck to goback and read this thread, on SO MANY LEVELS... I can't even get through all of it, it's too painful and weird.

kate, Saturday, 11 January 2003 23:23 (twenty-one years ago) link

three weeks pass...
In Thailand there is an epidemic of women cutting off their husbands penis! They have dozens of such cases a year, and guess what, the women never recieve any jail time, in fact it has become a national joke! Why are sex crimes against men considered funny, and why aren't these women going to jail?

Stephen Ancroid, Monday, 3 February 2003 06:30 (twenty-one years ago) link

I suspect the knowledge of Thai law, custom and sexual relations here may be small.

Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Monday, 3 February 2003 18:08 (twenty-one years ago) link

Thai law is worth getting to know!

g glitter, Monday, 3 February 2003 18:36 (twenty-one years ago) link

I have a question no one can seem to answer. Do male reporters have full access to female atheletes locker rooms??

tri, Monday, 3 February 2003 22:49 (twenty-one years ago) link

I have heard that in the NCAA male reporters are only allowed in female locker rooms for a half hour right after the game, so the women just wait until they are gone before showering, male atheletes do not have this option, as female reporters ( and even non reporters as most any female can walk into a mens locker room these days) can go in and out anytime they please!

Stephen Ancroid, Monday, 3 February 2003 23:02 (twenty-one years ago) link

When it comes to unborn children, men have responsibilities without any rights. Legalized abortion allows a woman a choice of whether she will have a child but, under current law, a man's life can be held hostage to an unplanned pregnancy. Although a man cannot legally force upon a woman the responsibilities of motherhood, she can compel him to support her and the child financially whether he wanted a child or not.

Stephen, Wednesday, 5 February 2003 04:42 (twenty-one years ago) link

if men don't want children, they should at least make sure they wear condoms. if you don't wear a condom, its your own fault if suddenly you've got child support on yr hands.

di smith (lucylurex), Wednesday, 5 February 2003 09:26 (twenty-one years ago) link

I agree with di.

Stephen Ancroid, I can't speak for all women (though I'm confident I could speak for many) but I promise I will never cut off your penis, or burst into your locker room after a big game, or have you impregnate me, so if you are one of the (some) men who hate women (and you do seem to be listing reasons for why some do, as though these are valid grounds for misogyny,) then I think it's a little unfair because an enormous number of us- probably most of us- will never go anywhere near your penis, not with a knife, nor a microphone, nor a vagina.

estela, Wednesday, 5 February 2003 10:20 (twenty-one years ago) link

Very well said.

smee (smee), Wednesday, 5 February 2003 10:24 (twenty-one years ago) link

People hate people when they hate themselves. Its that simple.

it's upsetting because it's true.

g-kit (g-kit), Wednesday, 5 February 2003 11:12 (twenty-one years ago) link

I think this explains some of the vicious record reviews I've had from women. Rock critics hate themselves, but female rock critics hate themselves even more. And because male rock editors hate themselves for being males in a male-dominated job, they give the few females they employ free reign to attack male artists with particular venom. It's payback for their own sex, but, conveniently, not for their own profession (they fail ever to hand their jobs over to women -- is the editorship of the NME, for instance, even open to women? Do they go through the pretence of even interviewing women for that job, considering there has never been and never will be a woman at the helm?)

Momus (Momus), Wednesday, 5 February 2003 11:40 (twenty-one years ago) link

I think this explains some of the vicious record reviews I've had from women. Rock critics hate themselves, but female rock critics hate themselves even more

I'm rather more inclined to think that this kind of thinking might explain bad reviews from women, personally.

Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Wednesday, 5 February 2003 18:26 (twenty-one years ago) link

I think it's the same reasons why any group hates any other group: they don't understand them (likes, dislikes, habits, thought processes, priorities, etc.) and are, consciously or subconsciously, scared of them.

Oops (Oops), Wednesday, 5 February 2003 18:29 (twenty-one years ago) link

if men don't want children, they should at least make sure they wear condoms. if you don't wear a condom, its your own fault if suddenly you've got child support on yr hands.

Condoms break. Not that rarely, too IME. Admittedly, chance of accident decreases, but, well, THIS REALLY SCARES ME.

SittingPretty (sittingpretty), Wednesday, 5 February 2003 18:49 (twenty-one years ago) link

Here we go again with that 'hate'='fear' thing. Do ppl 'fear' cockroaches or bus queues?

dave q, Wednesday, 5 February 2003 18:51 (twenty-one years ago) link

sitting pretty, its true that condoms break, but i'm referrring specifcly to the kind of men who either refuse to wear them, or use any excuse possible to worm their way out of wearing them. from my understanding, (someone please inform me if i am mistaken) condoms break if there isn't enough lubrication. the point is, more men need to take responsibility for their sperm.

di smith (lucylurex), Wednesday, 5 February 2003 21:51 (twenty-one years ago) link

The locker room double standard is indeed noteworthy (maybe it's because guys need less towel, I dunno), but as I learned from SNL, guys can get there revenge by walking up to female reporters naked and yelling "STEP UP TO THE MIC!"

Arguably not a good idea in Thailand though.

Anthony Miccio (Anthony Miccio), Wednesday, 5 February 2003 22:37 (twenty-one years ago) link

ok, as i expected you have all turned my comments into a joke. But the point i was trying to make was DOUBLE STANDARDS! Sex crimes against women are taken seriously, as they should be, but sex crimes against men are considered humorous. Female reporters have unlimited access to male locker rooms, while male reporters have restricted, or no access to female locker rooms. In issues concerning children, father's are almost always screwed. I truly feel the tide has turned, and women have more rights than men!

Stephen Ancroid, Thursday, 6 February 2003 03:40 (twenty-one years ago) link

I demand to see this hott female reporter in nude man locker room in action! Or at least in mpegs.

N. (nickdastoor), Thursday, 6 February 2003 03:42 (twenty-one years ago) link

Reasonable explanation of male rock crit self-loathing, but how do you account for this in females?

Aaron A., Thursday, 6 February 2003 03:47 (twenty-one years ago) link

The reason they're considered humorous by some is because they're considered an oddity. While I definitely think its a sign that things aren't black and white that women have it worse than men, I definitely don't think it's time to assume men undeniably have it worse now. If anything, this is showing that it's stupid to assume that either gender is gonna have the (fair and/or unfair) advantage in every situation.

Anthony Miccio (Anthony Miccio), Thursday, 6 February 2003 03:55 (twenty-one years ago) link

Stephen, I am a woman, and I agree with you to an extent. However I feel your anger is misdirected! Allow me to address your concerns.
Thailand is a male dominated society, and the laws are made by men. I agree that sexual abuse against men is not taken as seriously as it is against women, but you cannot blame women for this! Most sex crimes against men, are committed by other men! And it is men who laugh, and make jokes about it, not women!
I agree that it is unfair to give female reporters unrestricted access to male locker rooms, while male reporters do not have the same rights in female locker rooms, but again, you cannot blame women for this! Most sports orginazations (even woen's leauges) are governed by men! So it is men who make the locker room regulations, not women!
I also agree that laws concerning custody, child support, and abortion are sometimes unfair to fathers. But once again, you cannot blame women for this! Most lawmakers are still male! So it is men making these laws, not women!
Stephen, I get the impression that one, or more of these issues has affected your life. Is so, I understand your frustration, however, I truly feel your anger is misdirected, you should blame male lawmakers, not the average woman!

lizzie Mac, Thursday, 6 February 2003 05:10 (twenty-one years ago) link

Anthony-- The reason they are an oddity is because most are unreported! The reason they are unreported is because the public stigma would change a man's life forever!
lizzie-- The reason males make these biased laws, and regulations is because of pressure from women's groups! As far as my own life, i do not wish to get into that!

Stephen Ancroid, Thursday, 6 February 2003 05:17 (twenty-one years ago) link

If you ever spent any serious time with a woman you'd have your answer.

Spooler, Thursday, 6 February 2003 05:44 (twenty-one years ago) link

*nostalgically* Hey sisters, remember those incredible, stirring protest marches which won us the right to interview naked athletes in their locker room straight after the big game? Remember the severed Thai mens' penises stuck onto spikes, how proudly they waved? Remember the feasting afterwards, all paid for with child support cheques written out by hapless suckers who had not guarded their sperm properly?

estela, Thursday, 6 February 2003 05:55 (twenty-one years ago) link

how much do you wanna guess these are all the same person

jess (dubplatestyle), Thursday, 6 February 2003 06:45 (twenty-one years ago) link


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.