Why Do (some) Men Hate Women?

i find it bizarre that people keep coming up with this one - its not safe for men to walk around at night either. Its fairly well known that most attackings on the street are committed against males (by males as well). Theres been heaps of time i've been threatened by sub-neanderthals for something a female companion has done or said because according to neanderthals ethics "you don't hit women". the other night i was walking along with a woman and these guys were getting agro in the street (strangely enough about putting down Di's hometown) and my female companion thought it was safe to loudly mock them. i doubt a male raised in our society would have done this unless they were prepared to join in a fight.

I'm not saying this for or against women's rooms at university, but i guess student politicians aren't the most sophisticated thinkers about gender politics.

There are few men's rooms, because men have not done the work involved in proving the need for a man only space, finding an appropriate area, obtaining permission to utilise it, dealing with opposition to the idea, furnishing it, publicising it, etc.

This may be because they are lazy, or afraid, or because they do not feel such a strong need for such a space because 'public' areas are more geared toward men than women, as Lady Die suggested.

In any case, women who enjoy having a women only space are under no obligation to provide a man only space also. If men feel the need for such a space, they can do the work .

how does this make the streets any safer for women, hamish? perhaps the reason why there isn't a mens room is because a) men have not campaigned for one, and b) this is probably because a mens room will not keep men safe from OTHER MEN.

Theres been heaps of time i've been threatened by sub- neanderthals for something a female companion has done or said because according to neanderthals ethics "you don't hit women".

not where someone will see, at least. there have been several times when i have been walking home alone and been threatened by men because i refused to show support for the local rugby team. YES, men do get threatened by other men, i have seen this myself. but so do women, and just because you DON'T SEE it happen you shouldn't assume that it doesn't. its like assuming that a woman is lying when she says her husband beat her because she doesn't have a black eye - men are pretty canny about this sort of thing, they have learnt where and when they CAN get away with it. (sorry, i don't mean men in general i mean men who bash/rape women).

it doesn't but you are the one who brought gender in to the issue of being able to walk around safely at night.

perhaps the reason why there isn't a mens room is because a) men have not campaigned for one, and b) this is probably because a mens room will not keep men safe from OTHER MEN.

Women's rooms aren't about maing it safer for women; they're about making women feel safer and about giving queer women a pick-up place on campus, which i guess is enough reasons to justify its existence.

i have never assumed that it doesn't. But spreading the myth that women are attacked more than men only serves to make night-time streets even more of a "male coded space".

when did i say or imply this, hamish?

i don't know where you live but this is bullshit where i live. Here when reporters are allowed in to changing rooms they are allowed in regardless of gender.

Reality now reflects dominance by women at most major universities. Men are becoming the minority on campuses globally.

Dominating an institution and having a slightly higher proportion are entirely different things. Maybe Dunedin is a bit backwards but here males make up the highest proportion of post- graduate students, lecturers and physical science students (ie maths, physics, computer science), and nearly all the professors are male. And of course females making up 53% of the student body is a long way from overthrowing a couple of thousand years worth of patriarchy.

The VAST majority of violent crime is against males 15-29. Little if anything is said about this and NOTHING is done about this

Nothing? Fuck where do you live?

Womens areas and lounges and rooms are mainly created with one thing in mind;women are opressed ....

You're ignoring the lesbian dating service they provide. Why do people get so worked up about these rooms? They're so insignificant. Does anyone honestly feel oppressed by their existence? Aren't there enough other places in the world you can go without stressing about not being allowed in women's rooms?

As for violence against males..USA Bureau of Justice Statistics Reports...they go on to say that the average victim of violent attacks are male between the ages of 15-29. In only one category do women outnumber men as victims and that is in sexual assault. Nevertheless the numbers for violent crimes is much higher than that of sexual assault according to this report and others I have seen. (Ringel et al 1997) So the question once again is that the violence against men is largely not considered to be the same as a single act of violence against a woman. Reason that I believe this is true is that again, we value women and men differently and the thought of violence against a grown woman is actually more repulsive to people than the thought of violence against a young male. You can assert that this is unfounded but this is actually ingrained in us as a side affect of patriarchy that we have yet to update. I have also pointed out that, for example in Sweden, argueably the most forward country in terms of equal rights, still only force males to enlist in the military.

On the question of womens rooms, no, I personally do not care. I see it however as a part of a bigger problem, that is that similar seperatism when used for men is considered to be discrimination. Don't get me wrong, I am actually a staunch liberal that believes strongly in equality for all, but I believe in this more in the way that the ACLU would fight for it. I do not believe that advantages should be given to any group because of perceived historical wrongs. It is the same with black and white issues. If you can have things like a "black book" which is avaialbel in LA that lists all black professionals then why can you not have the same with a white book? That is then considered racist, correct?????

My point in all my arguments is not so much that I think anyone is justified in hating anyone, but more so that we have given women's sex role and gender role a complete overhaul and unfortunately we have failed to update our views on men, it is now time we update these views as well so that we are able to reach a more equal level in society. Leftovers from patriarchy that work to womens advantages have not been overhauled, this is for obvious reasons. First of all part of the male gender role is not to complain or question the male gender role. To do this is considered unmanly. As such men do not complain and do not organise to do anything about gender specific rules that negatively or adversely affect them. On the other side women organised and fought those things that were seen as negative gender roles for women. Now, more recently many young feminists, are actually coming out with the same kinds of things I am saying here. That, in my opinion, is the sign of true committment to equality.

For a quick glimpse of how locked into sameness men are culturally, just look in high street shops at the range of male clothes on offer vs female clothes: it's not just a disparity, it's a staggering difference. (In pre-democratic societies, there are things called SUMPTUARY LAWS, in which one caste is forbidden from wearing the raiment of another caste...) I don't think this ia a "media conspiracy" — in the sense of of a conscious suppression of information by the wised-up — and I think it's super- silly to blame non-young feminists, or women generally, for the state of things: this is something men are doing TO THEMSELVES, or rather, a series of freedoms they are denying themselves.

To be immensely boring, the disposability of large sectors of society based on prejudicial judgments of worth has always been endemic to capitalist systems: the "invisibility" of these sectors is a result, rather than a cause. I can think of several cultural phenomena attempting (subconsciously?) to reverse this hierarchy of visibility: one — with a tellingly fascinated-hostile-entwined relationship to gay culture — has been of course gangsta rap. Thus eg Eminem = stormcrow as much as symptom, radical as much as exploiter-perpetrator.

The gay movement cannot be used to represent a changing roll of men in society. What you need to realise first is that gay men represent a segment of men who already fall outside of what is considered the "norm" of male gender roles. So what the goal is with the gay movement is to make this more visible and acceptable. This in turn can and has had a minimal impact on the male gender role but by far not the impact that is actually necessary to bring men into line with how far women have come. The lack of divesity you talk about on the High Street fashions is actually a symptom of exactly what I am talking about...it is unmale to indulge in fashion. This is actually changing though(one of the few areas that the gay movement does permeate for the benefit straight males). You do see more cosmetics and more fashion geared to men now than ever before and it is more acceptable for men to care about these things. The difficult issues which I am actually referring to are issues that are much deeper in how we view and value males and females and how some of feminisisms success has left vast divides where male roles need to be updated.

It is not oversimplifying when one takes certain issues into account. You for example call men assaulting women an outside force but an internal force for men so an inside job. Therefore your argument is that you think that women deserve a type of priority because they are being attacked from outside but men in a sense need to deal with this problem as a male problem. I agree on the first point because I do not see men as an outside force for women or inside for men, I see us all as people. Secondly, the major question of male violence against other males and against females needs to be addressed by actually studying the dynamics and putting effort into better understanding men and male behaviour. At the same time we also need to address the problem of female violence toward males. You may, like most people do, laugh at this but it is real. Domestic violence from women against men occurs anywhere from just slightly less than or up to more frequently than domestic violence against women by men depending on what study you read. There are however some variations, among them that men report and an alarmingly infrequent rate. Again, this is because of antiquated sex and gender roles that we still adhere to. The fact that we still teach our sons not to hit girls while we do not teach our daughters not to hit boys is among these detrimental antiques. In the media and movies it is completely acceptable to see an angry women hit, punch, throw things at and hurt a man when she is angry. On the other side, a man behaving the same would cause complete outrage. While it is generally true that men are larger and stronger, it still does not mean that a man cannot be injured, nor does it mean that a man should be seen as an acceptable victim of a women's rage.

I would agree with you that the only ultimate solution to this problem (and any other cultural victimization problems for that matter) is for everyone to be blind to the demographics and just treat everyone on a one by one basis, but that's so much more easily said than done. There is still a reality to deal with and I can't go around hoping that my ideals will protect me if I do encounter these men who see me as their victim simply because I'm female.

If it offends some men because I or other women are unduly attributing negative traits to them because they are male, not seeing them as individuals because of what other men have done, then be offended by those men, do all you can to distance yourselves from them. I would, and did up there, distance myself from women that do harm with knee-jerk man bashing. Solidarity amongst women has done a lot of good as a force for change, but hopefully it is beginning to reach the end of it's usefulness. Truth be told, I find women only groups a bit distasteful a lot of the time for myself, but until the actual imbalance of harm done between the sexes has stopped, some women will still have a legitimate need for such places out of simple safety.

If more men were campaigning for less violence against women, then perhaps more women would campaign for less fear of men? Co-operation is key, but for a real solution, logically one of those moves has to come first. It's offensive that men would take the shortcut and campaign, nay demand, that women should just stop being afraid for themselves and should pay more attention to what men are primarily doing to themselves.

In a recent analysis of reported crime in New Zealand (here at the justice department website):

Those aged 20 years or more comprised the largest group of victims (84%). Forty-one victims were children aged 14 years or less (6%).

Just over half (58%) of the victims were female.

And remember, this is REPORTED crime. Domestic violence is probably much less reported than stranger on stranger violence (which probably happens more often between adult males.)

In New Zealand, 4% of reported crime is violent, and 1% of reported crime is sexual assault.

In addition, the 'average victim' being a male of a certain age does not mean that they comprise the MAJORITY of victims (although it may do.) And you do not provide a link to the statistic you quote. Therefore we can't tell whether this came perhaps from a report separating violent crime between strangers from that of people known to each other, for example. If the evidence for this statistic exists at all.

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.

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.

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.

"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.