Why Do (some) Men Hate Women?

the punchline, on the inside: 'that just means you aren't pressing down the pillow hard enough!'. the rising amount of unreported woman-on-man domestic makes this very unfunny to me. i'm too tired for it right now, but anyone want to theorize about 'goodbye earl'? the video, gah.

(For the record: I thought the joke was funny, but the humor has more to do with the inherent wrongness of it being okay to murder your SO. Gender wasn't a factor.)

What's your defn of sexist crap?

A man-hater is someone who associates certain characteristics that they hate with being male. If one were to really dislike men who behave agressively, one wouldn't be a woman hater. On the other hand, if one really disliked men because they thought that all men behave agressively, they would be a man-hater. It's the same with misogynists: if one were to really dislike women who burst into tears at the drop of a hat, one would not necessarily hate women. On the other hand, if one were to really dislike women because one thought that all women burst into tears at the drop of a hat, they would be a misogynist.

Oh, come on. It's more that (in relation to the raping and maming bit, at least) it's comparatively very rare and even then, kept quiet (cause of 'unmanly' pressures you allude to later). If it *is* reported then it gets a BIG reaction from the world. It's like "WOOOOH! Dog bites man!" and then some women rightly make a fuss that it's ridiculous to give it so much attention when it happens all the time to women and this gives the women-haters 'see how they wish to censor THE TRUTH!' ammo and it all goes round in circles.

But some of the things you say need to be talked about maybe. It's just a shame they tend to get dressed up in one big Neil Lyndonesque seething tirade. The key thing is why do they have to add up to 'hating women'. Hating anyone is stupid enough. Let alone half the bloody population. I do feel fucked up by certain gender roles, yes. But sex wars are so passé. I've only just lightened up enough to enjoy Sex and the City on the grounds that it's all shit but it doesn't matter if there's a good joke every so often. Except it's not often enough. I'm with Julie Burchill on this.

Regarding hatred of women, I have never advocated this, I ventured to answer the question raised in this forum, why do some men hate women.

Regarding the gender wars, I think a good step to end those would be the media, representing a very small segment of women, need to stop the war against men and in particularly boys in order to stop the gender wars. The media is guilty of denegration and degredation of males more than any single woman I know.

*blinks, shakes head*

What, at St. Bobbitt's Hospital for the Stupid?

As for Samantha's statement. Yes Samantha, there are places in the world like afghanistan and many arab lands where womens rights do not exist. This is a horrible situation and certainly needs changing. Look at Nepal where they sell their daughters as young as 6 to Brothels in India where they are raped and usually infected with Aids and die by 20. I will be the first to stand up for change on this front too. But what we are actually discussing here is more OUR society and our cultural perspective. And in our world it is a situation which we have been moving towards where we have made great strides for womens rights and changed many aspects of the former gender roles of females while we have stagnated in changing anything for men. Just look at Sweden, arguably one of the most progressive countries on Earth in terms of equality. In this country where over 50% of all members of parliament are women, 76% of all students at universities are female, males assume many responsibilities that were once thought to be part of the female gender role, men still assume primary responsibility for all perceived male gender appropriate activities. For example, in this bastion of equality it is still only males that MUST go into the military. Why has this not changed? Could it be that we as western societies still cannot accept the thought of disposing of our women as we are prepared to do with our men?

All in all my major point is that our perceptions of males in society is still not progressing. While we update our views on women we still live in the stone age with regard to our views on male gender roles.

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.