Why Do (some) Men Hate Women?

I used to know alot of people who went to an all-male public school, and they didn't like women just because they'd never really been around them. Women were very alien to them, if you like.

It's funny, I don't like misogyny or misandry, but I can be something of a misanthrope. Go figure.

A lot of men are nervous around women or baffled by them in an uh relationship context. The problem comes when such men blame the women for this not themselves. Exactly the same thing happens in the other direction.

I objectify women loads and loads but that's not really the same thing, well I don't think so. I also probably say and think lots of unconsciously prejudiced stuff and I'm happy to have that pointed out to me, less so to have it assumed that it's part of systematised woman-hatred.

This is all in private-sphere relationships though. In a lot of public-sphere relationships some men do genuinely seem to dislike and fear women as an extension essentially of disliking and fearing power- sharing: bad enough to have to divide the cake up between your fellow men without doubling the size of the competition.

I don't know. Despite the fact that I have quite a lot of masculine tendencies and characteristics, I often find mens behaviour perplexing in this regard. (Maybe I just find human behaviour perplexing... I often feel like an anthrolopogist on Mars when I am forced to spend vast amounts of time around very stereotypically feminine females.)

Rock Culture and Feminism and Queer Culture have given all this a massive nudge, but thyere'sd an awful lot still swirling round unexmained.

I think the reason why you see this - and I'm going to just discuss it on the Internet because I know no men like this in real life - is because certain men are very inept with women, have been rejected by women, "can't get laid" to put it in coarse terms, and thus are angry and blame the women. Someone else said this up thread, so there you go. It works both ways, I know loads of women who hate men, and they all make comments along the lines of "Men only date skinny bimbo bitch women" and that sort of thing, ie men aren't dating me therefore it's their fault and I hate them.

It's all a matter of getting laid, basically. Get these people a good fuck and they'll shut up.

So why is it that the worst mysogenists I know are the ones that get laid ALL THE TIME and continue to treat women like dirt and pieces of tissue and show no respect at all?

And the worst man-haters I know, similarly, are often the biggest sluts?

Sexuality can be an expression of hatred just as easily as it can be a cause of it.

The guy who ruined his life by writing a book (Neil something, I think): No, he had ALREADY ruined his life by being a complete jerk unable to take responsibility for his own jerkiness towards eg his wife, and most of the the disasters Chris noted happened before the book (and indeed, were most of the contents of it). (Assuming we're talking abt the same fellow: the account he gave of himself on TV was a pitiful whiny disaster... )

I still hold fast that get the people I specifically referenced a date (i.e. misogynistic internet saddos), and they'd knock it off significantly. There is a great big huge gray area between virgins and whores.

I can start naming names, if you like, in an ILM stylee, but that would be rude and inappropriate. The thing is, every single one I knew immediately became less negative once they actually went out and got some play. We aren't talking wife-beaters here or something, because it's something I know very little about, having been too young to witness a family member go thru it, and running out of the situation myself ASAP. I'm certain there are plenty of men who have loads and loads of sex who do it because they want to control women. But that's not my experience, and I have a hard time believing that I'm the only person who sees the big huge area between not having sex -> having a lot of sex with many people.

Quite frankly, I think all men are on some level misogynists, and I think all women are on some level men haters. Discuss.

(Please bear in mind, I said *most* women. Two or three of my bestest friends in the world are women, albeit sensible, non-girly women, not lipstick-wearing, handbag-oogling, shrieking Bridget Jones types...)

I have no patience for people who bang on about lipstick or handbags. I'm sure you would have no patience for me if I started banging on about varying brands of Russian effects pedals, or vaccuume tube based amplification. It's a question of commonality of interests. If you take umbrage at being called a BJ type because you like lippie and handbags, then I apologise for calling you such.

But I still hate *most* women. No, scratch that. I'm a misanthrope, I hate *all* women, and all men, too.

I don't like girly girls. I am not going to defend that statement. I just *never* seem to get along with them, no matter how much we have in common otherwise, they just irritate me.

Preoccupation with weight and the cult of the girly-girl... if it occupies your mind and soul to the point where you cannot even enjoy some of the basic pleasures of life, like Bouze and Chocolate, then screw it, yes, that means girly-girl. To not worry about it is almost impossible in this day and age and culture of thin-worship (yes, I'm aware of the irony of that statement, given my opinions on the skinny guy thread). Do I think about it more than about once a day, when I'm trying to get my jeans on over my hips? Nah, or I wouldn't be fat in the first place.

Girly girls are... I don't even know how to make a categorisation, because there's an exception to every rule. Generally, obessed with their appearance (often to the exclusion of very basic fun... "I can't eat cause I'm on a diet... I can't run cause I'm wearing stupid shoes"). Obsessed with boys, more with *catching* a boy, because she feels incomplete without one, as opposed to objectification of boys according to appearance or anything else. Obsessed with uber-feminine topics... babies, flowers, interior decorating.

All these things are generalisations, yes, but they're just examples of the sort of people that I do *NOT* get along with. I don't know if I'd get along with you, Emma, I haven't met you. From your online personna, I'd *guess* that you're not terrifically girly-girl according to the preconceptions and prejudices described above.

And for the record, I'm not insulting anyone, or having a go at anyone (see the whole "office people" misunderstanding, which was patently stupid, considering I was *working* in an office at the time) I am just stating MY PERSONAL BIAS about people I do and don't get along with.

End Of Rant.

My god, if this keeps up, I might just make it to the bottom of the stats cock by the end of the week!

I am scared of Saturday now in case I am wearing difficult-to-run-in shoes and you decide to beat me up.......

Besides, I think I'll be far too busy watching the DG/Mark S deathmatch to worry about beating anyone else up!

I did like Graham's point as well. Who's doing the talking there? Or even attempting the listening?

What was interesting was growing up and thinking to myself that I'd never do anything horrible to a woman to make her cry, seeing as I was never going to be a wifebeater or hurler of sexist insults or whatever. And yet I did make people cry because of my own faults regardless. :-( Hopefully I've learned...but have I?

You don't have to answer, of course, and I don't mean to be impertinent about sth which is presumably very personal. I am just curious.

Are you, um, putting the cart before the horse?

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.

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.

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)

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.

it's upsetting because it's true.

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

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

Arguably not a good idea in Thailand though.

...the last 2 times people were interviewed for jobs in my bit of the company, its been expressly said, "well, you wouldnt really want a girl working here would you? i mean, if shed gone and done something youd need to go and check cuz you wouldnt trust itd been done properly".

last time we interviewed there was a girl, she was the most qualified of the 7 candidates, and the only one with hands on experience. she didnt get the job

the way most jobs work is, not who is the most skilled, but who will 'fit in' the most. this is why my team is 6 straight white males

I truly feel the tide has turned, and women have more rights than men!
Stephen- Where are you from?
This does not have to be a competition. It's about equal rights.

lizzie, Please stop shouting! :)

Number of countries where women earn as much as men: zero. Number of women in the top 100 earning directors in the UK: zero. Number of women killed a year by their male partners in the UK: >100.

Obviously that doesn't weigh much against female reporters being allowed into male locker rooms...

what, all women?

i guess all guys like baseball too? gee, how about those knicks!

Stephen Ancroid, I wasn't joking, I was too irritable to be making jokes. Why don't you haul your Thai penis-severing "epidemic" over to the 'Make a bold claim' thread? To imply that Thailand is in the grips of extreme feminism, when the truth is that many Thai women and children are living lives of sexual enslavement, is patently ridiculous.

I don't care too much about the great locker room scandal. I see it as pre- rather than post-feminist, with the discrepancy based in the idea that men are seeing subjects and women are looked-upon objects. A subject would not be diminished by an object, therefore there could be no loss of power for a naked man who was confronted by a women, but the reverse would not be true. I think women would like to have the freedom to walk around freely in their bodies without being harrassed and objectified. It is sort of a cheek for men to complain about this issue.

I agree there are problems with family law, but I do think women, notable exceptions aside, still bear the main brunt of child-rearing and the law is trying to equitably address this (although indisputably failing in some instances). More women are living in poverty due to parenthood than men.

Finally, I don't think hatred between men and women solves any of these problems. I take issue with you coming on to a thread titled "Why do (some) men hate women" and raising these dubious points, the inference being that they justify misogyny.

With what form of sexual violence should abusive women be punished, then?

I think the angle of Heather's statment might be along the lines of "if thy hand offends thee cut it off." (or something)

When a man uses his penis as a weapon to assault others many people (not just victims) have a primal urge to deprive him of this weapon. Have you never, at any time or on any level, thought of hurting a child rapist?

However one of the things that makes our system of government great is that we have a judicial system that, ideally, acts objectively and keeps the rights of even the accused in mind. If victims and their loved ones were allowed to mete out justice there would be a lot of hobbled assholes walking around this world.

And also b/c ILx is a passel of irreverant, tasteless, incorrigable cockfarmers.

need i say more?

I barely know who Phil Donahue is - an American talk show host, yes? Is he a feminist?

Good -- I can agree with that. :-)

I was preparing a longer post (I haven't decided whether I'll post it yet), but basically, my feeling is that cultural attitudes towards sexual violence against men, and sexual violence against women, are, if not two sides of the same coin, then at least very deeply related, and that it'll be exceedingly difficult to build the kind of society we'd like if we don't acknowledge that. (How are they related? Not just in a Newtonian way, but also as symptoms of the same fundamental human failure to treat other human lives with reverence and respect.)

(And no, I'm not under the impression that there's an epidemic of penis-severing going on!)

Another factor: divorce. It's such a harmful thing; there
are published studies that show that broken-home kids
are generally unhappier than nuclear kids; but I go further
and theorize (not from personal experience, but from the
anecdotal evidence of discussing this with other boys and
men))Many boys learn to despise their mothers and blame them
for "ditching dad" no matter what the circumstances - even
if the mother was justified; it's even worse when the
divorce is frivolous...

That was a racist thing to say squirrel.

When it comes to murder by a partner in this country, the favouritism seems to go the other way - there are multiple cases of men successfully arguing provocation on the basis of infidelity or nagging (yes, nagging!), whereas years of serious physical and mental and sexual abuse has been repeatedly rejected as provocation.

Who's laughing and making jokes? Other men! No one who's been the victim of sexual violence would make these jokes. So that means the "1 in 3 women" who are such victims are not the cause of any trivilization.

Most insults involve a threat of being lessened by the act of penetration: get fucked, you suck, blow me, etc, etc. Also, generally the worst thing you can call someone is a cunt. Women and gay men are objects of derision in our discourse because they are on the receiving end of the phallus. When Bobbit lost his penis he lost his stature. I agree it was mainly men making most of the jokes; I don't think it is funny to be considered inferior because you either don't have a penis or because you have had one inside you.

That's just not true. I've known more than one woman who, when hearing of the conviction of a man of whom she thought ill, jokingly suggested he be careful not to "drop the soap". There are plenty of movies where a cheating husband receives a blow to the groin, or worse, from his partner, and it's almost invariably treated as an empowering gesture. One of the signature moves of the lesbian comic strip character Hothead Paisan was a kick to the groin of any man who crossed her -- and it's been years since I saw the comic, but even in Hothead Paisan's comic world I don't think every single man who received one of those kicks was a rapist or pedophile. And as I said above, there have been posters who have been making jokes on ILE about cutting off men's penises, and those posters have been female.

I think it was very shocking for you to accuse me of
racism.

Any explanation for this shocking and apparently
unfounded accusation?

When did race enter the discussion?

I just know I'm a "Behind the Music" junkie and most
of the big rappers seem to come from broken homes.
I've seen the statistics; Regardless of race, the inner
city poor have a lot of familial problems that go along
with their other social problems.

re: women who sleep w/young boys and relatively light sentences. The attitude I hear a lot is almost a winking "well, she's doing those boys a good service", kind of thing--again, a predominantly male viewpoint. This attitude I think is largely responsible for lighter sentencing in these cases.

These are wide ranging from custody arrangements and child support arangements to sexual and violence charges that only exist for men and not women, to complusary millitary service/draft laws for men. Visit any "mens rights/activism" forum to hear bitter divorced men moan endlessly about such hypocrisay and unfairness....

I dont blame women for such inequality but rather the apathy of men in to such issues, generally discrimination and equality in society is viewed by many males as a female/race issue not a male one.

Sorry, that's a pretty shoddy rhetorical device: you've taken what I was trying to say -- which is that, in my opinion, people (not just men or women) are far more likely to find sexual violence comic and laughable when it's perpetrated against men -- and distorted it completely by taking only one of my examples and pairing it with a wildly exaggerated form of my premise. I've seen far too much intelligence in your other posts to believe you're not capable of a more thoughtful response than that.

guilty.

Oh, I don't know about that -- I've heard getting an ovary bumped can be pretty excruciating (though of course they're not as vulnerable) and may well be a comparable "kind" of pain, if that makes sense. I also think women have their share of pains that men don't have to suffer (menstrual cramps and childbirth in particular), something for which a good bit of respect is definitely in order.

But I do agree that it's difficult to explain, sometimes, just how devastating a pain it is -- and heck, even I don't know: I've never taken a major blow to the testicles, thankfully. From what I've seen, it is indeed one of the most incapacitating and overwhelming pains that a human being can suffer.

That being said no one can convince me that there is an evil undercurrent of misandry (thanks, anthony) in modern society which impairs, threatens, and grossly affects the life of the average man.

There is for women.

So getting kicked in the balls hurts and people use this misfortune for comic effect. Well, getting anvils dropped on your head will kill you and lawyers don't wear mini-skirts to the office. Get over it. What do you want a chorus of violins and a pity party b/c of a few off-color jokes?

Oh yeah, you've never seen one of the lawyers in my office building wooo! hot stuff!!

sorry

Also, there's a misogynist tone to some of your work, which is just the sort of thing that puts off a woman critic. (Occam's razor: simplest explanation = true explanation)

As a female reporter who covers sports, showing up at a Clan
football practice causes enough of a stir. I can't imagine,
nor do I want to experience, what the reaction would be if I
were to enter the locker room after a game. I'm sure the
athletes are no more excited about the prospect of a woman
in their locker room while they have no clothes on. I would
be uncomfortable and the athletes would be uncomfortable.
It's a no-win situation.

But female reporters are not going to stand outside the
locker room while male reporters are inside getting the
scoop (you can bet that male reporters would be screaming
loud and hard about equal access if they weren't allowed
into a women's locker room while their female counterparts
were.) Many athletes will only speak to one reporter. If a
female reporter does not have the opportunity to get to an
athlete first, then she cannot get her story and do her job.
While female reporters do not want to be in a room with a
bunch of naked men, it is their job. If male reporters are
getting interviews in locker rooms then the female reporters
have to do it also.

Personally, I think that there shouldn't be any reporters in
locker rooms, regardless of gender. After a game, an athlete
wants to get out of his uniform and have a shower. He does
not need a reporter sticking a microphone in his face while
he stands there with nothing but a smile on. Use the
conference room, that's what it's for.

Ban ALL reporters from the locker room. Then the whole
debate would be over. Cased closed.

To discourage gay sex, I suspect.

So, A) Would this encouer have occurred if the bathrooms were unisex and B) Why won't he tell me about John Waters' ding-aling? and C) Should I believe him when he says he didn't look?

And, on a related note - in the dorms at Santa Cruz, the floor restrooms/showers/etc. are completely unisex - seems healthy, to me.

BUT - I do believe that there are areas where men are discriminated against - however, I think that, overall, women are fighting more discrimination in many more areas.

I was a little taken aback, but mostly I thought it was funny. I resisted the temptation to turn around and greet / drench them.

Besides, I always thought it was the boyfriends that had a problem with that.

????????

PP - what if one were to turn around and say 'Well - the way you're dressing makes me feel uncomfortable'? Is there such a huge moral or logical distinction between the way one dresses and the way one directs one's eyes?

As for the ludicrous Trent example, you're going to have to provide at least one example of a woman showing her arse and someone being arrested for looking at it if you want us to take your rantings remotely seriously.

What do you mean with "looks nice on you"?
If nobody is looking at you then what is the purpose of it looking nice. Comfortable I understand but "nice looking" suggests someone eh looks at it you know?

http://www.rockabillyhall.com/rr1199wolf.jpg

You are not very bright are you?
What is the purpose of looking nice if nobody sees you?
So you can look at yourself in the mirror all day?

Where is the dividing line that seperates enjoying the way you look and "flaunting" it (IOW inviting attention from others) from enjoying the way you look but not meaning it as an open invitation to ogle? Is it even possible to "flaunt it" with opening yourself up for ogling? (For the purposes of this question, "ogling" is unwanted attention that makes you feel uncomfortable.)

If I blow your head off, will you shoot me in the gut? Better yet, you blow my head off and I'll shoot you in the gut and then our friends can look at us and FINALLY learn the secret to empathy for the opposite sex! FUCKING BRILLIANT, I SAVE THE WORLD AGAIN!!!

(insert story of how I had my period for four months straight and would gladly shoot anyone in the head with a poisonous shotgun who seriously thought razor burn is worse than that)

(dude also the Brazilian wtf wtf wtf!)

No, I wasn't.

http://www.fugufotos.com/people/Men%2001/Old%20Brazilian%20Man%20copy.jpg

You should have sat patiently listening to her rant and then said "No, I think you misheard me - I said I can't imagine how that feels."

(insert wry tone) Backtracking would only work if she bothered listening---which rarely is the point after a good rant.

i dont hate women, but i do think i have certain issues with them that prevent me from really forming relationships or meeting as many women as id like.

Issues in the Leviticus chapter 15 sense?

Issues in the Leviticus chapter 15 sense?

HAHAHA ew.

Bible humor.

"And what saddle soever he rideth upon that hath the issue shall be unclean."

Glad you guys know, yay! That joke goes over FLAT IRL.

It's almost like there are too many indoctrinated childhoods for one board....

It took me a second... at first I was like, "Is that the one with the 'no homo' clause?... No wait, it's worse than that."

Ned, you're just a bad little Episcopalian boy, aren't you?

You know me and Anglican guilt.

I thought the Anglicans spelled that 'gilt' or am I confusing them with another sect?

That's an instant laugh catchphrase between my brother and I: "I'm just a baaaaaaaaaad widdle Episcopawian boy."

Is Ned covered in GOLD? He never gave up on his soul? Is he indestructible?

What's the old joke about the guy being shown around hell? In one lake of fire are the Catholics who ate meat on Fridays. In another are the Baptists who danced. In the last, the Episcopalians who used the wrong fork at luncheon.

Sounds about right!

I thought Episcopal was totally the party church, how did I get this idea and is it wrong?

They certainly have the gin thing down imo, Abbott.

Is there a really non-ecumenical/non-non-denominational church that's totally the party church? I want to check this out. (I at one point thought it might be the Unitarian Church but recent events lead me to think they are group therapy in a church.)

My very sensible friend who is raising her sons sans religion but herself has an excellent sense of the interconnectedness/cosmos/Stuff That Matters was raised a Unitarian Universalist, I think, and is v happy with it.

Yes, it sounds very nice and appealing, a spirituality that sounds fairly tailored to my needs. BUT is it a party church?

I get the impression it's pretty much whatever you need it to be...?

As religion should be!

"I'm looking for a church that encourages various acts of sodomy."

I think actually the closest to party churches would be huge megachurches with social groups for every age and interest, but then you might have to be willing to accept pretty fundamentalist theology. (I go for the Episcopalian mellowness instead.)

I believe many religions encourage sexual deviance, they just don't condone it.

the kenanical interpretation

Fundamentalism makes you freaky, proven by science

My mom is involved in a church where they all choose silly hats from a box before the service, and sing selections from musicals instead of hymns. I'm afraid to ask her what its called.

high school theater

quite possibly.

Some women hate men because they have been physically and mentally abused; same thing with men. Case solved.

Some men think they hate women, when they really hate themselves.

why do some women hate

Some men think they hate women, when they really hate themselves.

either way, it's really charming.

What religion has the most scope for parties?

mormons have some barn burners I hear

Really I just want a piece of this
http://www.badmovieplanet.com/inferno/archives/infernocam/wick8.JPG

I think men and women get a raw deal sometime, but men are less able to speak out.

oh bull

i don't hate women. the girl who cheated on me a few years ago is one exception, though.

kabbalists clearly win partying category

http://joshuasjukebox.com/blog1/images/Britney-Madonna-MTV-VideoAwards-2003.jpg

I think men and women get a raw deal sometime, but men are less able to speak out.
-- mei, Monday, 1 October 2007 16:12 (1 hour ago) Link

oh bull
-- kenan, Monday, 1 October 2007 16:14 (1 hour ago) Link

Recursive LOL.
As a man I speak out about what I percieve to be men's situation and get stomped.

That is such amazing irony that I'm sure it was planned.

He was a h8r boi
She said 'see ya l8r boi'

i just read "various" in m. white's post as "vicious"

http://denisdutton.com/baumeister.htm

http://blingkits.com/DVD%20DVD/Menstruation/Menstration6.jpg

Surely, surely, surely we got this sorted?

in binders, iirc

Hiyoo

Why Do (some) People Ask Overly-Broad Questions on Message Boards?

I mean, really now.

It draws the crowd, eventually they get around to the pitch (which almost always disappoints)

They see in women a constant, painful reminder of their own incipient boobage.

(not all) Men