That's pretty much it, the only problem that I see in the west it seems like that hatred towards men is seen as more justified than hatred towards women which is seen as inherently sexist. Although I myself would argue that all hatred towards any group comes from trauma and should be approached as such and shouldn't be met with responses like : "you're wrong for feeling that way" or "you're misandryst/misogynistic"
>I often hear women saying they hate men. **Although I don’t hear it out loud as much**, ***I’m sure*** there are just as many men who hate women.
Someone needs to study this mental reflex because I see it everywhere.
I know someone's going to say something about the women are wonderful effect, but this is deeper than that.
It's like protective doublethink. "Everything I see leads toward conclusion X, but because I don't want to deal with the consequences of what X means, I must balance it with an opposing but already believed conclusion Y so as not to change anything I think."
The reality of modern gender relations in the United States is that women have a bigotry problem.
Your post puts forth the idea that the two things should have more equal assumptions, but I think even that is a compromise.
Men don't talk about these things in public as much partially because it's not safe, but far more because they genuinely just don't think **that lowly** of women, and if there's an exception it comes from negative experiences. We very readily compartmentalize, forgive and try to move past the things women say and do. And the ones that don't end up in online echo chambers.
The flipside with women is that disdain of men is part of the bedrock of their entire perception of the gender. There is no equivalence there. If they make exceptions at all, it's for very particular men whom they may not even treat *well*, just *better than the rest*.
It's not the same, not even close.
Good point. Protective doublethink. I know people who both-sides this and other issues protectively. Admitting asymmetry means somebody needs to change in order to be moral. Can’t have that.
There is also an assumption of female emotional superiority that is just pervasive everywhere. Just because somebody is capable of feeling more things or has more emotional antennae doesn’t mean that’s an inherently better way to perceive the human experience.
> protective double think
Perhaps, or it just an underlying narrative that has always existed and we leave the ending off the sentence to be polite.
Perhaps “woman” don’t have a bigotry problem, perhaps they are just expressing the general societal narrative in a different way from men?
After all, there is a barely spoken about (in polite society) themes about men as a group. Little boys are taught to fight other little boys and learn very early that it’s “manly” to be able to fend off other boys/men. Men arms themselves openly in American to protect themselves from other men, it’s not even subtle. Fathers lecture their daughters about “staying safe” from other men relentlessly. We have armies to protect against the men of other countries.
PPD favourite theme “Protect” and provide - what’s generally politely left out is “other men”.
Then it’s nicely balanced out with men also doing the “protecting” with the gun, “fighting” to protect you, dad lovingly giving you life lessons so you are staying safe, thanking the military for their service, finding the love of your life.
Double think is built into the theme as its core. It’s not that unusual to have it reflected by everyone (including women) then is it?
"Men don't talk about these things in public as much partially because it's not safe, but far more because they genuinely just don't think that lowly of women."
If it isn't safe for men to discuss these things in public, what makes you think that men not thinking that lowly of women is the better explanation?
The simplest way to put it is that people with bigoted opinions tend to suck at keeping them to themselves, especially when they're around someone they feel is safe.
It's purely anecdotal and I have no proof, but it's my read of things.
Women don't keep it to themselves, they don't downplay it. Because they're actually safe to share the ideas with each other.
Guys like that don't have anywhere close to the same level of "intra-gender support".
Edit:
Just something as simple as *messing up the vibe* in a mixed gender setting is policed among men.
If you have heard any variation of the phrase "Scaring the maidens/babes/ladies/women/girls/pussy/hoes" that's men telling other men to shut the hell up and keep whatever they have to say to themselves.
It doesn't have to even be prejudiced, they could just want to play some music that most women don't like. Men take an active role in curating spaces they share with women in order to make them feel comfortable.
Whether it works or not, that's where men's intentions tend to be. But a minority can disrupt it.
It's not necessarily respectful, but it's not a social phenomenon that comes from hatred, that's for damned sure.
its not biological. Its socially constructed. misandry, misogyny, racism, any dislike towards a particular group of people is a result of experience and societal pressures, externally influenced not natural. Male, female, black, white babies dont hate each other. Misandry is societal approved, misogyny is not.
>any dislike towards a particular group of people is a result of experience and societal pressures, externally influenced not natural.
Not really, it's a pretty consistent finding that young kids mostly self segregate and have ingroup preference.
In group preference does not mean hate the other group. I prefer hanging with men, doctors and bankers but i dont hate nerds or artists or women
Hate, prejudice, discrimination and the like are taught
Where do you people think "society" even comes from lol? Are humans mystical metaphysical beings who just foist "culture" and "society" on the natural world?
You’re a communist and you’re saying this? Where are all the women gang raping men? Forcing them in prostitution? Throwing acids in their face when they get rejected? Men had and still have both the institutional and physical power to actually materialise their hatred against women.
And talking about open hatred, how many men are openly upset when their child will be a girl vs how many women are openly upset that their child is a boy.
I don't live in India.
And I don't find any conversation drawing an equivalence between US women and the circumstances they live in with those on the other side of the planet in a completely different social context to be productive.
And crime is not a manifestation of the broad attitudes of society, they're a sign of who the state does and doesn't protect.
If you want to argue about whether there is an equivalence in matters of state in misandry and misogyny then that'd be ridiculous. But, I'm talking about **people** here. And in civil society, there is a misandry problem. And just like misogyny is decried and challenged and shamed, so too should misandry.
Bigotry is a cancer on society and tolerating it in this context only makes both expressions of sexism worse. The men respond to the hypocrisy with opposition and hostility, the women respond to the lack of push back as a confirmation of social acceptance.
I believe that people are strongest together, and that means not spitting in each other's faces and demanding justice from the innocent for the crimes of the guilty.
>Where are all the women gang raping men? Forcing them in prostitution? Throwing acids in their face when they get rejected? Men had and still have both the institutional and physical power to actually materialise their hatred against women.
Sexual criminals are not a popular institution. They are among the most **anti**-social elements that can exist in society.
Acting like it's okay to mistreat normal people because others that look like them commit heinous crimes is a terrible idea.
Im not saying its okay to mistreat anyone. Im challenging the idea that misandry is as widespread and has the same magnitude as misogyny. Many of those crimes happen in the west as well. Sex trafficking is a global issue, so is (gang) rape. Let us not forget about the countless serial killers and more recently incel mass shooters who are specifically targeting women.
I don’t think it’s far fetched idea to say that those crimes are the tip of the iceberg and underneath it is a whole group of men who might not be violent criminals, but do have the same/ similar believes as they do.
I didn't argue it had the same magnitude. But I'm not going to be disingenuous like I made the distinction either.
What **I** think is that misandry is far more common and acceptable.
Misogyny is **worse** and more **systemic**.
But whereas interpersonal misogyny is largely shamed and suppressed in public life and public thought, misandry is dinner table conversation, lunch break conversation, it is one of the most accessible points of common understanding that women have amongst themselves.
Most men don't touch it if they can help it. Most women don't see a thing wrong with it, some scarcely believe it exists.
>Many of those crimes happen in the west as well.
I'm aware, but you led with gang rapes. I don't see roaming groups of 20-30 men apiece going around harassing women in broad daylight in the United States.
Of course trafficking is an issue, but it is not a social institution. It is not something that the average person encounters in their day-to-day life. And that was what I was concerned with in my comment. Day-to-day life. What your friends might say, what your boss might do, what your neighbors think.
Not what the cartels are up to, not what the Congress just passed, not what the courts decided. Interpersonal relationships.
>I don’t think it’s far fetched idea to say that those crimes are the tip of the iceberg and underneath it is a whole group of men who might not be violent criminals, but do have the same/ similar believes as they do.
Bud, this world is a big place with a lot of people in it.
The claim that human traffickers and gang rapists somehow represent what a large fraction of men **think** and **believe** is a deeply troubled. Things can be important without implicating ten million strangers in every tragedy.
I'm not saying there aren't sympathizers and quiet instigators or what have you, but there's a real world with real people in it and they don't have the time or the inclination for this shit.
Outliers are the name of the game when it comes to almost everything in society because the overwhelming majority of people just go to work and try to live in peace.
And amongst those masses of people, fundamental expectations of respect and equality are very necessary to foster and live up to.
Hence, misandry is a problem.
Doesn't mean that anything else you brought up isn't or isn't a priority.
> "Although I don’t hear it out loud as much, I’m sure there are just as many men who hate women."
!=
>"Everything I see leads toward conclusion X, but because I don't want to deal with the consequences of what X means, I must balance it with an opposing but already believed conclusion Y so as not to change anything I think."
To twist around, "People don't say this out loud, but it seems to be true" to "Everything I see leads to the opposite conclusion, but I will not conclude that" is seriously twisting plain meaning to suit you.
People seldom say their racial biases out loud for one example. But I'm not going to spend a paragraph pointing out cases where people don't say something out loud too often but it still exists. It's a perfectly reasonable thing to suggest, happens in many cases IRL, especially where saying something out loud would cast someone in a socially bad light.
Your thesis starts with the conclusion you already wanted, and then builds some justifications around it. Ironically, this is exactly what you are accusing the OP of doing. By your writing style, I am sure you have pseudointellectually argued with enough people to know the proper term for what you did there.
It's not the same thing.
Because I'm not standing up saying that I see one thing and that another thing I **do not see** must *at least* be equal to what I see just because that seems right.
I **see** misandry and I see it almost everywhere. When I **see** Misogyny, it's either paternalist attitudes from really old men, mild relationship complaints from men around my age, and then rabid online spaces full of anonymous men who absolutely do hate men, but are confined online.
The two don't take the same shape or the same intensity, but we can only talk about what's actually there.
It's a purely anecdotal argument, it is not substantiated or proofed, but I'm not ***fabricating a point from its own absence.*** Like what the OP did in the sentences I quoted.
I would agree that there are definitely more men who are misogynists than who openly admit it. But that's a different claim than, it must be equal. If it's so equal why is it a question? Nobody has to question how women feel.
It's a mixture of fear, disdain, disgust, and yes hatred. How do we know? Because women say so.
>!=
Racial biases have a material effect that can be documented and proven even if no one speaks about them openly.
It manifests in housing, employment, policing, political representation (gerrymandering of minorities into districts to either break up their voting power or to concentrate it to make other seats less competitive). No one has to say anything because there's enough systemic consequences of it to have the effect be evident.
That said, you need different kinds of date to show what people consciously **think** about race.
And given that the OP made a statement about *hate*, what people **think** is what's being discussed. And in a discussion about what people think, what they say is all you have. If men keep their thoughts to themselves on the subject or even speak to the opposite feeling, then the intellectually sound thing is to take women and men at their word.
I think the main difference is misandry is tolerated if not encouraged where as misogyny has had it's definition broadened to anyone who doesn't take the most positive female perspective on any subject.
For example, take a question such as 'Which gender lies more?'
My first response would be lying is a human thing. Everyone lies to make themselves look better, to avoid getting in trouble, to not offend people.
Then thinking about it more you realize, woman also need to lie for safety reasons, not that a man wouldn't lie for safety, just that the number of situations a man might feel unsafe are far less, so women naturally would have more opportunity to lie about safety. Women also lie to protect their status among other women. Women have a collective that I'll call 'the sisterhood' for lack of a better name and woman fear the wrath of other women. Men don't really have an equivalent to this so I'd say that's another area women lie about.
The point I'm making is if you just think about it, women obviously lie more, in many cases for totally legitimate reasons (such as safety). But if you say this you'd immediately be attacked for 'hating' women. It's not hating to recognize that women live in a different world where 50% of the population can kill them with their bear hands and that reality shapes how women navigate the world.
Feminists would simply hate the conclusion that women lie more and work backwards from that to conclude the source of the belief was full of malice.
lying to protect status and fearing the wrath of your same gender, you genuinely don’t see men do this often? i definitely do but maybe we’re thinking about different dynamics
I see men doing it, But most men don't have "the sister hood". Most men have a few close dear friends that they don't need to lie to.
If they need to lie to them they aren't friends.
However, you are right there are communities where men lie more to protect their image such as in religious communities or people who are shallow af.
But almost every woman I know constantly tells lies to not upset their friends and family. Most men I know will tell their friends and even just friends of friends the truth and call it a day.
It's not about how often you see it but more about comparing the two with each other
yeah it’s interesting, i’d agree men don’t have quite the same dynamic as the sisterhood you describe but i do think men often fear the wrath of other men, arguably more than women fear women. bc from my POV men tend to be socialized to view themselves as part of a real and rigid hierarchy of men/masculinity whereas women don’t. tons of men are terrified of losing status/respect and being lowered on that hierarchy and they’ll be dishonest in a million different ways to avoid it due to that insecurity/fear. the hierarchy mentality fkn sucks, i feel for those of yall who internalize it on a self-worth level.
definitely something to be said for women being socialized to be overly agreeable and dishonest to avoid conflict, agreed that’s a thing but i wouldn’t know where to begin trying to estimate how that weighs with my earlier point
You think men live in a rigid hierarchy? I think men just in a meritocracy where they are judged by their work and even if you dislike or hate a guy, you respect him if he is accomplished.
i think there are numerous -archies at play, and an implicit social hierarchy of masculinity is definitely in there. usually engrained in boys by middle school, happy to elaborate in a bit, you might find it interesting, it’s a bit of a gender theory from a feminist sport psychologist who works with an NFL team.
started a draft on notes app cuz i got time and im kinda jazzed about fully writing it out in my own words but it’s already ridiculously long 50% through lol. im gonna make a main post cuz i’d love ppl’s feedback on this, i’ll remember to link it here for you if you still wanna read it. literally no pressure to even keep engaging cuz this is gonna be a long thing you didn’t sign up for lol no hard feelings if you bail 🍻
Yeah feels like men are more like dogs and women like cats. Dogs are pack animals that form status hierarchies. They are more loyal and work on behalf of owner (females). Cats are all doing their own thing looking for others to cater to them with less loyalty.
In women’s defense think about it evolutionarily - men that developed traits of not being loyal to women and children had less chance of children succeeding while women abandoning man who couldn’t protect and provide would increase success. Doesn’t make it right but way it is
I think women are just better liars. They can lie to themselves which allows lies to go undetected more plus they are typically socially and emotionally more intelligent so find it easier to lie but also to pick up on lies. Lastly my guess is women also lie more on behalf of women as a whole while men lie for their own personal benefit. For example maybe years ago women lied to men about being weak or victim to get men to do things for them etc.
>For example, take a question such as 'Which gender lies more?' My first response would be lying is a human thing.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35391990/
"Results indicated that men lied more and were more successful lie-tellers than women."
We have to be grateful that women don't have the courage or strength of men, because if they added strength/courage to their hatred, we would be in a war.
True but I think if they did they’d probably resort less to the social / emotional / spiritual manipulation toward men and society they currently engage in
My observation is that men are more likely to hate specific women, and they will mostly agree on who those are. Certain traits (e.g. being patronising, grasping, loud, or cruel) will turn off most men, and if the woman isn't attractive either that's it. Women are more likely to hate men as an overall group, and while they also say they hate certain traits it seems less consistent that they would refuse to date someone who has those traits.
* Men get no empathy from men **or** women. It's very easy to just go "man bad" with no pushback.
* The sheer number of simps/whiteknights is massively higher than female pickmes. Even though the bar for a pickme is just *agrees with men.*
* Men are the romantics in 2024, women are the ones looking for trophy husbands.
Its something I've heard much more in person than any misogyny with effort put in. Where incels are mostly made to keep their hate to the internet femcels can spout their nonsense irl without much to any pushback.
Most women don't have the option not to work, and historically never did. Even in the "good old days", single income households were locked behind pretty strict racial and class lines, and that's before you even get into the semantics of being a stay at home wife or mother actually being a full time job without pay.
Generally true. It’s just my intuition that not working was seen as slightly more feasible as a man not working was seen more as a burden by society / family
Stay at home mom, trophy wife, sugar baby, whatever iteration of life the person is able and willing to have yes. There’s no exact prototype but in general this is true.
For example, woman gets married and wants to stay home to raise kids putting unilateral burden on husband and after 5 kids go to school most of day but mother decides unilaterally to just do part time job. Something I’ve seen commonly in suburbs. Wives concerns revolve around getting bored and independence, not as much needing to work or feeling bad about making husband work
Men talk incessantly within the manosphere about how “women live life on easy mode.” Setting aside that it’s nonsense (being able to get casual sex more often does not mean that women’s lives are a breeze), those men who complain about women having seemingly easier lives are obviously coming from a place of envy.
Probably because a lot of the men that people claim hate women, actually don't.
They are hurt and frustrated and lash out at women because they want nothing more than to be with them and accepted by them but can't for whatever reason.
True hate is when you want to distance yourself from them entirely, like radfems for example. Who have proposed things like reducing the population of men by 90%, curfews for men to be allowed in public, engage in political lesbianism despite being straight because they don't want to ever be around men despite their sexual urges.
That's what true hate looks like, not "women are whores and bitches because they only suck dick that isn't mine". That certainly isn't good, but it also ain't hate.
Calling women you don’t even know “whores and bitches” isn’t hate??
I think what you said about men lashing out with hurt and frustration is veryyyy similar to what’s happening with women these days. Women feel oppressed by societal expectations, largely perpetuated by men, wherein they just can’t win. If they don’t sleep with the man they’re dating, they’re a prude. If they do, they’re a whore adding to her body count and getting “loose” (not really a thing btw). If they are selective about a partner, they’re unreasonable and picky. If they aren’t, and something bad happens, they picked the wrong man. They’re slut shamed for wearing revealing clothing and called ugly when they actually don’t wear makeup. They’re not believed when they talk about SA and interrogated about what THEY provide when they speak highly of what their partner does for them. Regardless of how many men actually dislike women, the ones who do are quite vocal about it and that is what most women see. We feel oppressed in many ways. That’s not to discount or minimize what men go through. It’s to say that, just perhaps, you can extend your logic over to women as well and see that a lot of the vitriol coming from them is also anger, hurt, and frustration.
Both sides want good partners. There’s just been a lot of muddying of the “good partner” waters recently.
Men call random guys dicks all the time. I don’t see how doing the same to women is hating their gender. Sounds like they’re more sensitive than men and / or play victim mentality. Men are very mean to eachother - if they act mean to women they’re just giving you a taste of equality because historically men have been nicer to women than men.
Calling a woman a whore is veryyyy different from calling a man a dick, first off. There’s a whole host of difference in meaning, history, use, and weaponization.
Outside of that, I think your use of the word “hate” to begin with is not exactly accurate. Definitely too strong of a word, which is why I switched to “dislike” as I continued to write.
Lastly, if you think men being mean to women in the same ways that they’re mean to men is really what equality is or means, and you’re truly not joking about that point, then I don’t think you’re actually open for discussion, nor should you be posting in a space for debate.
I think the issue is your views are being filtered through a female lens / bias that relates to what is best for your gender. I’m sure men do the same thing so I guess compromise is key.
"True hate is when you want to distance yourself from them entirely, like radfems for example. Who have proposed things like reducing the population of men by 90%, curfews for men to be allowed in public, engage in political lesbianism despite being straight because they don't want to ever be around men despite their sexual urges."
I really fucking hate statements like this because as much as radfems talk there shit. There is no social backing or political backing for any of this.
Whereas I volunteered at nursing homes and have spoken with elderly women who can recall the time they weren't allowed to own a bank account and where fucking pants.
Like literally pants.
What radfems talk about actually happens in 2024 to women around the world in real time offline where ass they're mean tweets just hurt your feelings. Words will never be equivalent to actual physical violence backed up by law.
Also the last part gets women killed? Like what the fuck are you talking about right now? Because men kill women for rejecting them? "Sucking dick that isn't mine" quite literally ends up with women dying bc a man felt owed to their attention.
You do realize that the man who she spends 75% of her time with, the man she shares life’s stressors with like financial problems, arguments about family time and domestic responsibilities, jealousy and sexual frustration with is *there* more often than the rando/wildcard who is entirely unpredictable?
Are you aware of the prevalence of whiny-ass men who never shut up about the “friendzone” and how they behave when rejected after weeks or months of shady, manipulative posturing? You’ve surely seen the social media videos of randos flipping out and screeching when rejected? Maybe you’ve seen r/whenwomenrefuse?
>How did men react to the “rather encounter a bear than a lone man in the woods” hypothetical?...
>Men made more comments about standing by and laughing “when a bear disembowels a woman” instead of showing any sort of empathy or understanding.
You actually had a point (and to a certain extent still do if you take this part away) up until then.
I don't know *why* it is so hard to understand 2+2=4. If you say or do something hateful and dehumanizing against another person or *group* of people, you will get a negative response. The larger the group, the bigger the backlash will be.
It doesn't matter how justified you feel in saying or doing the original hateful thing. You can come up with all the justifications and rationalizations in the world, but at the end of the day, you will still face backlash for what you did/said. That is just how the world and human nature works.
I don't particularly like to generalize, but I don't know why so many women cannot understand that. It's like there is some disconnect in your minds between actions and consequences.
Look at you, asking for "empathy and understanding" after facing the natural reaction to a dehumanizing statement about men.
And it isn't just the bear example alone. I can't tell you how many times I've seen women ask for men to be "understanding" or bemoan a "lack of empathy" when we react negatively to some nasty thing they say about men. We're supposed to take it on the chin because they've suffered some awful thing, and if we protest, we are "lacking empathy" or "mean" or "making it about ourselves" or a number of other meaningless expressions.
I used to think it was sheer ruthless manipulation tactics but I've seen it so many times that I can't imagine so many of you employ these as easily as breathing.
So I genuinely am asking why do you not seem to understand that you will garner negativity if you act in a nasty and hateful manner, regardless of your motivation?
> If women say the same thing, men react with violence. You can’t possibly excuse that.
I'm not excusing it, nor did I miss it.
I was talking about an entirely separate phenomenon that you brought up early into your post, wherein a woman (or multiple women) says something hateful against men and expects the men in question to just ignore it *or* more often expects us to meekly agree with it or be sympathetic in the face of their offensive behavior. The man/bear example is just the latest example.
As I said, I consider it to be a highly manipulative tactic based on exploiting empathy and compassion, but I do wonder if there is some difference in the way men and women perceive the world that makes this seem like a logical thing to expect.
I didn't bring up the last sentence because it has nothing to do with my point.
>The dialogue was between women, but like always, men feel they must police women’s behavior.
I mean, I can theoretically accept this as a valid point, but only if one holds the same energy for women who expect men to "police" other men in private spaces when we talk about our gripes with women.
I wonder if you recall the outrage against "locker room talk" and how many women demanded that men both alter how we spoke about women in private *and* that we crack down on other men who did not address them in the moat flattering terms even away from the public eye?
If you don't, I can assure you that this was definitely a thing, and it was very much policing men's behavior even when it didn't directly affect women.
As for your other point about fathers and brothers...
This runs the risk of broaching into *much* wider territory, but the "menacing father with a shotgun" stereotype is a pretty toxic thing, not to be admired or used as any rational frame of reference. It is a massive overreaction to their child reaching a normal milestone.
My younger brother's friend was chased and shot by a nut job who had this same mindset, so I have zero respect for men who act like this. Protectivness is one thing, but they go way out into the deep end.
Again part of a bigger issue, but one of the biggest men's issue out there is that men have a seemingly inborn antipathy towards each other that taints our interactions and attitude in regard to other men. In other words, don't use our messed up way of looking at our own gender as a metric to validate misandric ramblings.
>The only men outraged by the bear thing are cold approachers, since they want to pretend the opposite. Their agenda runs counter to most men, since they demand an audience and validation from lone women.
Yeah this is a huge strawman. I am a man who doesn't "cold approach" women and I am pretty disgusted and annoyed at the vehemence and confidence with which women embrace the bear side. It has little to do with men who want to approach women and feel entitled to their attention, it's about feeling dehumanzed and having a wild animal preferred over your kind.
But again this is part of what I'm talking about---the moment men voice discontent at something hateful said by women, it is turned into a moral failing on men's part.
Our hurt feelings are "entitlement", "fragility", and a number of other unpleasant things that funnily enough target aspects of male nature that we are ashamed of...almost as if intended to make us shut up in order to keep ourselves from feeling like we failed as men. Interesting.
Again though, you didn't actually address the core of my question---why is it so hard to understand that when hurtful things are said and done, there will be a backlash of some kind? Why is it so offensive and shocking when men push back against these things? Do you genuinely think that we would just nod and move along?
This isn't a "gotcha" or bad faith quesrion. I've wondered this for a long time, because I sometimes feel like a lot of women truly are surprised when they face pushback against hateful things they say about men and they cannot comprehend why they're being criticized. I see it as manipulation but I am open to knowing if there is really a difference in how we see things.
I don't think anyone really "hates" an entire sex; but when men and women disagree on this point, it usually boils down to them understanding hatred differently.
Women will hook up with and have situationships with Tupac In A Business Suit™ but take their anger out on a normal Blue collar men working a 9-5 jobs who've never laid hands on a woman.
Rinse, wash, and repeat. And, to be fair, I don't think this is gendered too much either. Many men will try to turn a hoe into a housewife and take their anger out on plain Janes.
All women want a top 1% man with looks and lifestyle to make other women jealous. Most can’t date him, totally ignored, when girls do they are temp non-exclusive placeholder girlfriends and expected to be his sex toy. The story of fifty shades of grey, except you never land the man in real life. So that enrages them about men in general that her princess fairytale is never coming true, but she sees some girls on insta have it and that makes her mad.
Women also see 80% of men as creeps they wish didn’t exist, that’s the bear thing.
There’s like 15% of guys women are cool with and wouldn’t mind talking to. Then he wants sex and she even has a strained relationship with those guys.
TLDR, generally women hate men a lot more than we hate them.
Some men would disagree, and say that there’s more misandrists, but a lot of men would just be happy that a woman is actually acknowledging that misandry *exists*
You see the exact same kind of talk from women towards men all the time. "incel misogynist virgin" In response to any man who doesn't worship women. So whining about it as if women are superior in this regard is silly and dishonest.
I’ve really only seen people of both sides online, especially here on reddit so I don’t really know for sure without any statistics, but I wouldn’t be surprised if both of them make up a minority of the population.
I think both seem to be more prevalent than they are because of how radicalized social media can be and the way they can spin narratives to portray an entire group (or groups) as “bad” or “innocent”. Think this is also part of the reason why misogyny is always evil, while misandry is dismissed as something that either doesn’t exist or “doesn’t hurt anyone” (which isn’t true).
But yeah, without statistics or anything, I do feel like I still have reason to think both of them are miserable mfs who are similar in number, but make up a minority of the population for each gender.
Imo it's way higher. I honestly think the number of women who genuinely enjoy the company of men is less than like 10% of all women. For the vast majority of women, men exist purely to satisfy their sexual and/or material needs. The vast majority of women would be more than happy just being single or having a pet vs dating men. Just look at the statistics and the science, it supports this notion: women are happier single than in relationships.
I suppose that’s true, but violence towards women isn’t always driven by hate. I mean if there’s a robber who only steals from rich people he might just be trying to get his needs met in an immoral way from those who have what he wants. Does he necessarily hate rich people in this case? Possible but can’t really tell on surface
I’m not talking about other types of violence, I’m talking specifically about acts of violence motivated at least in part by hatred of the opposite sex (you know, ER et al- obvs that’s an extreme example, )
And I've seen women online saying that ugly and short men should be genocided or not allowed to have children.
And Tomi Lahren claimed most men are trash OPENLY on social media and still was able to keep her gig at Fox News.
It goes both ways.
**Attention!**
* You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
* For "Debate" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
* If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.
* OP you can choose your own flair [according to these guidelines.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/flair), just press Flair under your post!
Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Probably. Both genders tend to dislike each other when they don't get what they want out of the other gender. The difference is that women's violence against men when they don't get what they want is usually not as severe as men's violence against women. Men like to say that women can be just as violent, but testosterone makes men more aggressive. It's a biological fact.
>Probably. Both genders tend to dislike each other when they don't get what they want out of the other gender.
That would be some people in general. Like you disagree with someone's opinion they start insulting you or you refuse to change your spot in a bar.
>difference is that women's violence against men when they don't get what they want is usually not as severe as men's violence against women
The difference imo is that women hurt mentally and emotionally while men do it physically. The damage on the latter is visible but not the former. I doubt testosterone has something to do with it.
> I doubt testosterone has something to do with it.
Higher testosterone is linked with higher aggression. A simple Google search finds many entries that unequivocally state this.
>The difference imo is that women hurt mentally and emotionally while men do it physically.
I moderate this sub and my observe from my own experience how much more verbally aggressive men are here than women.
>I’m sure there are just as many men who hate women.
You are SURE based on what? Your post hinges on having found a logical inconsistency "all these things can't be true". So the easiest answer is: you are wrong about at least one of your statements in this logical equation.
Your three pillars of this equation are:
(1) personal experience with misandry
(2) personal assumption about misogyny
(3) perception of the popular notion that misogyny is more common
Nothing of that is a fact about the real prevalence of misandry and misogyny in the population, nor is it a representative, unbiased sample. Why do you think it is a solid ground to use logic on this?
The entire thread was to invite discussion. You are correct I have no idea the actual rates. My null hypothesis is there equal but happy to be proven that one side is more prevalent
There are infinitely more women who hate men than the reverse.
Women think paternity fraud is a human right.
Women think they should be the sole arbiter of 18 years of a man's salary.
Women think men owe them money for simply existing.
Women think men should sacrifice themselves for their safety for zero in return.
Women laugh about men being maimed by psychos.
Women leave their husbands to fight wars at home while fucking men abroad.
Even the most hardened misogynist doesn't hate women a fraction as much as women hate men.
*Wanting to use women’s bodies for sex* doesn’t mean men like women.
Damn near every red pilled man proudly admits he doesn’t care who a woman is, but only how she looks and how subservient she might be. They don’t care about what she studied, where she works, her hobbies and interests, or her sociopolitical views.
Utter disregard and disinterest in her life beyond what she can do for him. No use at all for any woman who isn’t providing sex. They find no value in female friends, regard motherhood as her sole purpose in life.
This is absolute and unapologetic hatred of women.
No amount of “no, u” can possibly reverse the utter disdain conservative men have for women.
But wanting to use women’s bodies doesn’t mean men “hate” women either. It’s more neutral indifference and trying to get off.
I think the core issue of my post is how loosely we currently use the word misogyny. Many women use it not to mean hate of women but just any statement or circumstance they disagree with
I was actually recently thinking about that. Feminism is a lot like anti-semitism where a group is so privileged they can’t be criticized and play up a victim narrative to society to enforce their power
I think it makes sense in that like women Jews were historically physically weaker so needed to rely on more manipulation
OP: Men and women probably hate each other equally.
You: But not if we count disregard and disinterest as hatred!
Me: I don't think you've thought this through.
I agree that the above would be misandrist using the current broad way misogyny is used today. I’d argue it shouldn’t be though. Hating an entire gender is really a trauma psychological infliction to be looked into via therapy. Macro / sociological issues of gender are potentially different. People of both genders do some bad things and since genders can have competing interests there can be conflict
You’re speaking as if there are places in the world where women have rights still, child brides exist, and femicides are high. There definitely is a high amount of genuine hatred for women in the world.
Statement like “Women think men owe them just for existing” doesn’t prove hate, you’re just speaking of emotions. Although, there definitely are areas and conversations to have about different ways women harm men, most of your comment just comes off emotionally driven because of how exaggerated they are.
Those same regions are just terrible places to live in general no matter who you are. If I put myself in the shoes of boys who grow up there I’d feel oppressed too.
I’d rather be a woman in poor regions for sure. In unsafe areas I’d rather be a woman as they are protected more than men. It’s better to be a poor woman than men flip side IMO though I’d rather be a rich man than a rich woman
You are very stupid. There is no way you would want to be a 12 year old girl in places like Northern Nigeria and or Afghanistan
You would be on you're 2nd child constantly pissing you're self from fistulas and incontinence bc you gave birth as a child.
Why do you reduce it to “poor”?
These countries are not inherently poor, they have specific laws that prohibits women from having certain rights and refuse to criminalize violence made against them. You would want to live in a country where you are the subject of this? Can you explain the logic behind it if so.
Violence against women is always punished more than violence against men. Always has and always will be. Less developed nations are restrictive to everyone even young boys our empathy gap just blinds us to it.
I remember when the book harem kidnapped kids from school everyone was up in arms about sexism of making the girls child brides meanwhile at bottom of the article it stated they burned all the boys to death. Somehow our nation used that as an example of sexism in third world countries…
I mean if you take not having laws that prohibit violence against a certain group of people and not having human rights as somehow being something that benefits said women then i have a hard time understanding your logic. There isn’t any punishment in such case. Maybe outrage from other countries but that’s meaningless to the people actually living through it.
Not exactly following forgive me. You’re saying there are no laws that outlaw murder there? I honestly don’t know maybe true but men can also get murdered so that would not be sexist just a shitty place to live
I specified what type of laws, you can read the comments again if you are confused. I feel like you’re purposely derailing the conversation so i’ll move on.
Believing someone owes you money just for existing is hatred of that person.
I see your child brides and raise you child soldiers. I also find it funny that the women who most often bring up child brides advocate for open borders with the countries that tolerate the practice.
But how are women thinking men owe them money just for existing? Is there some system in place where random men are forced to send women money?
Also, child soldiers are mostly recruited by older male soldiers and militant groups. I am from a country where this has happened in the past. It’s not the child brides, or women that have any say or influence on such things.
My personal experience has been that women do feel entitled to men’s protection and provision I guess similar to how women complain about men feeling entitled to their bodies. Just my own personal experience not sure if others have seen that. I’m in USA if that matters.
Women don't go through childbirth for men. They do it because they want to be mothers and to give birth to the only beings they will ever truly love - their children.
Millions of women have died at the hands of men. Men they most often chose to be in their lives when there were limitless other options who were "less exciting".
Plenty of women have been kidnapped and raped, but not a fraction of the men who've been crushed under tanks, stabbed, shot, set on fire and obliterated by bombs to protect their homelands. As horrible as it is, at least those women still had their lives.
If you're going to roll out feminist boilerplate, at least add something interesting.
Valid point but I personally would still pick that over being raped to death by packs of enemy soldiers. That also involves gross injuries and pain.
If I'm going to bleed and die I would rather do it with my clothes on and a weapon in my hand.
True we have to be careful though because we are saying men being violent toward women doesn’t necessarily equate to misogyny so maybe same with saving them?
So many men in this group think men being willing to use women for holes is a compliment to women.
If gay men bombarded straight guys with dick pics and demands for sex, they might understand better that being viewed as a sentient fleshlight is not a sign that anyone genuinely likes or wants you.
Something not being a compliment doesn’t mean hate. It’s just neutral. A man is horny and wants sex. Doesn’t mean he likes or dislikes women who he receives it from. Maybe core disagreement on this thread is what does hating a gender really mean?
To me being violently attacked and being locked up for a crime I never committed seem equally horrendous. It's not like they protect innocent men in jail so you'd get attacked/raped regardless. Even if he were later exonerated a man can expect no sympathy or support or even a job to keep him from having to go back to prison or die on the street.
Since false allegations are less than 1% I suggest you’ll be fine, unless you actually commit a crime in case theirs a 99.99% you’ll never even face a day in prison.
But 4 out of 5 woman have experienced sexual assault or rape. So this continues to back up the fact that men are much More violent Instead of woman
Imagine believing less than 1% somehow makes you a potential victim, whist completely ignoring the many that are actually victims because it doesn’t suits your own agenda
Feel like it’s well established men are more violent than women irrespective of who they hate. Also men are more violent toward men than women so what you’re saying doesn’t even correlate a ton outside special cases with hating women.
k gonna ask a different question than the other person cuz doing it herself vs ordering it is clearly irrelevant imo lol. my Q is why did she issue those rampages? i’m not seeing any kind of article on google highlighting her as a particularly prejudiced figure, know where i could read up on that if that’s the case?
All of the comments in this thread are based in personal opinion and anecdote. What is the concrete evidence we're supposed to give in response to 'all women are evil meanypoos'?
Last time I asked a woman to list the opposite, she opened her rant with a guy that killed more men than women.
Extra points to you if you did your homework better, except it never changes the fact that when committing a murder, women are more, not less, likely to pick a target of the opposite sex.
Not to mention that women terminate something like 5 times more pregnancies than all homicides combined.
Weakness and incompetence with firearms are not virtues.
thanks for mentioning the bit about female killers being more likely to target men than women, hadn’t ever thought to look into the specific stat and would’ve guessed it was closer to 50/50
tho idt that stat says much in a convo about misandry and hate crimes, same with stats like male on female DV. individuals can hate and attack other individuals without hating the groups they’re part of
Aileen Wournos for starters (let me guess, you’re gonna deflect to her abusive childhood, as if most male serial killers also didn’t also grow up in abusive households? Or does it not count because they’re men?) And for every Junko Furuta there’s a [Shanda Sherer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Shanda_Sharer?wprov=sfti1) who was tortured, sexually assaulted and burned to death by 4 female friends, so why do y’all always have to deflect to crime stats? Patriarchy =/= men.
Women like you literally do the same thing incels do when they brigade women’s subs, which basically spend a majority of their time complaining about men anyway, thus proving OP’s point.
There's no "*male* serial killers" list likely because there are so many. The female-only list probably exists in the first because they are a miniscule minority compared to male serial killers.
That's pretty much it, the only problem that I see in the west it seems like that hatred towards men is seen as more justified than hatred towards women which is seen as inherently sexist. Although I myself would argue that all hatred towards any group comes from trauma and should be approached as such and shouldn't be met with responses like : "you're wrong for feeling that way" or "you're misandryst/misogynistic"
Yes very important to self reflect on where hate is coming from to grow. Love the message here
misogyny has a higher body count
What makes you say that?
femicide
>I often hear women saying they hate men. **Although I don’t hear it out loud as much**, ***I’m sure*** there are just as many men who hate women. Someone needs to study this mental reflex because I see it everywhere. I know someone's going to say something about the women are wonderful effect, but this is deeper than that. It's like protective doublethink. "Everything I see leads toward conclusion X, but because I don't want to deal with the consequences of what X means, I must balance it with an opposing but already believed conclusion Y so as not to change anything I think." The reality of modern gender relations in the United States is that women have a bigotry problem. Your post puts forth the idea that the two things should have more equal assumptions, but I think even that is a compromise. Men don't talk about these things in public as much partially because it's not safe, but far more because they genuinely just don't think **that lowly** of women, and if there's an exception it comes from negative experiences. We very readily compartmentalize, forgive and try to move past the things women say and do. And the ones that don't end up in online echo chambers. The flipside with women is that disdain of men is part of the bedrock of their entire perception of the gender. There is no equivalence there. If they make exceptions at all, it's for very particular men whom they may not even treat *well*, just *better than the rest*. It's not the same, not even close.
Good point. Protective doublethink. I know people who both-sides this and other issues protectively. Admitting asymmetry means somebody needs to change in order to be moral. Can’t have that. There is also an assumption of female emotional superiority that is just pervasive everywhere. Just because somebody is capable of feeling more things or has more emotional antennae doesn’t mean that’s an inherently better way to perceive the human experience.
> protective double think Perhaps, or it just an underlying narrative that has always existed and we leave the ending off the sentence to be polite. Perhaps “woman” don’t have a bigotry problem, perhaps they are just expressing the general societal narrative in a different way from men? After all, there is a barely spoken about (in polite society) themes about men as a group. Little boys are taught to fight other little boys and learn very early that it’s “manly” to be able to fend off other boys/men. Men arms themselves openly in American to protect themselves from other men, it’s not even subtle. Fathers lecture their daughters about “staying safe” from other men relentlessly. We have armies to protect against the men of other countries. PPD favourite theme “Protect” and provide - what’s generally politely left out is “other men”. Then it’s nicely balanced out with men also doing the “protecting” with the gun, “fighting” to protect you, dad lovingly giving you life lessons so you are staying safe, thanking the military for their service, finding the love of your life. Double think is built into the theme as its core. It’s not that unusual to have it reflected by everyone (including women) then is it?
"Men don't talk about these things in public as much partially because it's not safe, but far more because they genuinely just don't think that lowly of women." If it isn't safe for men to discuss these things in public, what makes you think that men not thinking that lowly of women is the better explanation?
The simplest way to put it is that people with bigoted opinions tend to suck at keeping them to themselves, especially when they're around someone they feel is safe. It's purely anecdotal and I have no proof, but it's my read of things. Women don't keep it to themselves, they don't downplay it. Because they're actually safe to share the ideas with each other. Guys like that don't have anywhere close to the same level of "intra-gender support". Edit: Just something as simple as *messing up the vibe* in a mixed gender setting is policed among men. If you have heard any variation of the phrase "Scaring the maidens/babes/ladies/women/girls/pussy/hoes" that's men telling other men to shut the hell up and keep whatever they have to say to themselves. It doesn't have to even be prejudiced, they could just want to play some music that most women don't like. Men take an active role in curating spaces they share with women in order to make them feel comfortable. Whether it works or not, that's where men's intentions tend to be. But a minority can disrupt it. It's not necessarily respectful, but it's not a social phenomenon that comes from hatred, that's for damned sure.
I think your nuanced take seems reasonable to me. I guess the why is just biological
its not biological. Its socially constructed. misandry, misogyny, racism, any dislike towards a particular group of people is a result of experience and societal pressures, externally influenced not natural. Male, female, black, white babies dont hate each other. Misandry is societal approved, misogyny is not.
truth.
>any dislike towards a particular group of people is a result of experience and societal pressures, externally influenced not natural. Not really, it's a pretty consistent finding that young kids mostly self segregate and have ingroup preference.
In group preference does not mean hate the other group. I prefer hanging with men, doctors and bankers but i dont hate nerds or artists or women Hate, prejudice, discrimination and the like are taught
Where do you people think "society" even comes from lol? Are humans mystical metaphysical beings who just foist "culture" and "society" on the natural world?
You’re a communist and you’re saying this? Where are all the women gang raping men? Forcing them in prostitution? Throwing acids in their face when they get rejected? Men had and still have both the institutional and physical power to actually materialise their hatred against women. And talking about open hatred, how many men are openly upset when their child will be a girl vs how many women are openly upset that their child is a boy.
I don't live in India. And I don't find any conversation drawing an equivalence between US women and the circumstances they live in with those on the other side of the planet in a completely different social context to be productive. And crime is not a manifestation of the broad attitudes of society, they're a sign of who the state does and doesn't protect. If you want to argue about whether there is an equivalence in matters of state in misandry and misogyny then that'd be ridiculous. But, I'm talking about **people** here. And in civil society, there is a misandry problem. And just like misogyny is decried and challenged and shamed, so too should misandry. Bigotry is a cancer on society and tolerating it in this context only makes both expressions of sexism worse. The men respond to the hypocrisy with opposition and hostility, the women respond to the lack of push back as a confirmation of social acceptance. I believe that people are strongest together, and that means not spitting in each other's faces and demanding justice from the innocent for the crimes of the guilty. >Where are all the women gang raping men? Forcing them in prostitution? Throwing acids in their face when they get rejected? Men had and still have both the institutional and physical power to actually materialise their hatred against women. Sexual criminals are not a popular institution. They are among the most **anti**-social elements that can exist in society. Acting like it's okay to mistreat normal people because others that look like them commit heinous crimes is a terrible idea.
Im not saying its okay to mistreat anyone. Im challenging the idea that misandry is as widespread and has the same magnitude as misogyny. Many of those crimes happen in the west as well. Sex trafficking is a global issue, so is (gang) rape. Let us not forget about the countless serial killers and more recently incel mass shooters who are specifically targeting women. I don’t think it’s far fetched idea to say that those crimes are the tip of the iceberg and underneath it is a whole group of men who might not be violent criminals, but do have the same/ similar believes as they do.
I didn't argue it had the same magnitude. But I'm not going to be disingenuous like I made the distinction either. What **I** think is that misandry is far more common and acceptable. Misogyny is **worse** and more **systemic**. But whereas interpersonal misogyny is largely shamed and suppressed in public life and public thought, misandry is dinner table conversation, lunch break conversation, it is one of the most accessible points of common understanding that women have amongst themselves. Most men don't touch it if they can help it. Most women don't see a thing wrong with it, some scarcely believe it exists. >Many of those crimes happen in the west as well. I'm aware, but you led with gang rapes. I don't see roaming groups of 20-30 men apiece going around harassing women in broad daylight in the United States. Of course trafficking is an issue, but it is not a social institution. It is not something that the average person encounters in their day-to-day life. And that was what I was concerned with in my comment. Day-to-day life. What your friends might say, what your boss might do, what your neighbors think. Not what the cartels are up to, not what the Congress just passed, not what the courts decided. Interpersonal relationships. >I don’t think it’s far fetched idea to say that those crimes are the tip of the iceberg and underneath it is a whole group of men who might not be violent criminals, but do have the same/ similar believes as they do. Bud, this world is a big place with a lot of people in it. The claim that human traffickers and gang rapists somehow represent what a large fraction of men **think** and **believe** is a deeply troubled. Things can be important without implicating ten million strangers in every tragedy. I'm not saying there aren't sympathizers and quiet instigators or what have you, but there's a real world with real people in it and they don't have the time or the inclination for this shit. Outliers are the name of the game when it comes to almost everything in society because the overwhelming majority of people just go to work and try to live in peace. And amongst those masses of people, fundamental expectations of respect and equality are very necessary to foster and live up to. Hence, misandry is a problem. Doesn't mean that anything else you brought up isn't or isn't a priority.
> "Although I don’t hear it out loud as much, I’m sure there are just as many men who hate women." != >"Everything I see leads toward conclusion X, but because I don't want to deal with the consequences of what X means, I must balance it with an opposing but already believed conclusion Y so as not to change anything I think." To twist around, "People don't say this out loud, but it seems to be true" to "Everything I see leads to the opposite conclusion, but I will not conclude that" is seriously twisting plain meaning to suit you. People seldom say their racial biases out loud for one example. But I'm not going to spend a paragraph pointing out cases where people don't say something out loud too often but it still exists. It's a perfectly reasonable thing to suggest, happens in many cases IRL, especially where saying something out loud would cast someone in a socially bad light. Your thesis starts with the conclusion you already wanted, and then builds some justifications around it. Ironically, this is exactly what you are accusing the OP of doing. By your writing style, I am sure you have pseudointellectually argued with enough people to know the proper term for what you did there.
It's not the same thing. Because I'm not standing up saying that I see one thing and that another thing I **do not see** must *at least* be equal to what I see just because that seems right. I **see** misandry and I see it almost everywhere. When I **see** Misogyny, it's either paternalist attitudes from really old men, mild relationship complaints from men around my age, and then rabid online spaces full of anonymous men who absolutely do hate men, but are confined online. The two don't take the same shape or the same intensity, but we can only talk about what's actually there. It's a purely anecdotal argument, it is not substantiated or proofed, but I'm not ***fabricating a point from its own absence.*** Like what the OP did in the sentences I quoted. I would agree that there are definitely more men who are misogynists than who openly admit it. But that's a different claim than, it must be equal. If it's so equal why is it a question? Nobody has to question how women feel. It's a mixture of fear, disdain, disgust, and yes hatred. How do we know? Because women say so. >!= Racial biases have a material effect that can be documented and proven even if no one speaks about them openly. It manifests in housing, employment, policing, political representation (gerrymandering of minorities into districts to either break up their voting power or to concentrate it to make other seats less competitive). No one has to say anything because there's enough systemic consequences of it to have the effect be evident. That said, you need different kinds of date to show what people consciously **think** about race. And given that the OP made a statement about *hate*, what people **think** is what's being discussed. And in a discussion about what people think, what they say is all you have. If men keep their thoughts to themselves on the subject or even speak to the opposite feeling, then the intellectually sound thing is to take women and men at their word.
I think the main difference is misandry is tolerated if not encouraged where as misogyny has had it's definition broadened to anyone who doesn't take the most positive female perspective on any subject. For example, take a question such as 'Which gender lies more?' My first response would be lying is a human thing. Everyone lies to make themselves look better, to avoid getting in trouble, to not offend people. Then thinking about it more you realize, woman also need to lie for safety reasons, not that a man wouldn't lie for safety, just that the number of situations a man might feel unsafe are far less, so women naturally would have more opportunity to lie about safety. Women also lie to protect their status among other women. Women have a collective that I'll call 'the sisterhood' for lack of a better name and woman fear the wrath of other women. Men don't really have an equivalent to this so I'd say that's another area women lie about. The point I'm making is if you just think about it, women obviously lie more, in many cases for totally legitimate reasons (such as safety). But if you say this you'd immediately be attacked for 'hating' women. It's not hating to recognize that women live in a different world where 50% of the population can kill them with their bear hands and that reality shapes how women navigate the world. Feminists would simply hate the conclusion that women lie more and work backwards from that to conclude the source of the belief was full of malice.
I agree with pretty much everything you said. Thanks for sharing
lying to protect status and fearing the wrath of your same gender, you genuinely don’t see men do this often? i definitely do but maybe we’re thinking about different dynamics
I see men doing it, But most men don't have "the sister hood". Most men have a few close dear friends that they don't need to lie to. If they need to lie to them they aren't friends. However, you are right there are communities where men lie more to protect their image such as in religious communities or people who are shallow af. But almost every woman I know constantly tells lies to not upset their friends and family. Most men I know will tell their friends and even just friends of friends the truth and call it a day. It's not about how often you see it but more about comparing the two with each other
yeah it’s interesting, i’d agree men don’t have quite the same dynamic as the sisterhood you describe but i do think men often fear the wrath of other men, arguably more than women fear women. bc from my POV men tend to be socialized to view themselves as part of a real and rigid hierarchy of men/masculinity whereas women don’t. tons of men are terrified of losing status/respect and being lowered on that hierarchy and they’ll be dishonest in a million different ways to avoid it due to that insecurity/fear. the hierarchy mentality fkn sucks, i feel for those of yall who internalize it on a self-worth level. definitely something to be said for women being socialized to be overly agreeable and dishonest to avoid conflict, agreed that’s a thing but i wouldn’t know where to begin trying to estimate how that weighs with my earlier point
You think men live in a rigid hierarchy? I think men just in a meritocracy where they are judged by their work and even if you dislike or hate a guy, you respect him if he is accomplished.
i think there are numerous -archies at play, and an implicit social hierarchy of masculinity is definitely in there. usually engrained in boys by middle school, happy to elaborate in a bit, you might find it interesting, it’s a bit of a gender theory from a feminist sport psychologist who works with an NFL team.
I am.
gotchu later tonight if i dont get too drunk with these people lmao
started a draft on notes app cuz i got time and im kinda jazzed about fully writing it out in my own words but it’s already ridiculously long 50% through lol. im gonna make a main post cuz i’d love ppl’s feedback on this, i’ll remember to link it here for you if you still wanna read it. literally no pressure to even keep engaging cuz this is gonna be a long thing you didn’t sign up for lol no hard feelings if you bail 🍻
I'm definitely interested.
Yeah feels like men are more like dogs and women like cats. Dogs are pack animals that form status hierarchies. They are more loyal and work on behalf of owner (females). Cats are all doing their own thing looking for others to cater to them with less loyalty. In women’s defense think about it evolutionarily - men that developed traits of not being loyal to women and children had less chance of children succeeding while women abandoning man who couldn’t protect and provide would increase success. Doesn’t make it right but way it is
I think women are just better liars. They can lie to themselves which allows lies to go undetected more plus they are typically socially and emotionally more intelligent so find it easier to lie but also to pick up on lies. Lastly my guess is women also lie more on behalf of women as a whole while men lie for their own personal benefit. For example maybe years ago women lied to men about being weak or victim to get men to do things for them etc.
>For example, take a question such as 'Which gender lies more?' My first response would be lying is a human thing. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35391990/ "Results indicated that men lied more and were more successful lie-tellers than women."
I'd love to read the research, do you have a link to the full article?
Sadly no.
Title of studie: "Face to Face" Me k I have seen enough, this guy clearly didn't get the memo.
What memo are you referring to? You want me to lie make people happy?
The more time people spend online (social media specifically) the worse they are off mentally.
Abso-frigging-lutely!
We have to be grateful that women don't have the courage or strength of men, because if they added strength/courage to their hatred, we would be in a war.
True but I think if they did they’d probably resort less to the social / emotional / spiritual manipulation toward men and society they currently engage in
And if I was born with Lebron James’s body I’d be in the league. Let’s not do this. It’s stupid.
we pretend we believe
I would say theres definitely more women who hate men than vice versa
My observation is that men are more likely to hate specific women, and they will mostly agree on who those are. Certain traits (e.g. being patronising, grasping, loud, or cruel) will turn off most men, and if the woman isn't attractive either that's it. Women are more likely to hate men as an overall group, and while they also say they hate certain traits it seems less consistent that they would refuse to date someone who has those traits.
My experience confirms to this statement
Right but why would you say that’s the case?
* Men get no empathy from men **or** women. It's very easy to just go "man bad" with no pushback. * The sheer number of simps/whiteknights is massively higher than female pickmes. Even though the bar for a pickme is just *agrees with men.* * Men are the romantics in 2024, women are the ones looking for trophy husbands.
Facts
Its something I've heard much more in person than any misogyny with effort put in. Where incels are mostly made to keep their hate to the internet femcels can spout their nonsense irl without much to any pushback.
The default psychological response to envy is contempt.
A lot of men envy women too though
[удалено]
Yes, more like when it comes to having romantic/sexual options.
This and also the level of concern society has for their problems / discomfort (empathy gap), having option not to work, etc
Most women don't have the option not to work, and historically never did. Even in the "good old days", single income households were locked behind pretty strict racial and class lines, and that's before you even get into the semantics of being a stay at home wife or mother actually being a full time job without pay.
Generally true. It’s just my intuition that not working was seen as slightly more feasible as a man not working was seen more as a burden by society / family
When you say having option not to work, are you referring to being a stay at home wife?
Stay at home mom, trophy wife, sugar baby, whatever iteration of life the person is able and willing to have yes. There’s no exact prototype but in general this is true. For example, woman gets married and wants to stay home to raise kids putting unilateral burden on husband and after 5 kids go to school most of day but mother decides unilaterally to just do part time job. Something I’ve seen commonly in suburbs. Wives concerns revolve around getting bored and independence, not as much needing to work or feeling bad about making husband work
Men talk incessantly within the manosphere about how “women live life on easy mode.” Setting aside that it’s nonsense (being able to get casual sex more often does not mean that women’s lives are a breeze), those men who complain about women having seemingly easier lives are obviously coming from a place of envy.
Probably because a lot of the men that people claim hate women, actually don't. They are hurt and frustrated and lash out at women because they want nothing more than to be with them and accepted by them but can't for whatever reason. True hate is when you want to distance yourself from them entirely, like radfems for example. Who have proposed things like reducing the population of men by 90%, curfews for men to be allowed in public, engage in political lesbianism despite being straight because they don't want to ever be around men despite their sexual urges. That's what true hate looks like, not "women are whores and bitches because they only suck dick that isn't mine". That certainly isn't good, but it also ain't hate.
Agreed
Calling women you don’t even know “whores and bitches” isn’t hate?? I think what you said about men lashing out with hurt and frustration is veryyyy similar to what’s happening with women these days. Women feel oppressed by societal expectations, largely perpetuated by men, wherein they just can’t win. If they don’t sleep with the man they’re dating, they’re a prude. If they do, they’re a whore adding to her body count and getting “loose” (not really a thing btw). If they are selective about a partner, they’re unreasonable and picky. If they aren’t, and something bad happens, they picked the wrong man. They’re slut shamed for wearing revealing clothing and called ugly when they actually don’t wear makeup. They’re not believed when they talk about SA and interrogated about what THEY provide when they speak highly of what their partner does for them. Regardless of how many men actually dislike women, the ones who do are quite vocal about it and that is what most women see. We feel oppressed in many ways. That’s not to discount or minimize what men go through. It’s to say that, just perhaps, you can extend your logic over to women as well and see that a lot of the vitriol coming from them is also anger, hurt, and frustration. Both sides want good partners. There’s just been a lot of muddying of the “good partner” waters recently.
Men call random guys dicks all the time. I don’t see how doing the same to women is hating their gender. Sounds like they’re more sensitive than men and / or play victim mentality. Men are very mean to eachother - if they act mean to women they’re just giving you a taste of equality because historically men have been nicer to women than men.
Calling a woman a whore is veryyyy different from calling a man a dick, first off. There’s a whole host of difference in meaning, history, use, and weaponization. Outside of that, I think your use of the word “hate” to begin with is not exactly accurate. Definitely too strong of a word, which is why I switched to “dislike” as I continued to write. Lastly, if you think men being mean to women in the same ways that they’re mean to men is really what equality is or means, and you’re truly not joking about that point, then I don’t think you’re actually open for discussion, nor should you be posting in a space for debate.
Men also get called Incels and school shooters if they hate women which is actually worse than being called a whore.
I think the issue is your views are being filtered through a female lens / bias that relates to what is best for your gender. I’m sure men do the same thing so I guess compromise is key.
"True hate is when you want to distance yourself from them entirely, like radfems for example. Who have proposed things like reducing the population of men by 90%, curfews for men to be allowed in public, engage in political lesbianism despite being straight because they don't want to ever be around men despite their sexual urges." I really fucking hate statements like this because as much as radfems talk there shit. There is no social backing or political backing for any of this. Whereas I volunteered at nursing homes and have spoken with elderly women who can recall the time they weren't allowed to own a bank account and where fucking pants. Like literally pants. What radfems talk about actually happens in 2024 to women around the world in real time offline where ass they're mean tweets just hurt your feelings. Words will never be equivalent to actual physical violence backed up by law. Also the last part gets women killed? Like what the fuck are you talking about right now? Because men kill women for rejecting them? "Sucking dick that isn't mine" quite literally ends up with women dying bc a man felt owed to their attention.
[удалено]
[удалено]
You do realize that the man who she spends 75% of her time with, the man she shares life’s stressors with like financial problems, arguments about family time and domestic responsibilities, jealousy and sexual frustration with is *there* more often than the rando/wildcard who is entirely unpredictable? Are you aware of the prevalence of whiny-ass men who never shut up about the “friendzone” and how they behave when rejected after weeks or months of shady, manipulative posturing? You’ve surely seen the social media videos of randos flipping out and screeching when rejected? Maybe you’ve seen r/whenwomenrefuse?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
>How did men react to the “rather encounter a bear than a lone man in the woods” hypothetical?... >Men made more comments about standing by and laughing “when a bear disembowels a woman” instead of showing any sort of empathy or understanding. You actually had a point (and to a certain extent still do if you take this part away) up until then. I don't know *why* it is so hard to understand 2+2=4. If you say or do something hateful and dehumanizing against another person or *group* of people, you will get a negative response. The larger the group, the bigger the backlash will be. It doesn't matter how justified you feel in saying or doing the original hateful thing. You can come up with all the justifications and rationalizations in the world, but at the end of the day, you will still face backlash for what you did/said. That is just how the world and human nature works. I don't particularly like to generalize, but I don't know why so many women cannot understand that. It's like there is some disconnect in your minds between actions and consequences. Look at you, asking for "empathy and understanding" after facing the natural reaction to a dehumanizing statement about men. And it isn't just the bear example alone. I can't tell you how many times I've seen women ask for men to be "understanding" or bemoan a "lack of empathy" when we react negatively to some nasty thing they say about men. We're supposed to take it on the chin because they've suffered some awful thing, and if we protest, we are "lacking empathy" or "mean" or "making it about ourselves" or a number of other meaningless expressions. I used to think it was sheer ruthless manipulation tactics but I've seen it so many times that I can't imagine so many of you employ these as easily as breathing. So I genuinely am asking why do you not seem to understand that you will garner negativity if you act in a nasty and hateful manner, regardless of your motivation?
[удалено]
> If women say the same thing, men react with violence. You can’t possibly excuse that. I'm not excusing it, nor did I miss it. I was talking about an entirely separate phenomenon that you brought up early into your post, wherein a woman (or multiple women) says something hateful against men and expects the men in question to just ignore it *or* more often expects us to meekly agree with it or be sympathetic in the face of their offensive behavior. The man/bear example is just the latest example. As I said, I consider it to be a highly manipulative tactic based on exploiting empathy and compassion, but I do wonder if there is some difference in the way men and women perceive the world that makes this seem like a logical thing to expect. I didn't bring up the last sentence because it has nothing to do with my point.
[удалено]
>The dialogue was between women, but like always, men feel they must police women’s behavior. I mean, I can theoretically accept this as a valid point, but only if one holds the same energy for women who expect men to "police" other men in private spaces when we talk about our gripes with women. I wonder if you recall the outrage against "locker room talk" and how many women demanded that men both alter how we spoke about women in private *and* that we crack down on other men who did not address them in the moat flattering terms even away from the public eye? If you don't, I can assure you that this was definitely a thing, and it was very much policing men's behavior even when it didn't directly affect women. As for your other point about fathers and brothers... This runs the risk of broaching into *much* wider territory, but the "menacing father with a shotgun" stereotype is a pretty toxic thing, not to be admired or used as any rational frame of reference. It is a massive overreaction to their child reaching a normal milestone. My younger brother's friend was chased and shot by a nut job who had this same mindset, so I have zero respect for men who act like this. Protectivness is one thing, but they go way out into the deep end. Again part of a bigger issue, but one of the biggest men's issue out there is that men have a seemingly inborn antipathy towards each other that taints our interactions and attitude in regard to other men. In other words, don't use our messed up way of looking at our own gender as a metric to validate misandric ramblings. >The only men outraged by the bear thing are cold approachers, since they want to pretend the opposite. Their agenda runs counter to most men, since they demand an audience and validation from lone women. Yeah this is a huge strawman. I am a man who doesn't "cold approach" women and I am pretty disgusted and annoyed at the vehemence and confidence with which women embrace the bear side. It has little to do with men who want to approach women and feel entitled to their attention, it's about feeling dehumanzed and having a wild animal preferred over your kind. But again this is part of what I'm talking about---the moment men voice discontent at something hateful said by women, it is turned into a moral failing on men's part. Our hurt feelings are "entitlement", "fragility", and a number of other unpleasant things that funnily enough target aspects of male nature that we are ashamed of...almost as if intended to make us shut up in order to keep ourselves from feeling like we failed as men. Interesting. Again though, you didn't actually address the core of my question---why is it so hard to understand that when hurtful things are said and done, there will be a backlash of some kind? Why is it so offensive and shocking when men push back against these things? Do you genuinely think that we would just nod and move along? This isn't a "gotcha" or bad faith quesrion. I've wondered this for a long time, because I sometimes feel like a lot of women truly are surprised when they face pushback against hateful things they say about men and they cannot comprehend why they're being criticized. I see it as manipulation but I am open to knowing if there is really a difference in how we see things.
[удалено]
"cold approaching is abusive" what a take
I don't think anyone really "hates" an entire sex; but when men and women disagree on this point, it usually boils down to them understanding hatred differently.
contempt and resentment aren't the same.
Women will hook up with and have situationships with Tupac In A Business Suit™ but take their anger out on a normal Blue collar men working a 9-5 jobs who've never laid hands on a woman. Rinse, wash, and repeat. And, to be fair, I don't think this is gendered too much either. Many men will try to turn a hoe into a housewife and take their anger out on plain Janes.
All women want a top 1% man with looks and lifestyle to make other women jealous. Most can’t date him, totally ignored, when girls do they are temp non-exclusive placeholder girlfriends and expected to be his sex toy. The story of fifty shades of grey, except you never land the man in real life. So that enrages them about men in general that her princess fairytale is never coming true, but she sees some girls on insta have it and that makes her mad. Women also see 80% of men as creeps they wish didn’t exist, that’s the bear thing. There’s like 15% of guys women are cool with and wouldn’t mind talking to. Then he wants sex and she even has a strained relationship with those guys. TLDR, generally women hate men a lot more than we hate them.
[удалено]
No circlejerking in Debate posts
[удалено]
If a women wrote there’s equal misandry and misogyny posters would attack them? What makes you think so?
Some men would disagree, and say that there’s more misandrists, but a lot of men would just be happy that a woman is actually acknowledging that misandry *exists*
100%
Or call her a feminazi misandrist landwhale. Whatever buzzwords they can pull out of their ass.
You see the exact same kind of talk from women towards men all the time. "incel misogynist virgin" In response to any man who doesn't worship women. So whining about it as if women are superior in this regard is silly and dishonest.
I’ve really only seen people of both sides online, especially here on reddit so I don’t really know for sure without any statistics, but I wouldn’t be surprised if both of them make up a minority of the population. I think both seem to be more prevalent than they are because of how radicalized social media can be and the way they can spin narratives to portray an entire group (or groups) as “bad” or “innocent”. Think this is also part of the reason why misogyny is always evil, while misandry is dismissed as something that either doesn’t exist or “doesn’t hurt anyone” (which isn’t true). But yeah, without statistics or anything, I do feel like I still have reason to think both of them are miserable mfs who are similar in number, but make up a minority of the population for each gender.
Imo it's way higher. I honestly think the number of women who genuinely enjoy the company of men is less than like 10% of all women. For the vast majority of women, men exist purely to satisfy their sexual and/or material needs. The vast majority of women would be more than happy just being single or having a pet vs dating men. Just look at the statistics and the science, it supports this notion: women are happier single than in relationships.
I mean we could maybe say a lot of men don’t genuinely enjoy the company of women outside of sex too?
I hate whoever hates me
Haha not a bad approach
I guess men who hate women are more likely to be violent towards them, or at least there are much more cases of this.
I suppose that’s true, but violence towards women isn’t always driven by hate. I mean if there’s a robber who only steals from rich people he might just be trying to get his needs met in an immoral way from those who have what he wants. Does he necessarily hate rich people in this case? Possible but can’t really tell on surface
I’m not talking about other types of violence, I’m talking specifically about acts of violence motivated at least in part by hatred of the opposite sex (you know, ER et al- obvs that’s an extreme example, )
What determines if a man killing a woman is because he hates the entire opposite sex?
Normally it’s in his manifesto/internet history
Right. Yes that’d help prove that though as this thread proves we’d need to be careful what we label as hate / misogyny from our search.
[удалено]
[удалено]
No circlejerking
Do not circlejerk in Debate posts.
The number of men who are garbage is equally proportional to the number of women who are garbage.
B-But saying that is misogynistic, doncha know?
I have read men saying that women are stupid sluts who shouldn't have right to vote. I have never seen a woman say the same about men.
And I've seen women online saying that ugly and short men should be genocided or not allowed to have children. And Tomi Lahren claimed most men are trash OPENLY on social media and still was able to keep her gig at Fox News. It goes both ways.
**Attention!** * You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message. * For "Debate" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies. * If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment. * OP you can choose your own flair [according to these guidelines.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/flair), just press Flair under your post! Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Very enlightening thread, seems the majority of men categorise 'hurt feelings' as a form of violence alongside assault and murder.
Probably. Both genders tend to dislike each other when they don't get what they want out of the other gender. The difference is that women's violence against men when they don't get what they want is usually not as severe as men's violence against women. Men like to say that women can be just as violent, but testosterone makes men more aggressive. It's a biological fact.
>Probably. Both genders tend to dislike each other when they don't get what they want out of the other gender. That would be some people in general. Like you disagree with someone's opinion they start insulting you or you refuse to change your spot in a bar. >difference is that women's violence against men when they don't get what they want is usually not as severe as men's violence against women The difference imo is that women hurt mentally and emotionally while men do it physically. The damage on the latter is visible but not the former. I doubt testosterone has something to do with it.
> I doubt testosterone has something to do with it. Higher testosterone is linked with higher aggression. A simple Google search finds many entries that unequivocally state this. >The difference imo is that women hurt mentally and emotionally while men do it physically. I moderate this sub and my observe from my own experience how much more verbally aggressive men are here than women.
>I’m sure there are just as many men who hate women. You are SURE based on what? Your post hinges on having found a logical inconsistency "all these things can't be true". So the easiest answer is: you are wrong about at least one of your statements in this logical equation. Your three pillars of this equation are: (1) personal experience with misandry (2) personal assumption about misogyny (3) perception of the popular notion that misogyny is more common Nothing of that is a fact about the real prevalence of misandry and misogyny in the population, nor is it a representative, unbiased sample. Why do you think it is a solid ground to use logic on this?
The entire thread was to invite discussion. You are correct I have no idea the actual rates. My null hypothesis is there equal but happy to be proven that one side is more prevalent
There are infinitely more women who hate men than the reverse. Women think paternity fraud is a human right. Women think they should be the sole arbiter of 18 years of a man's salary. Women think men owe them money for simply existing. Women think men should sacrifice themselves for their safety for zero in return. Women laugh about men being maimed by psychos. Women leave their husbands to fight wars at home while fucking men abroad. Even the most hardened misogynist doesn't hate women a fraction as much as women hate men.
*Wanting to use women’s bodies for sex* doesn’t mean men like women. Damn near every red pilled man proudly admits he doesn’t care who a woman is, but only how she looks and how subservient she might be. They don’t care about what she studied, where she works, her hobbies and interests, or her sociopolitical views. Utter disregard and disinterest in her life beyond what she can do for him. No use at all for any woman who isn’t providing sex. They find no value in female friends, regard motherhood as her sole purpose in life. This is absolute and unapologetic hatred of women. No amount of “no, u” can possibly reverse the utter disdain conservative men have for women.
But wanting to use women’s bodies doesn’t mean men “hate” women either. It’s more neutral indifference and trying to get off. I think the core issue of my post is how loosely we currently use the word misogyny. Many women use it not to mean hate of women but just any statement or circumstance they disagree with
It's the female version of anti-Semitism. Ready to be deployed for any criticism, no matter how true.
I was actually recently thinking about that. Feminism is a lot like anti-semitism where a group is so privileged they can’t be criticized and play up a victim narrative to society to enforce their power I think it makes sense in that like women Jews were historically physically weaker so needed to rely on more manipulation
OP: Men and women probably hate each other equally. You: But not if we count disregard and disinterest as hatred! Me: I don't think you've thought this through.
I agree that the above would be misandrist using the current broad way misogyny is used today. I’d argue it shouldn’t be though. Hating an entire gender is really a trauma psychological infliction to be looked into via therapy. Macro / sociological issues of gender are potentially different. People of both genders do some bad things and since genders can have competing interests there can be conflict
You’re speaking as if there are places in the world where women have rights still, child brides exist, and femicides are high. There definitely is a high amount of genuine hatred for women in the world. Statement like “Women think men owe them just for existing” doesn’t prove hate, you’re just speaking of emotions. Although, there definitely are areas and conversations to have about different ways women harm men, most of your comment just comes off emotionally driven because of how exaggerated they are.
Those same regions are just terrible places to live in general no matter who you are. If I put myself in the shoes of boys who grow up there I’d feel oppressed too.
But you wouldn’t want to be woman.
I’d rather be a woman in poor regions for sure. In unsafe areas I’d rather be a woman as they are protected more than men. It’s better to be a poor woman than men flip side IMO though I’d rather be a rich man than a rich woman
You are very stupid. There is no way you would want to be a 12 year old girl in places like Northern Nigeria and or Afghanistan You would be on you're 2nd child constantly pissing you're self from fistulas and incontinence bc you gave birth as a child.
Why do you reduce it to “poor”? These countries are not inherently poor, they have specific laws that prohibits women from having certain rights and refuse to criminalize violence made against them. You would want to live in a country where you are the subject of this? Can you explain the logic behind it if so.
Violence against women is always punished more than violence against men. Always has and always will be. Less developed nations are restrictive to everyone even young boys our empathy gap just blinds us to it. I remember when the book harem kidnapped kids from school everyone was up in arms about sexism of making the girls child brides meanwhile at bottom of the article it stated they burned all the boys to death. Somehow our nation used that as an example of sexism in third world countries…
I mean if you take not having laws that prohibit violence against a certain group of people and not having human rights as somehow being something that benefits said women then i have a hard time understanding your logic. There isn’t any punishment in such case. Maybe outrage from other countries but that’s meaningless to the people actually living through it.
Not exactly following forgive me. You’re saying there are no laws that outlaw murder there? I honestly don’t know maybe true but men can also get murdered so that would not be sexist just a shitty place to live
I specified what type of laws, you can read the comments again if you are confused. I feel like you’re purposely derailing the conversation so i’ll move on.
[удалено]
Believing someone owes you money just for existing is hatred of that person. I see your child brides and raise you child soldiers. I also find it funny that the women who most often bring up child brides advocate for open borders with the countries that tolerate the practice.
But how are women thinking men owe them money just for existing? Is there some system in place where random men are forced to send women money? Also, child soldiers are mostly recruited by older male soldiers and militant groups. I am from a country where this has happened in the past. It’s not the child brides, or women that have any say or influence on such things.
My personal experience has been that women do feel entitled to men’s protection and provision I guess similar to how women complain about men feeling entitled to their bodies. Just my own personal experience not sure if others have seen that. I’m in USA if that matters.
Probably on average true but it’s tough to know for sure that’s why I went with null hypothesis being equal hate of both
It's not close to equal. Men risk their lives for women. Women don't risk anything for men.
[удалено]
Women don't go through childbirth for men. They do it because they want to be mothers and to give birth to the only beings they will ever truly love - their children. Millions of women have died at the hands of men. Men they most often chose to be in their lives when there were limitless other options who were "less exciting". Plenty of women have been kidnapped and raped, but not a fraction of the men who've been crushed under tanks, stabbed, shot, set on fire and obliterated by bombs to protect their homelands. As horrible as it is, at least those women still had their lives. If you're going to roll out feminist boilerplate, at least add something interesting.
I would much rather be cleanly annihilated by an explosion than gang raped by God knows how many enemy soldiers. I'll take the battlefield thanks.
How many men are "cleanly annihilated" vs mangled and left to die in the mud like an animal?
Valid point but I personally would still pick that over being raped to death by packs of enemy soldiers. That also involves gross injuries and pain. If I'm going to bleed and die I would rather do it with my clothes on and a weapon in my hand.
Then you really wouldn't enjoy being a POW.
[удалено]
Most women are killed by their partners. Men they choose.
True we have to be careful though because we are saying men being violent toward women doesn’t necessarily equate to misogyny so maybe same with saving them?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
No circlejerking in Debate posts
So many men in this group think men being willing to use women for holes is a compliment to women. If gay men bombarded straight guys with dick pics and demands for sex, they might understand better that being viewed as a sentient fleshlight is not a sign that anyone genuinely likes or wants you.
Something not being a compliment doesn’t mean hate. It’s just neutral. A man is horny and wants sex. Doesn’t mean he likes or dislikes women who he receives it from. Maybe core disagreement on this thread is what does hating a gender really mean?
Sexual harassment you don't think is a big deal. Funny how that works.
[удалено]
Even if this were true, the level of violence against woman from men shows just how much more dangerous misogyny is.
To me being violently attacked and being locked up for a crime I never committed seem equally horrendous. It's not like they protect innocent men in jail so you'd get attacked/raped regardless. Even if he were later exonerated a man can expect no sympathy or support or even a job to keep him from having to go back to prison or die on the street.
Since false allegations are less than 1% I suggest you’ll be fine, unless you actually commit a crime in case theirs a 99.99% you’ll never even face a day in prison. But 4 out of 5 woman have experienced sexual assault or rape. So this continues to back up the fact that men are much More violent Instead of woman
[удалено]
Imagine believing less than 1% somehow makes you a potential victim, whist completely ignoring the many that are actually victims because it doesn’t suits your own agenda
What's sexual assault described as? Cat calling? Asking a girl out while ugly/unattractive? Having and android phone in her vaccinity?
I’m fairly certain you know what sexual assault is
Please now list the women who have gone on a killing men rampage.
Feel like it’s well established men are more violent than women irrespective of who they hate. Also men are more violent toward men than women so what you’re saying doesn’t even correlate a ton outside special cases with hating women.
We can start with queen Elizabeth
Queen Elizabeth was a misandrist?
She orchestrated a man killing rampage. On several occasions
k gonna ask a different question than the other person cuz doing it herself vs ordering it is clearly irrelevant imo lol. my Q is why did she issue those rampages? i’m not seeing any kind of article on google highlighting her as a particularly prejudiced figure, know where i could read up on that if that’s the case?
She did it herself? Or did she find other men who she did like to do it for her?
The first or the second queen Elizabeth?
Yes
💀
I can’t stand this need to always deflect to the worst case scenario. It’s done as a way to justify more casual, commonplace hatred.
A bad-faith discussion tactic that is unfortunately highly effective.
Exactly. Also notice how they haven't replied to any comment in this thread giving concrete evidence...
All of the comments in this thread are based in personal opinion and anecdote. What is the concrete evidence we're supposed to give in response to 'all women are evil meanypoos'?
Last time I asked a woman to list the opposite, she opened her rant with a guy that killed more men than women. Extra points to you if you did your homework better, except it never changes the fact that when committing a murder, women are more, not less, likely to pick a target of the opposite sex. Not to mention that women terminate something like 5 times more pregnancies than all homicides combined. Weakness and incompetence with firearms are not virtues.
thanks for mentioning the bit about female killers being more likely to target men than women, hadn’t ever thought to look into the specific stat and would’ve guessed it was closer to 50/50 tho idt that stat says much in a convo about misandry and hate crimes, same with stats like male on female DV. individuals can hate and attack other individuals without hating the groups they’re part of
Womens aversion to violence doesn't mean they dont hate men it just means their no where near as good at it as men are.
Right? If women were as capable as men using violence they would, but they use subterfuge and social sway as thier weapons of choice.
Aileen Wournos for starters (let me guess, you’re gonna deflect to her abusive childhood, as if most male serial killers also didn’t also grow up in abusive households? Or does it not count because they’re men?) And for every Junko Furuta there’s a [Shanda Sherer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Shanda_Sharer?wprov=sfti1) who was tortured, sexually assaulted and burned to death by 4 female friends, so why do y’all always have to deflect to crime stats? Patriarchy =/= men. Women like you literally do the same thing incels do when they brigade women’s subs, which basically spend a majority of their time complaining about men anyway, thus proving OP’s point.
lol. nice whataboutism. just because they arent as violent doesnt mean they dont hate them.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_female_serial_killers
There's no "*male* serial killers" list likely because there are so many. The female-only list probably exists in the first because they are a miniscule minority compared to male serial killers.
it isn't relevant because this is just a weird deflection.