Misogyny and its cause. (statistics, companies, rating, state)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Few will agree with me, I suppose, but I believe that misogyny arises due to our biological differences. I'm a woman and I don't excuse it but I believe that symbolic and actual interpretations of our biological differences, are the reason we will always deal with the power imbalance between men and women.
Men are biologically determined to assume leadership roles and women are biologically determined to assume domestic and nurturing roles. That is simply the way society as a whole functions. I don’t think it has anything to do with misogyny, even though the more radical elements of the feminist movement have tried to explain the existence of gender roles as being the result of misogyny.
By many objective measures the lives of women in the United States have improved over the past 35 years, yet we show that measures of subjective well‐being indicate that women’s happiness has declined both absolutely and relative to men. The paradox of women’s declining relative well‐ being is found across various datasets, measures of subjective well‐being, and is pervasive across demographic groups and industrialized countries. Relative declines in female happiness have eroded a gender gap in happiness in which women in the 1970s typically reported higher subjective well‐being than did men. These declines have continued and a new gender gap is emerging—one with higher subjective well‐being for men.
This draft: October 16, 2008
A decade~ old.
Wonder what the gender gap shows now. Maximizing happiness is a big on going project in science and psychology fields.
What evidence is there that the great majority of women have been hated by societies throughout human history? How could men and women fall in love, get married, raise children and have a society function if women have been universally hated?
This seems to be a figment of some wild imaginations.
Romantic love is a recent "invention". People didn't used to fall in love; they were matched up or women were traded away to cement alliances. They were assigned to people. But in more modern times. as male-dominated political systems reserved most jobs for men, and reserved for men voting rights and control over money, it was "safe" for men to fall in love, or at least--in lust, and marry women, who had no control over their own lives, with only rare exceptions. Marriage wasn't a liability for men. It wasn't a problem for them to marry the objects of their lust or condescension. They had complete control over the women in their household.
Romantic love is a recent "invention". People didn't used to fall in love; they were matched up or women were traded away to cement alliances. They were assigned to people. But in more modern times. as male-dominated political systems reserved most jobs for men, and reserved for men voting rights and control over money, it was "safe" for men to fall in love, or at least--in lust, and marry women, who had no control over their own lives, with only rare exceptions. Marriage wasn't a liability for men. It wasn't a problem for them to marry the objects of their lust or condescension. They had complete control over the women in their household.
Today's modern alternative to that surely isn't any better. Now there's less masculine men who are not leaders, not dominant, unwilling to pull out chairs, or pay for dates.
Romantic love is a recent "invention". People didn't used to fall in love; they were matched up or women were traded away to cement alliances. They were assigned to people. But in more modern times. as male-dominated political systems reserved most jobs for men, and reserved for men voting rights and control over money, it was "safe" for men to fall in love, or at least--in lust, and marry women, who had no control over their own lives, with only rare exceptions. Marriage wasn't a liability for men. It wasn't a problem for them to marry the objects of their lust or condescension. They had complete control over the women in their household.
Yep, early US marital laws were based on the English Law of Coveture. Once married a woman’s rights to property or earnings were subsumed by her husband making her totally dependent on him. In most cases, he could divorce her, but she had no right to the same.
Every religion, and every society, in all times have demonstrated hatred of women in vile to subtle ways. Yet women are one half of the human race, and importantly the only means of propagating the species as possessors of a uterus.
Racism, and caste, as evil as it is, is ultimately, in truth, a convenient construct as a means of exploitation. Female sex is not a construct. Women have always worked as hard as men, even through pregnancy and the bearing of children, the future farm hands. What was the natural benefit in the hate and oppression? What was the payoff of hating the producer of future workers?
A few things I can think of that spurs this hatred:
Vagina/uterus envy.
They are property that can be stolen, can elope, and thus a liability.
They can seduce one to lose his senses.
[cut]
We hate that which we fear. What is the cause of fear?
What do you think?
I never heard of any man having uterus envy. No man wants to have a child. Get rid of that one.
No one in these days feels that any human is property. I never knew a man that thought he can steal a woman. Many women are a liability but so are some men.
Women definitely can seduce someone to lose their senses but that’s men’s fault for allowing their male organ to think for them. Women are notorious for exploiting that weakness.
Most men are not gay. I never knew a single one that was in my circle of friends or coworkers.I never considered a woman as competition. What world do you live in?
The only fear that men have of women is the ridiculous women’s lib movement which tried to make men look disposable. So if a women cheats on her husband or simply changes her mind, she divorces him, gets to stay in the house, gets about half of his income, gets to keep the kids most of the time. I know quite a few friends who went through this. So, yeah. This is a result of women’s lib.
What do I think? The Bible clearly states that women were created to keep man company. The Bible also states that men are clearly the head of the household. I say this as a casual Catholic. I’m not some kind of holy roller. This all was fine til women’s lib in the 60s. In other words, the man usually worked and the women usually took care of the house and raised the children. It doesn’t make women less important. They are different skills but both are needed. But since the culture has been poisoned with lies such as women can raise children without a man, it sounds like I hate women, which I definitely do not. Luckily I have a wife who does not believe in women’s lib. But when I had some trying times with her, I was told by many men that it was because I didn’t lay the law down and it is my duty to keep her in her place. That sounds like cave men talk but they are more right than wrong. It’s only now that everyone thinks they evolved so much that it seems crazy.
Last edited by Rachel NewYork; 08-16-2021 at 08:22 AM..
There are exception to everything. My previous post consisted of generalized statements which obviously are not universal. The saying, “the exceptions prove the rule” applies. I wish I could remember the book that lays this stuff out. Reading it made a huge impression on me, but the title escapes me.
Recently, I have read online about the fearlessness of female Vikings. They sailed with their men in various hazardous explorations. So, sure these women were as fearless as men, but ask yourself why their names are not remembered? Why aren’t their exploits celebrated?
To the widely held belief about rape. I am no expert on this. But I do believe that rape is about lust as well as about power, and possibly rage. I do not think this despicable act can be reduced to one word. Some rapists in some situations take advantage of impaired women in an opportunistic way. In those cases, motivation might be different, or possibly mixed with other emotions. I confess to not knowing. But coerced sex is rape, and for some men it is no doubt an expression of their misogynistic inner beings.
Because history is usually written about figureheads and leaders, or from a certain political standpoint that is why.
Granted most figureheads are male, however it has always worked both ways.
Could you name all the brilliant administrators and sea captains that Elizabeth the 1st had at her disposal and helped her become one of the best known and most proficient leaders in English History?
Could you tell me the names of the men who were deemed to be part of the
"Treason Plots" against Henry the 8th, and executed next to Anne Boleyn, and Catherine Howard?
From a political standpoint, it would seem that people have totally forgotten, that the right to own property and vote was historically something men had to fight for as well. They did it for well over 1000 years in some cases. Could you for instance name the year men universally received the right to vote in the UK (It was 1918), some 600 years after the first parliament was formed.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
