['Misogyny (pronounced /m??s?d??ni/) is hatred (or contempt)[1] of women.]

Why do many feminists believe men hate them?

In fact, I would go as far as saying its out right insulting to assume men hate women simply because not all adhere to feminist theory

I suspect many women have been brain washed by 'cherry picked' statistics vomited by NOW suggesting all me are rapists and wife beaters.

Groups like the AAUW and NOW survive by frightening women in believing all men are 'out to get them'.

....................

Do you really believe George Bush hates women?

Do you think he sits up at night scheming to make the lives of women miserable? If he hates women, that would suggest he despises his wife and daughters.

...........

'Newsflash: Women don't exist to comfort men'

Ah, the stench of hypocrisy considering feminism has been known to lead a crusade to change masculinity based on their own perverse orthodox.

If you want feminism that works, I suggest adhering to the philosophy of Camille Paglia, Christina Hoff Sommers, and Wendy McElroy. These are confident women who are not shackled by victimization or a hyper-sensitive mentality.

Please sleep well tonight knowing most men love women.

Anthony,

You are overgeneralizing when you make comments like:

"Why do many feminists believe men hate them?

In fact, I would go as far as saying its out right insulting to assume men hate women simply because not all adhere to feminist theory"

and:

"Please sleep well tonight knowing most men love women."

Those kinds of comments over-simplify the issues--life is not so black and white.

First of all, who said men hate women because they don't adhere to feminist theory? I didn't get that from this post. I think the author was just trying to point out some ways that sexism gets hidden and sugar-coated as "love" for women. When in reality, the old ideals of woman as care-giver are just a benefit for men.

Second, I don't believe that all men hate me. But I do know that I am subjected to varying degrees of sexism throughout the day, even from men who truly love me and have my best interests at heart.

Which brings me to my next point--Yes, you can love someone, but we are all raised in a certain culture, and sometimes we still have sexist attitudes (women included!)

And of course, there are many men who claim to love women, but really show otherwise through their words and actions (as evidenced by this post).

So no, I don't sleep better at night knowing that most men love women, because it's not that simple.

If you think this post doesn't have relevance, you are sorely mistaken, and you have not been paying very good attention. Week after week, day after day, there IS a slew of writing by men who think that women need to go back to the old ideals of being a woman--if you need an example for this week, read the piece about women and biscuits--hysterical. So I think this author is just responding to the prevalence of this thinking.

Maybe hate is too strong a word in every case--but there's definitely some fucked up thinking out there, and that leads to a whole lot of fucked up attitudes and behaviors.

No kidding. Real feminists crae about choice. And I'm really glad to see that feminists here seem to be for that, I'm glad to see that they even support jobs like prostitution.

To say that's it's in women's nature to be docile is the same as saying that men are naturally brutes. Some men are, some men are brainwashed to be, some men aren't. Some women are docile, as individuals, but I guess what: I'm not! And I'm a woman, hmmm what a surprise? Not really. It's no surprise at all. You know, it's called having character? As in it varies from person to person? I'm not just a women and you're not just a man, we're human beings. And that's that.

Women are not docile, soft, and want to serve men by nature. And men are not war hungry animals or want to oppress females by nature. Almost all humanity is frown up in a family where we have some types of values and culture and roles, so we developed this "natural biological" characteristics of being docile or aggressive. And then we have television and so on other factors that make us somewhat all alike, so then we generalize with stereotypes such as all women are docile and care givers for men and all men want women to serve them and cook them and take care of them like if they were another child. I hear this constantly in my life, "the good woman is the one that is always taking care of her man, cooking everyday, and supporting men with everything he says and decides to do." Listen if they are women out there who like doing that, then that's fine. But men and women think that if your not that way you are seen as selfish, cold and blah blah.. But then again I can't change the way society thinks, if they want to think stupid let them be stupid, just as they think I'm stupid.

Wow Anthony is almost a whole anti feminist bingo card ...

Antony, did I ever say feminists believe men hate them? NO. For the last damn time, feminists do not believe men hate women. And I don't know how the heck you got that out of my post, because it is directed not at men who really do respect women, but at misogynists who use the 'women are natural caregivers' argument to take away our rights under a facade of 'respect'. As another poster pointed out, that hurts everyone, and it is disrespectful of everyone too because it suggests all men are somehow the opposite by nature. As I indicate in my post, I'm talking to misogynists like Rush Limbaugh and John McCain, but anyone else who also thinks that using this fake myth of 'nature' to push us back into oppressive roles is respect. Instead, we should recognise that if a woman wants to be a housewife, that's fine (My mother is a firm feminist and she's a housewife). If she wants to be single forever, or have a hundred kids or no kids, be polyamorous or whatever, that is all equally worthy of respect.

Misogyny hurts almost everyone except the misogynist themselves, including gay men and any man who is not also a misogynist. I see that a lot of men are angry that feminists like myself pick on people like George Bush etc. to criticise because they clearly are an extreme group and do not represent the entire male gender. As I state in my post, I am talking about them and the 'nature' myth in general.

something that's interesting is how 'supporting your man' is always read as something that is completely opposite to being your own person, or having an identity that isn't house-chore-robot.
Personally, I support my man, and somehow, through some miracle(insert sarcasm) manage to still be my own person. In fact he supports me in the same way. A two way relationship made up of equals...what a radical notion!

Wow, Anthony your post is offensive on so many levels (most of which have already been addressed). We should follow Camille Paglia? Yeah, right. Save you generous love Anthony - and that of men like you -, I'm one women who doesn't want it.

Nettle Syrup:

My post was based on your usage of misogyny several times in the article. The content was not the issue. Its just I hear the word misogyny used so often throughout the MSM, its true meaning has become distorted.

If misogyny exists, doest the male equivalent misandry also exist?

FYI: I'm not a Bush supporter.

..................

'Wow Anthony is almost a whole anti feminist bingo card' [melloncollie]

That's a great line. Is it possible to be both pro female and anti feminist? Actually, I stated I have great admiration for Paglia, Sommers, and McElroy. {www.Ifeminst.com}

..............................

'Those kinds of comments over-simplify the issues--life is not so black and white.' [TappingMommy ]

Probably true, it was a quick post.

...............................

'Save you generous love Anthony - and that of men like you -, I'm one women who doesn't want it.' [Alexandra]

That's not nice. For all you know I could be the kindest man in the world.

..........................

You must admit ladies, the post did create some interesting debate.

Most attention seekers like myself utilize 'shock value' writing.

Yes, anthony, misandry does exist. And the men I mention are probably misandrious (sp?) too.

Besides, you use a dictionary definition. How about this one:

fem·i·nism /?f?m??n?z?m
n. the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men.

In response to - "I've got news for these men: women are not here to comfort you. We are not here to provide you with a warm blanket of our 'true nature' of serenity and caregiving, all of which is a myth anyhow - you're just as likely to find that in a man as a woman. Nor are we here to affirm your fantasy of being a big strong man by pretending to be children all our lives. You can go swimming with dolphins if you want comfort. Get these prejudices out of your head and stop trying to tell us what our 'true nature' is."
***
Everyone's "nature" and personality are derived from genetic temperament, family upbringing, and personal life experiences. Women should not be typologized as the "fairer" sex any more than as the "weaker" sex. Women should NOT exist to comfort men. That only excuses bad behavior on the part of men and encourages irresponsibility from both sexes. And clearly many, if not most, men have proved that they don't exist to comfort women. A relationship should consist of equal partners.
***
That being said, as a person of faith, I see far too little compassion these days in our political discourse or society, among and between various class, cultural, racial, and gender divides. We don't exist to comfort the opposite sex, or the disaffected disenfranchised, or our neighbors. If they don't reciprocate in kind, and show a pattern of disregard for your concerns and needs, it does little good to offer comfort to such individuals. Nevertheless, isn't it appropriate that we should choose to do so where the benefit of the doubt may still be applied? Not to "get along" or to remain silent when wrongs need to be redressed, but as insurance against a "Lord of the Flies" nightmare society that is sure to overtake us if we don't.
***
We don't need more women who see compassion and a nurturing heart as weakness and an opiate used by men to keep them "in their place". We need more men who know their place in a proper relationship for whom compassion and a nurturing heart remain central to their character. You're bitter because too many men forget that love is a two-way street, and that it derives from respect, not infatuation, from choice, not electrochemical encephalitis.

Hm. Well then lady's, men don't exist to support you, be strong for you, or any of the other things that women are attracted to in men. Most guys want these traits in women because they are attracted to them.
You could go deeper and say that men also desire this comfort because men cannot get this support from other men. Such support would be seen as homosexual, and unmanly. As such, women are the only place, the only comfort we can turn to in this world. Am I saying its right? No, but its a view that is ingrained in many men, and reinforced by many elements of society.

Wirius:"Hm. Well then lady's, men don't exist to support you, be strong for you, or any of the other things that women are attracted to in men."

Mine doesn't exist to support me or be strong for me. Sure, sometimes he does those things, but it's not his sole pupose in life. That is what is insulting about people like Rush Limbaugh making women feel like that's all we are supposed to do. By going out and working or championing causes and not being sweet and docile and comforting, we are violating some unspoken law of life. It's insulting and makes us less than whole people. Like an appliance. Good Wife v2.0.

Another thing, I was not looking for a man to step in and start being all "manly" and protective. I could handle myself before, I can still handle myself now. I appreciate the help when I need it, but he lets me handle things myself because to step in for me would make me feel incapable and he knows it. I am attracted to who he is, not what he can do for me.

Nettle Syrup:

fem·i·nismf?m??n?z?m
n. the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men.

Hmmmm.....Some might argue aspects of feminism has aided the advancement of women at the expense of men.

As for the misandry question. Is it possible for a female to have traits of misandry?

I'll take it a step further, are there any feminists that might have adopted a militant approach to the movement resulting in misandry?

Personally, I believe the majority of individuals do not have contempt towards the opposite sex.

........................

Here's a tidbit on another subject. If McCain wins this election its probable the 2012 race could be Clinton vs Palin. That's definitely worth the price of admission!

After her speech last night, Palin's the real deal. I'm a sucker for a conservative woman. I sure you guys/gals can think of 100's of reasons why a white, heterosexual, christian, male would feel that way. [the politically incorrect demographic]

Anthony, how have women's advancements been at the expense of men? Because there's less chance of a guaranteed in during a hiring process, because the job can't automatically go to a man anymore? I would say this only hurts the men who aren't qualified enough to outright earn it. Maybe because men are expected to have an equal role in childrearing and housework now, and that's a lot more time and work? I would think a father would want to have as good of a relationship with his kids as their mother has, and if you want someone to do your cleaning for you, hire a maid.

Giving up privilege doesn't mean becoming oppressed. And I can say that because I have many privileges: equal opportunity for people of color does not mean that I am now oppressed as a white person, and the fact that there are now handicapped parking spots and wheelchair-accessible buildings does not hurt me as an able-bodied person.

I dig the rant :D Well done.

Kate:

My first problem is with the privilege theory. Individuals succeed or fail based on their own merits, determination, and work ethic. Privilege is also a powerful tool in making white men feel guilty.

................

[...this only hurts the men who aren't qualified enough to outright earn it.]

With the implementation of quotas and affirmative action, is it possible many women might not be as qualified as the men? We've become so obsessed with communal equity, individual ability has become secondary.

Affirmative action is a perfect example of feminist induced socialism. Many Women gaining employment at the expense of men.

Feminism has also done a great job creating an educational system that ignores a boys learning style. We've become so obsessed with female empowerment, our boys have fallen through the cracks. When girls lag in an academic area, the school is changed. When a boy falls behind, the boy is changed [ie: Ritilin]

......................

[Maybe because men are expected to have an equal role in child rearing and housework now, and that's a lot more time and work?]

I guess things should be equal until divorce. Men face an uphill battle trying to gain joint custody and holding on to their checking account. The courts assume the mother is the better parent. False accusations of domestic abuse are far more common than many think.

anthony,

your comments betray an essential ignorance of feminist aims.

the common idea that misogyny means "hatred of women" isn't the simplistic, reductive idea you posed. any time a man wants to keep a woman from having equal rights to him, equal pay to him, or equal freedoms to him, that is ANTI-WOMAN. if you want women to make less, be less, have fewer opportunities & freedoms than you do, on the basis of gender, that is ANTI-. and i DO consider it a form of female hatred. after all, if what you want is to keep a group of people down, make them less than you, that's not a positive idea. it's a negative one. and the spectrum of negative feelings is commonly called hatred. it's similar to how you can be racist--have feelings of aversion, negativity, or prejudice--without necessarily joining the KKK. it's a much wider spectrum than that. don't be so reductive.

[sigh...the other adage, that feminists spend 90% of their time educating men, is becoming true here. there is a TON of feminism 101 information on the web. why not do some research before you show up here half-cocked in search of attention? and why do you need so much attention in the first place? wouldn't you rather it be positive attention, in admiration of your learning and understanding, rather than this comment, which is going to boil down to "you don't know shit"?]

privilege theory is a nice daydream. if all people were born with exactly the same money, education, family situation, and in a world where gender and color did not influence how they were perceived, then yes, it would apply. however, we BOTH know that's stupid. men born with more money than you can buy their way into harvard business school, leave without student loans, and get corporate jobs based on nepotism. how is that related to a meritocracy? you truly feel that's fair? again, you are coming across as wilfully blind to the realities of the world.

if you are pro-woman but anti-feminism (and remember, feminism means "the pursuit of EQUAL rights for women"), then that must mean that you are in favor of women as long as they have fewer rights, less pay, and less freedom than you. is that the case?

if you really believed in a meritocracy, you'd see that the parent who provides the best care to the child should get custody. the vast majority of men DO NOT provide 51% or more of the child's care--the burden still falls on women. if you want custody, step up to the plate--and do it because you love the child, not because you want to "beat" the ex-wife. you should be thinking about what's best for the kid. unfortunately, most men who talk about wanting custody are only focusing on "wah! not fair!" and not about what is best for the child--if they WERE, they'd be providing most of the care. (and care is more than money.)

i'm seeing more and more of your MRA leanings coming through in your posts, so i'm not really going to engage with you beyond this. if you are so invested in "poor me" thinking, rather than working together so that EVERYONE can have what's fair and in their best interest, you'd work on some of your assumptions.

also, newsflash, since the Violence Against Women Act was enacted, violence against partners of BOTH genders has fallen. it's true that sometimes men are abused. it's true that some domestic abuse allegations are untrue. but the vast, vast, vast majority of abuse happens TO women and IS true. if you can't focus on the majority, the reality of women being hurt, then you DO hate women. you just do. you do.

regarding education, you may be interested in this: http://www.edchange.org/multicultural/papers/genderbias.html

learning in schools includes PAYING ATTENTION and STUDYING. if parents don't raise boys with a focus on being able to study, why is that the fault of girls? education has not changed--the essential format of school has remained the same in this country for centuries, with the notable exception that now girls are ALLOWED in schools. just because today's boys are not focusing on studying doesn't mean they are discriminated against, just like it's not my computer's fault if i am a poor typist. get real.

Anthony,
You should read the article called "Does Gender Matter?" Nature v442 pages 113 -136.
Biases are so deep that women and minorities have to be 2.5 times BETTER than a white male just to be seen as his equal in ability, skill, intelligence, whatever.

The next time you say something like
"With the implementation of quotas and affirmative action, is it possible many women might not be as qualified as the men?"
I want you to think about the Nature article. Because all these so-called "unqualified" women are are probably only 1x - 2x more qualified than the man.

I don't consider myself an MRA or feminist. Neither orthodox identifies injustices that affect the opposite sex. For example, I left a reply to a post shcoked and annoyed that all girls do not have access to the HPV vaccine.

...................

Here's some good reading:

'Feminism Past and Present:
Ideology, Action, and Reform'

By: CAMILLE PAGLIA

http://www.bu.edu/arion/Paglia%2016-1.html

.....................

'Depressed, repressed, objectified: are men the new women?'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2008/aug/03/gender.healthandwellbeing

In regard to the education link, why not read another perspective:

'Where the Boys Are'

By Christina Hoff Sommers

http://www.menweb.org/sommersboys.htm

codrophenia:

Your movement fights so hard against labeling and stereotyping women, yet you do the very same thing to men.

Your making assumptions that men don't 'step up to the plate'. Your using cherry picked feminist statistics which has known to be anti-father. You speak about the burden women face yet fail to mention the average married man works more hours than the wife. Oh, by the way, how come housework is only defined by the female? I rarely hear men complaining when they have to fix the flat tire or scrape the ice off his wife's car

.............................

[...violence against partners of BOTH genders has fallen. it's true that sometimes men are abused]

So please tell me why the VAWA defines domestic violence as a man abusing a woman?

............

[.... then that must mean that you are in favor of women as long as they have fewer rights, less pay, and less freedom than you. is that the case?]

Typical feminist response. I call it the guilt trip. If a man doesn't support feminism he simply wants to 'turn the clock back'

[...however, we BOTH know that's stupid. men born with more money than you can buy their way into harvard business school, leave without student loans]

Stupidity is gender blind. Are there any stupid women that get a free ride?

[rather than working together so that EVERYONE can have what's fair]

Well said, but... I've been affiliated with this site for two weeks and have yet to read one post that identifies an injustice a man might face.

When feminists say 'working together' it really means: 'believe everything we do or you must hate women'

.................

[the reality of women being hurt, then you DO hate women. you just do. you do.]

Feminism 101: Men hate women. I still believe that's the foundation of a hyper sensitive mentality. One might argue feminism is a result of an under lying self esteem issue.

The most difficult aspect of debating a feminist is their tenacity, which usually occurs when defending their status as victims.

[snark]Dear Gawd, what about the mens?!?! Can't all you silly little feminists just shut up about your insignificant little issues and address the REAL problems? You know, Men's Problems?![/snark]

In order to achieve fairness, anthony, there has to be a platform for women to discuss issues from the viewpoint of women. We've noticed that men don't like it when we get "all uppity" in their space.

So, there are feminist blogs.

"Well said, but... I've been affiliated with this site for two weeks and have yet to read one post that identifies an injustice a man might face."

This site is called "Feministing." Did you it was about men?

Frankly, that's a pretty ironic complaint coming after a post entitled "Newsflash: Women don't exist to comfort men."

If you really want to talk about teh mens, you could just turn on your television or open up a newspaper.

[snark]Sorry if the big mean feminists hurt your feelings... Do you need a blanket and some cocoa?[/snark]

Great post, by the way, Nettle Syrup. I love how you break it down!

Okay, maybe that was a bit harsh. The constant "what about the men?" on feminist blogs does get tiresome though.

However, there is a great site for guys that don't quite get it but are not just pedantic trolls. And it isn't a site that insists that you do get it, it is just critical forum regarding feminism and discussing all the "what about the men?" issues.

I would also recommend it to other feminists who are interested in the discussing the matter with men who are less than convinced by feminism in general.

They manage to be critical, yet respectful and open minded.

Feminist Critics

Sorry, link didn't seem to work, here it is again: Feminist Critics

Anthony is a troll. Please remove his post. Everyone knows Camille Paglia is not a feminist, never was and never will be, and anyone quoting her is a woman-bashing male Nazi, or male-wannabe Nazi.

anthony, feministing.com is obviously too advanced for you. this site is not a feminist primer for people who have no idea what feminism means. i suggest you try the feminism 101 blog, people will hold your hand through the education process there.

your comments are only derailing the discussion, not adding to it.

"Please sleep well tonight knowing most men love women."

Anthony - you are either a troll or have completely missed the point. Can you not see your statement as patronizing? Most people love babies, sunsets, and ice cream. But women in general? I've known some pretty disgusting women as well as some exceptional women - as I'm sure everyone has. I can't think of anything that strikes more of misogyny than "loving" women in general, except maybe hating women in general. The men in my life I "love" earn that regard by being smart, funny, interesting, etc. The women in my life I "love" earn that regard by having breasts?

Ugh. I hate it when guys like you try to drag in Camille Paglia as a trump card, even though she would disagree with pretty much everything you're saying!

This phenomenon has a specific term in sociology. It is called 'benevolent sexism'. Thank you for an example of it, Anthony. Also, should I sleep well tonight knowing that most men don't want to rape me?