Are men upset with women?

[Redhead74]

Up until 40 years ago, men had their place, and women had theirs....it worked for thousands of years... Why change now?

Because 40 years ago most men and women were generally happy with this:

And now they want this:

And most of them want this as well. Actually, make that two of these....one car per household will never do these days:

[netcat]

you might wanna check "industrial revolution", for starters

[MB.]

It's not true women didn't work btw. For centuries they actually did, only in the wealthier classes they didn't. Most women worked and so were their kids from an early age.

Women being stay at home mother's in more classes was actually rather new. It simply just wasn't possible, they had to eat. Maybe they didn't had the same jobs, or were not allowed to. But women worked in the field, being maids, handcraft, and later they did factory work etc. It was considered a shame though for a long time, but actually most women worked over the centuries.

Edited December 29, 2014 by MB.

[Orsys]

It is a hugely real thing and a lot of men do think that way but y'know i think there's a difference between what comes out of our mouth when we are asked for our opinion and what he act upon in day to day life.

My only problem with this kinda stuff, or principle problem with this kinda stuff, is that i don't think I'm equipped to speak for other guys. Y'know how in these situations it's almost a silent agreement that there's some cross-gender consensus about all these key issues and aspects of the whole experience so uh, i dunno, I'm not personally upset no but then I'm kinda attached to females, girls can get away with a lot in my book, I'm a lot harder on guys, with girls its just like 'oh, you so crazy girl!'

Anyway, fuck em, let em be upset if they wanna, enjoy your time while it's here, if it's even here.

In the discussion the other night the couple of guys who were really into this stuff mainly rolled their eyes when a woman spoke, but were passionate when trying to convince the other guys of prejudices against men. .the other men started to agree. It was stuff about divorce settlements and custody rights. Sure these are the hot topics to win people over because you can always come up with examples where men appeared to be the losers against the evil woman who did nothing but eat bonbons and make dastardly plans against the man who was oblivious that there were problems. My experience for some years now is that pendulum is swinging more in favour of men. They didn't want to hear any of that.

I have brothers and a son and want them to have equsl rights. Why would I, as a woman, conspire against them?

Don't worry your pretty little heads about it boys. We're not outta get you

If the people you're hanging out with have these beliefs, you're hanging out with the wrong people. I mean seriously, a male (I won't refer to him as a 'man') who rolls his his eyes when a woman SPEAKS sounds like a fucking cunt to me. And I know that's harsh language on your side of the world, but so be it. Anyone who rolls his eyes at a natural born human being speaking is fucked in the head. I would actually leave if any men I was socialising with made such a reference. I just know that I like to exist, I like to live, I like to work and I know that my household contribution financially is essential to our way of life. Even if I didn't work and I was raising children I would know that my contribution to the household meant that I HAVE A RIGHT TO A VOICE.

I personally am not acquainted with any men who have expressed these opinions. In fact, the men I have the closest relationships with have quite the opposite view. They respect women, appreciate the contribution they make to the economy and to the household. Personally, I think it's a responsibility of men to acknowledge the contribution that women make to this world and to their femininity and it's a responsibility of women to acknowledge the contribution that men make to this world and to their masculinity. I guess for the men you refer to the latter is not happening. But considering the fact that the world was for centuries (possibly millennia if we really want to get technical) geared to the favour of men I think women can be given a reprieve of judgment for just a little while.

RED! I was waiting for you in this thread. Yes, these were a couple of knobs that I had not known before the dinner. I don't think this type of discussion was going to be tolerated for too much of the dinner and we did have lovely conversation before and after it. I guess that I, and a couple of others, could have just let them talk and look like the goofs they were, but honestly I can't. I have to at least counter the nonsense. 7 of the 9 people there saw it or what it was.

I know one of my brothers has been watching some of these "Sandman" youtube videos and sees some of the arguments. But I have not heard of the MGTOW group before. My relationships with men are with those who have good relationships with women and would see us as partners, or I would not have relationships with them. But I was curious how many others have heard of these "movements" as they seem so archaic and silly. And, in fact, there is still an awful lot of work to do to bring women close to anything resembling equality and freedom.

[magisme]

In the US, from 1950 to 2000 women in the workforce increased by 256.8%. Men increased 71.1%. That's a big change.

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2002/05/art2full.pdf

[Coma16]

I find it sad that companies will hire less-qualified people just for optics...

[Orsys]

In the US, from 1950 to 2000 women in the workforce increased by 256.8%. Men increased 71.1%. That's a big change.

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2002/05/art2full.pdf

I think you would need to see the figures before 1950. The 50's introduced the wierd post war move to the suburbs in North America when there was an increase in women staying home. This continued for one or two decades, but was not the norm before that time, and it was not sustainable. As Red mentioned, appetites for more and bigger stuff drove much of the need for additional income that men could not provide alone. But I also think that women just wanted and needed to provide as well, like they did before the weird North American suburbia post war thing happened.

[magisme]

In the US, from 1950 to 2000 women in the workforce increased by 256.8%. Men increased 71.1%. That's a big change.

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2002/05/art2full.pdf

I think you would need to see the figures before 1950. The 50's introduced the wierd post war move to the suburbs in North America when there was an increase in women staying home. This continued for one or two decades, but was not the norm before that time, and it was not sustainable. As Red mentioned, appetites for more and bigger stuff drove much of the need for additional income that men could not provide alone. But I also think that women just wanted and needed to provide as well, like they did before the weird North American suburbia post war thing happened.

[Orsys]

In the US, from 1950 to 2000 women in the workforce increased by 256.8%. Men increased 71.1%. That's a big change.

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2002/05/art2full.pdf

I think you would need to see the figures before 1950. The 50's introduced the wierd post war move to the suburbs in North America when there was an increase in women staying home. This continued for one or two decades, but was not the norm before that time, and it was not sustainable. As Red mentioned, appetites for more and bigger stuff drove much of the need for additional income that men could not provide alone. But I also think that women just wanted and needed to provide as well, like they did before the weird North American suburbia post war thing happened.

Fair enough. Women's "pay" would not have been as clear before that. But good thing women needed to or chose to go the way that provided them with clear pay for work. Otherwise, the family income would be considered income of the male.

[magisme]

I don't know that it's so clearly a good thing.

[Orsys]

I don't know that it's so clearly a good thing.

Why not?

[magisme]

I don't know that it's so clearly a good thing.

Why not?

Because I think the liberative and revolutionary potentials of the women's movements were largely coopted by a narrative that tells women that the more they identify with their wage laborer position, the more they are free. For the most part, women have identified the positions and behaviors traditionally reserved for men in patriarchal systems and decided "equality" means women being able to hold those positions and perform those behaviors, forgetting all the way that those positions and behaviors are stamped with the history of patriarchy and in fact promote offshoots of patriarchy regardless of whether a man or a woman holds the position. Will America's attitude toward African nations be any less paternalistic if Hilary is President, for example? Please.

[Amir]

I don't know that it's so clearly a good thing.

Why not?

Because I think the liberative and revolutionary potentials of the women's movements were largely coopted by a narrative that tells women that the more they identify with their wage laborer position, the more they are free. For the most part, women have identified the positions and behaviors traditionally reserved for men in patriarchal systems and decided "equality" means women being able to hold those positions and perform those behaviors, forgetting all the way that those positions and behaviors are stamped with the history of patriarchy and in fact promote offshoots of patriarchy regardless of whether a man or a woman holds the position. Will America's attitude toward African nations be any less paternalistic if Hilary is President, for example? Please.

So you're saying it's still patriarchy regardless of the sex of the person in charge, if it's still a paternalistic attitude/system of control? What is the alternative then? Moving towards socialism? Genuine question, not trying to be antagonistic.

[ColdHeartBreaker]

Are women listening to stupid men?

[magisme]

I don't know that it's so clearly a good thing.

Why not?

Because I think the liberative and revolutionary potentials of the women's movements were largely coopted by a narrative that tells women that the more they identify with their wage laborer position, the more they are free. For the most part, women have identified the positions and behaviors traditionally reserved for men in patriarchal systems and decided "equality" means women being able to hold those positions and perform those behaviors, forgetting all the way that those positions and behaviors are stamped with the history of patriarchy and in fact promote offshoots of patriarchy regardless of whether a man or a woman holds the position. Will America's attitude toward African nations be any less paternalistic if Hilary is President, for example? Please.

So you're saying it's still patriarchy regardless of the sex of the person in charge, if it's still a paternalistic attitude/system of control? What is the alternative then? Moving towards socialism? Genuine question, not trying to be antagonistic.

I've never been much of one to offer large scale alternatives. We each have enough trouble running our individual lives, so you're an arrogant twat when you start prescribing how the world should be, regardless of ideology.

Per your question about patriarchy, you can't say it's still patriarchy as if it's the same exact thing. No, changes have occurred. But patriarchy is about more than just men and women. It's also about power structures and hierarchies that couldn't care less whether a man or woman is perpetuating them. So when you maintain the power structures and the hierarchies but insert women in the positions of power here and there, you maintain the skeletal structure of patriarchy and you are, to a large degree, faithful to its heritage.

[Coma16]

We're all in debt because of it.

[Amir]

I don't know that it's so clearly a good thing.

Why not?

Because I think the liberative and revolutionary potentials of the women's movements were largely coopted by a narrative that tells women that the more they identify with their wage laborer position, the more they are free. For the most part, women have identified the positions and behaviors traditionally reserved for men in patriarchal systems and decided "equality" means women being able to hold those positions and perform those behaviors, forgetting all the way that those positions and behaviors are stamped with the history of patriarchy and in fact promote offshoots of patriarchy regardless of whether a man or a woman holds the position. Will America's attitude toward African nations be any less paternalistic if Hilary is President, for example? Please.

So you're saying it's still patriarchy regardless of the sex of the person in charge, if it's still a paternalistic attitude/system of control? What is the alternative then? Moving towards socialism? Genuine question, not trying to be antagonistic.

I've never been much of one to offer large scale alternatives. We each have enough trouble running our individual lives, so you're an arrogant twat when you start prescribing how the world should be, regardless of ideology.

Per your question about patriarchy, you can't say it's still patriarchy as if it's the same exact thing. No, changes have occurred. But patriarchy is about more than just men and women. It's also about power structures and hierarchies that couldn't care less whether a man or woman is perpetuating them. So when you maintain the power structures and the hierarchies but insert women in the positions of power here and there, you maintain the skeletal structure of patriarchy and you are, to a large degree, faithful to its heritage.

It may be a failure of imagination on my part but I can't imagine a long-lasting society without power structures of some sort. While there's still that part of me that leans towards the libertarian-y "just let people live their lives" etc., I think it's a natural human tendency to look up to powerful figures to help us along, while often denigrating these same paternal leaders. Despite the best efforts of many of my A-level and uni teachers/tutors, I still subscribe in part to the "Great Men" theory of history that it takes a small group of powerful people (be they powerful through physical force or through strong/charismatic voices) to incite major change among the masses. It was a small group who helped change legislation during the civil rights movement in the US in the mid-20th century. The majority of Americans were against interracial marriage until 1996.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/149390/record-high-approve-black-white-marriages.aspx

[netcat]

So when you maintain the power structures and the hierarchies but insert women in the positions of power here and there, you maintain the skeletal structure of patriarchy and you are, to a large degree, faithful to its heritage.

maybe give it a time? sociocultural evolution is not that quick

[Georgy Zhukov]

If doctors offices were run by men, everyone will get their prescription refills in a timely manner.

[maynard]

I'm a little upsed with my woman, yeah. I chose our New Years Eve plans last year and we had a blast, her plans for this year suck! Look at me posting in MYGNR while I could've been at the beach, Brazilian style. Shit.

[magisme]

I don't know that it's so clearly a good thing.

Why not?

Because I think the liberative and revolutionary potentials of the women's movements were largely coopted by a narrative that tells women that the more they identify with their wage laborer position, the more they are free. For the most part, women have identified the positions and behaviors traditionally reserved for men in patriarchal systems and decided "equality" means women being able to hold those positions and perform those behaviors, forgetting all the way that those positions and behaviors are stamped with the history of patriarchy and in fact promote offshoots of patriarchy regardless of whether a man or a woman holds the position. Will America's attitude toward African nations be any less paternalistic if Hilary is President, for example? Please.

So you're saying it's still patriarchy regardless of the sex of the person in charge, if it's still a paternalistic attitude/system of control? What is the alternative then? Moving towards socialism? Genuine question, not trying to be antagonistic.

I've never been much of one to offer large scale alternatives. We each have enough trouble running our individual lives, so you're an arrogant twat when you start prescribing how the world should be, regardless of ideology.

Per your question about patriarchy, you can't say it's still patriarchy as if it's the same exact thing. No, changes have occurred. But patriarchy is about more than just men and women. It's also about power structures and hierarchies that couldn't care less whether a man or woman is perpetuating them. So when you maintain the power structures and the hierarchies but insert women in the positions of power here and there, you maintain the skeletal structure of patriarchy and you are, to a large degree, faithful to its heritage.

It may be a failure of imagination on my part but I can't imagine a long-lasting society without power structures of some sort. While there's still that part of me that leans towards the libertarian-y "just let people live their lives" etc., I think it's a natural human tendency to look up to powerful figures to help us along, while often denigrating these same paternal leaders. Despite the best efforts of many of my A-level and uni teachers/tutors, I still subscribe in part to the "Great Men" theory of history that it takes a small group of powerful people (be they powerful through physical force or through strong/charismatic voices) to incite major change among the masses. It was a small group who helped change legislation during the civil rights movement in the US in the mid-20th century. The majority of Americans were against interracial marriage until 1996.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/149390/record-high-approve-black-white-marriages.aspx

I disagree with the small group thing. The small groups are always there. They can't do shit until the realities on the ground get bad enough that masses, not the masses but masses all the same, get behind them and give them the force they need to effect change. The force part is necessary, and over history you've needed numbers to have force. Things are changing in that regard, but that's a different topic for another time.

Anyway, I'm not making value judgements here. I'm not saying the power structures are bad per se, although I certainly have my critiques. My point just goes back to the examples of President, bank manager and CEO as the types of positions that are anti-patriarchy. All I was saying was, well, not entirely, it's not that simple.

[Facekicker]

I'm a little upsed with my woman, yeah. I chose our New Years Eve plans last year and we had a blast, her plans for this year suck! Look at me posting in MYGNR while I could've been at the beach, Brazilian style. Shit.

Send me her address so I can send her a postcard with "By tale care of him" on it.

[Len Cnut]

*Magses inner monologue*

[Is0tope]

It's just the other end of the spectrum opposite the hardcore male-hating feminists. People are stupid. Who gives a shit.

I don't get why some dudes in general are so threatened by feminism, at least what most women practice as feminism. Some women take it a bit far, no doubt. Every "feminist" I've dated though just wanted to skip the chivalry, pay for dinner as much as I did, drive here and there, and not be talked down to like a delicate helpless little girl. Verses being with somebody who has a more traditional idea of dating, it's more relaxed. Not such a terrible thing.

Good post. The "feminists" as you put it sound textbook feminist to me or at least what it's supposed to be.

About the original post, where did you find these people? Self-declared anti-feminists, haha !

I mean I've met some people with that kind of ideas, endorsing the classical patriarchal model in society.. In most cases they are males who have been unsuccessful with women and I suppose they want to reason it with something that doesn't make them question themselves. It's just easier to point your finger at something else than your own picture in the mirror so often people tend to hop into any boat (of whichever ideas) floating around.

Are men upset with women? Well, yes and no. Some are.

Edited December 30, 2014 by Is0tope

[arnold layne]

Let me tell you something about women.

They're fucking shitty people. I'm serious. I've had it. I don't know how to fucking say it but they're fucking mental. There's no such thing as logic or reasoning to women. I wouldn't even define it as 'emotional' - more like absolute insanity.

You can't win. If you ask for their number, they have you by the fucking balls already. It's just the fucking way it is.

So yes, goddam right I'm upset.

It's the same bullshit every fucking time, and it's fucking awful. Girls take you to emotional highs like never before, and then they'll fucking shit on them.

I can't wait until I get my CDL.

I WILL work in this world, but DAMN if I become apart of it.