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.
That's not quite historically accurate. Voting rights in the early United States were dependent not only upon gender but also upon whether or not an individual owned property. In fact, prior to the ratification of our United States Constitution, voting rights were also dependent upon one's religion, and only Christians in certain areas of the country were granted the right to vote. There was actually a small number of free Black male property owners who were able to vote in some states prior to the Civil War (this would have been in some Northern states -- not the Southern states).
Despite the fact that Black men were, officially in 1870, granted the right to vote by the U.S. Federal government, they did not experience that right everywhere in the U.S. The reality of their experience was that their voting rights were frequently and violently suppressed in certain areas of the country. It wasn't until the enactment of the Voting Rights Act in 1965 that this was addressed. Yet, even today, voter suppression continues to take on other forms in the United States. Click here for specifics.
Misogyny, as well, continues to thrive in this respect. In 2017, the alt-right movement in the United States notoriously and publicly put forth the notion that women should not have the right to vote.
Yes, I know about voter suppression, specific voting qualifications, etc., but I was making a general statement -- that a hated class of men were given the vote half a century before women. That fact says a lot about late 19th/early 20th century attitudes about women.
I don't believe that misogyny is born of envy. Although there may be a percentage of men who envy women. Mostly when I was growing up it wasn't so much about their body parts as it was their perceived role in society.
It sounded like this: "You women have it so good. Stay home all day and have someone else take care of you while you drink coffee and watch tv."
And of course most of that was a complete misconception of what life was like for a SAHM.
I do believe that a great deal of misogyny rises from the fact that biologically most men want a woman. More than that they need a woman. (Of course I recognize this theory is old hat now but discarding it for newspeak does not make it less true. Nothing about our biology is changed by political correctness.)
When you want or need something badly enough and are unable to achieve it, unless you are mentally a very fit individual, it can warp your view of others who have that and of the desired object itself.
I'm in mind of the number of men who murder their love partners when they sense there is going to be a separation. Under that threatening, controlling exterior is a very insecure and needy man who will go to any lengths to hold on to what he needs or destroy it.
Yes, I know about voter suppression, specific voting qualifications, etc., but I was making a general statement -- that a hated class of men were given the vote half a century before women. That fact says a lot about late 19th/early 20th century attitudes about women.
I think "hated" is too strong of a word. They were simply assessed as incapable of making rational choices. It was more a matter of thinking in terms of hierarchy than it was of "like" and "hate." And obviously the assumption of the era was that men - any men - were more capable of rational thought than women.
And of course there were underlying reasons for this but it wasn't about hate. It was about control.
I don't believe that misogyny is born of envy. Although there may be a percentage of men who envy women. Mostly when I was growing up it wasn't so much about their body parts as it was their perceived role in society.
It sounded like this: "You women have it so good. Stay home all day and have someone else take care of you while you drink coffee and watch tv."
And of course most of that was a complete misconception of what life was like for a SAHM.
I do believe that a great deal of misogyny rises from the fact that biologically most men want a woman. More than that they need a woman. (Of course I recognize this theory is old hat now but discarding it for newspeak does not make it less true. Nothing about our biology is changed by political correctness.)
When you want or need something badly enough and are unable to achieve it, unless you are mentally a very fit individual, it can warp your view of others who have that and of the desired object itself.
I'm in mind of the number of men who murder their love partners when they sense there is going to be a separation. Under that threatening, controlling exterior is a very insecure and needy man who will go to any lengths to hold on to what he needs or destroy it.
I think MU’s post is indicative of some other issues. Most women get jobs because they deserve them based on their qualifications. However, men are annoyed that they now have to compete with women to get the same jobs and are now less likely to be successful. It is hard to admit that the reason you did not get the job was because you are less qualified, so many men may resort to misogyny to justify why they did not get the job.
I don’t think you can look at women recently appointed to high leadership positions like Janet Yellen or Amy Coney Barrett and say they are less qualified than any of the male candidates. With the issues people had with ACB, I don’t think anyone particularly thought she was not qualified. They just took issue with her personal beliefs and affiliations. At my last job, we had a lot of agency heads who were male. They were not there long, generally did poorly, and people disliked them. The current head has been there a while now (about 8 years) and is female. People like her because she has an open door policy, does not allow other department heads to fire Willy nilly like is common in government, and seems to actually care about the goal of the agency. I think she was far more qualified to head the agency than the men and was promoted from a secondary role at the agency.
I don’t disagree that men want a woman. The fact that women work and are independent means that they don’t necessarily want or need a man anymore.
I think "hated" is too strong of a word. They were simply assessed as incapable of making rational choices. It was more a matter of thinking in terms of hierarchy than it was of "like" and "hate." And obviously the assumption of the era was that men - any men - were more capable of rational thought than women.
And of course there were underlying reasons for this but it wasn't about hate. It was about control.
Itvwas worse than hate, it was contempt. Black people were only considered a fraction of what whites were, even Lincoln did not think them equal as human beings. Women were possessions, why would an object need to vote?
I don’t disagree that men want a woman. The fact that women work and are independent means that they don’t necessarily want or need a man anymore.
I think men and women both want and have a need for intimate and loving companionship. But that does not mean there are underlying sick feelings against women, particularly now when they prove what was already known, and feared, that they are just as as men in being able to manage their lives and put food on the table.
I don't see a lot of anti-woman attitudes in my daily life. Many of the men I interact with and come across are very nice and normal, and courteous. I mean besides the anti-choice debates and similar. I mean just as people, male humans. I don't think men are trying to hold women or keep them from doing anything. If anything, there's now kind of a stigma against stay-at-home moms, and supposedly men wanting their wife/girlfriend holding down a great job, while at the same time keeping up with the domestic duties and parenting. Creating a climate of feeling pressured to be perfect, etc.
I've been with the same man for 10 years since age 19, and we split all the duties equally and he treats me wonderfully and respectfully, as I do for him. So maybe I don't know if things really are bad out there with gender relations. If anything, I think in today's modern climate as far as jobs and professionally, things are biased towards women. If there were 5 men and 1 woman applying for an engineering job, the woman would likely get the job, because women are being actively recruited to be represented in larger percentages in most career fields.
So no, as a whole, I don't think men are anti-woman.
Misogyny is rooted in the fact that this is a Patriarchal society. Why patriarchal societies are more prevalent than matriarchal ones is something I wonder about. Maybe it came about because in early hunter-gatherer tribes, men put their lives on the line to hunt large animals to feed the tribe and they became more aggressive as a result. Maybe it came about so that men could control who were and weren't able to have children, and to prevent every male in an a tribe from killing each other so that there was only a couple left to father children.
As far as why Misogyny still exists today, when none of the ^ above are conditions anybody is living under, I think it comes down to entitlement and a lack of willingness to share power. The same goes for the root causes of racism.
Ding ding ding! Agree it is the root cause of both racism and sexism but with an important difference in that men of all races are sexists, but not intra racists. Other kinds of discrimination yes.
The thing is this goes way beyond sexism or racism to human nature. If you look through history it's just staggering how many sons and nephews and daughters and wives of kings and emperors will kill each other off rather than share power and influence with their own GD family . You see it on every country and continent. You mostly see men doing this but women do the same thing whenever they got the chance. Read up about Alexander the great's mother. She had to whack a few family members just to make sure Alex made it the throne, and even led armies in to battle to secure her grandson's right to the throne. History is chock full of brothers killing brothers over rights to succession. Human beings are capable of doing whatever it takes to secure power and capable of excercising total power over others without feeling the slightest remorse obviously not everyone will behave this way but it's abundantly clear that we are capable of it.
The thing is this goes way beyond sexism or racism to human nature. If you look through history it's just staggering how many sons and nephews and daughters and wives of kings and emperors will kill each other off rather than share power and influence with their own GD family . You see it on every country and continent. You mostly see men doing this but women do the same thing whenever they got the chance. Read up about Alexander the great's mother. She had to whack a few family members just to make sure Alex made it the throne, and even led armies in to battle to secure her grandson's right to the throne. History is chock full of brothers killing brothers over rights to succession. Human beings are capable of doing whatever it takes to secure power and capable of excercising total power over others without feeling the slightest remorse obviously not everyone will behave this way but it's abundantly clear that we are capable of it.
Cleopatra killed her two Brothers and Sister during her reign so she could hold onto her power.
In like reading old European history, and once you get behind the male figureheads and wars, you will usually find women behind the scenes plotting and scheming to get the men into their lives into power, or out of power depending on the objectives.
Misogyny isn't even required to oppress women. Men have established institutions, like religions, educational inequities, and glass ceilings to do the job for them for 2+ millennia.
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.
