Any reformed misogynists and misandrists?

[Pyro]

Many people "hate what they don't understand "

 

Easier to hate it then to take the time to learn and understand it.

[Woggle]

I don't think NN is a true misandrist though I wish she would take a cue from me and stop seeing the opposite sex in such a negative light. There have been only a few hardcore manhaters on here.

[TheBigQuestion]

I don't think NN is a true misandrist though I wish she would take a cue from me and stop seeing the opposite sex in such a negative light. There have been only a few hardcore manhaters on here.

 

You're talking about someone who frequently says that pretty much no man can be trusted under any circumstances, who asserts that "men are only as faithful as their options" is a universal maxim, who does not think that men are not anything more than their base sexual urges. Her claims go beyond what most bitter guys say on LS. She is a misandrist. Plain and simple. The fact that she may have legitimate reasons for being one based on past traumas is inconsequential.

[Mrlonelyone]

OP - why are you asking? What would locating these people do for you?

 

Western relationships are currently in a downward spiral, man-hating is everywhere and still on the rise, and the subsequent backlash against that is consequently still on the rise.

 

I hate MANY women. I see nothing wrong with that, because I hate them not for their GENDER, but for their actions toward men, attitudes toward men and expectations of men. I blame the society as much as the gender itself. Society has told women to embrace and amplify their own corrupt nature. Society has sold these women a lie, that the impossible is possible: that they can be both equal and privileged, that they can be both completely independent and happily devoted, and that they should make as much money as men while only respecting and pursuing men who make more money than they do. Now you have a society where happy marriage is the punchline to a joke.

 

You want misogyny and misandry to go away? That will only ever happen when human beings can start figuring out how to be honest about their own gender identity and human nature. Not to force "equality in everything" when it is at odds with peoples' fundamental nature and gender roles, but instead to honestly determine how to, as a society, treat both men and women fairly and to honestly value and reward what comes naturally to both.

 

Unfortunately, the owners of this world WANT the discord we currently experience, WANT to destroy family and have brainwashed an entire generation to think that traditional values are "old and stupid." They'll probably succeed. People are really, really gullible. Hate to break it to you -- you're living on the planet of the short bus. Best not take any of it too seriously.

 

You identified two of the problems, almost.

 

The first bolded point is right on. Society has told women contradictory things. To be 100% fine by society they have to be both carreer women and a supermom. They want to be treated as equals in every way...yet it's ok for them to expect a man to carry them litterally at times.

 

As for the gender role thing, that's more complex. The fact is every society has important differnces in it's male and female gender roles. i.e. In East Asian and traditional American Indian culture farming was womens work. In Western socieites farming is mens work. There are many other examples clothing etc etc.

 

The important point about gender roles in society is that if people insist on equality then such roles need to be reduced to their bare basic biological minimums. It is the role of a biological female to give birth, and rear children for at least the first couple years of their lives. Only biological females can give birth and breastfeed. It is the role of biological males to watch over and provide food and security for females during that period of early child rearing. Biological males are on average stronger than females. Those are the biological facts. Everything else, is BS made up by the hands of men.

 

With those minimal and clear gender roles everyone would be free to do whatever else they want, while acknowledging the fundamental nature of what it is to be male or female...reproduction and responsibility for children.

[KungFuJoe]

You're talking about someone who frequently says that pretty much no man can be trusted under any circumstances, who asserts that "men are only as faithful as their options" is a universal maxim, who does not think that men are not anything more than their base sexual urges. Her claims go beyond what most bitter guys say on LS. She is a misandrist. Plain and simple. The fact that she may have legitimate reasons for being one based on past traumas is inconsequential.

 

I have to agree with this. I have read a bunch of NN's posts and I think she is a misandrist.

 

Though I'm confused now as she said she's found love...but then I didn't hear back from her when I asked her to elaborate.

[ChessPieceFace]

The important point about gender roles in society is that if people insist on equality then such roles need to be reduced to their bare basic biological minimums. It is the role of a biological female to give birth, and rear children for at least the first couple years of their lives. Only biological females can give birth and breastfeed. It is the role of biological males to watch over and provide food and security for females during that period of early child rearing. Biological males are on average stronger than females. Those are the biological facts. Everything else, is BS made up by the hands of men.

 

With those minimal and clear gender roles everyone would be free to do whatever else they want, while acknowledging the fundamental nature of what it is to be male or female...reproduction and responsibility for children.

 

By 'the hands of men' do you mean by the hands of humans, or specifically men? Because I know a lot of gender BS made up by the hands of women, and a lot of it is circulating on this forum.

 

Kind of put off by how you felt the need to say "biological women" and "biological men" but whatever, tired of tangential arguments where no one listens (and no one will listen.)

 

I don't agree that women can pop out a baby and raise it for a couple years, and otherwise act like a physically weaker man, in a functioning healthy society. A woman is a woman; a man is a man. Society has never honestly addressed what that means. A genuine discussion never even began. Instead we've gone from a functioning, traditional family where the woman was "relegated" to her role as mother and homemaker, to a non-functioning "modern" family where the mother and homemaker role are looked down on and belittled, where money and self are everything, where women try to be men and where fathers are kicked out and absent.

 

I don't think it's easy for people to understand my position. I am against discrimination of any kind. I am also against forced equality which runs contrary to human nature. If a woman wants to be a firefighter or fighter pilot, she shouldn't be prevented from doing so just because of gender. She should have to pass whatever physical and mental requirements a man would have to pass, and if she can do the job she can do the job. If a woman and a man are doing the same tasks at the same job, they should be paid the same. The only thing that should potentially complicate that is the need for paid maternity leave.

 

However, when people want to deny their basic nature, because it's somehow more fashionable and desirable to "act like a man" then society is simply going to have systemic problems, and that's what we are living in. Women, it's your nature to go after men who make more money than you do. It's your nature to judge a man much more based on what he makes than he will judge you based on the same. It's in the genome. I don't like it any more than you do. Of course it's also in the genome for people to murder and rape, but generally societal standards, proper child-rearing and laws prevent that from happening most of the time.

 

Point is, we can try to elevate ourselves above our base animal nature, but the instincts are still there. When you're talking sexual attraction, I would submit that is perhaps where the instincts are least curbed by societal pressures. Thus a generation of unhappy "liberated" women who cry and whine because there aren't any "real men" around. The real men that feminism destroyed.

 

Many studies have shown that womens' ratings of their happiness have gone down since the 50's. I doubt society has the collective intelligence and/or wisdom to take an honest look at the implications of that fact, at least in my lifetime. To once again reassess gender roles, what we value as a society, to stop championing money and workplace success as the be-all of happiness (because it really isn't.) And again, the people at the top don't want us to.

[TheBigQuestion]

I've also heard news stories about how women are apparently less happier now than when they were "oppressed" a few decades back. Of course, I'm wary of almost any social science study, but it's worth mentioning that at least some of them have come to this conclusion.

[Mme. Chaucer]

I have always been very free of judging others because of what gender they are, even though I have been seriously abused by men in my life, I worked in bars and as a dancer and saw a lot of not stellar masculine behavior, AND I'm a feminist. I have always had men in my life that I've loved no matter what was going on with me.

 

I don't find it hard to connect with men or women, and I really balk at trying to understand what people do based on generalizations of their entire gender though I certainly realize that it comes into play. I have a lot of faith in individuality and the freedom to make choices, despite our biology and socialization.

 

To me, blatant sexism of the type that is so rampant here on LS is horrible, just as racism is. I can't believe that so many people accept it and practice it. That's not being "politically correct." It's being open minded and thoughtful.

[Mrlonelyone]

By 'the hands of men' do you mean by the hands of humans, or specifically men? Because I know a lot of gender BS made up by the hands of women, and a lot of it is circulating on this forum.

 

I meant humans. As in by the hands of man, as in mankind etc.

 

Kind of put off by how you felt the need to say "biological women" and "biological men" but whatever, tired of tangential arguments where no one listens (and no one will listen.)

 

Note I didn't say bilogical men and biological women....I said biological males and biological females. If this puts you off so be it.

 

Not everyone is heterosexual or gender normative... yet most peopel who are not are still admittedly biologically male or female. That reproductive purpose is separate from how you live, who you love, what you wear, or all that other man made (as in made up by human culture) BS.

 

 

I don't agree that women can pop out a baby and raise it for a couple years, and otherwise act like a physically weaker man, in a functioning healthy society. A woman is a woman; a man is a man. Society has never honestly addressed what that means. A genuine discussion never even began. Instead we've gone from a functioning, traditional family where the woman was "relegated" to her role as mother and homemaker, to a non-functioning "modern" family where the mother and homemaker role are looked down on and belittled, where money and self are everything, where women try to be men and where fathers are kicked out and absent.

 

Never said women act like physically weaker men. I said it is the males place to provide security and food for the female during that period of child rearing and vulnerability. i.e. males are physically stronger than females...for sheer greater size and % muscle mass if nothing else.

 

Beyond those basic physical differences the sexes are identical in every other mental and physical way.

 

d

I don't think it's easy for people to understand my position. I am against discrimination of any kind. I am also against forced equality which runs contrary to human nature. If a woman wants to be a firefighter or fighter pilot, she shouldn't be prevented from doing so just because of gender. She should have to pass whatever physical and mental requirements a man would have to pass, and if she can do the job she can do the job. If a woman and a man are doing the same tasks at the same job, they should be paid the same. The only thing that should potentially complicate that is the need for paid maternity leave.

 

However, when people want to deny their basic nature, because it's somehow more fashionable and desirable to "act like a man" then society is simply going to have systemic problems, and that's what we are living in. Women, it's your nature to go after men who make more money than you do. It's your nature to judge a man much more based on what he makes than he will judge you based on the same. It's in the genome. I don't like it any more than you do. Of course it's also in the genome for people to murder and rape, but generally societal standards, proper child-rearing and laws prevent that from happening most of the time.

 

Point is, we can try to elevate ourselves above our base animal nature, but the instincts are still there. When you're talking sexual attraction, I would submit that is perhaps where the instincts are least curbed by societal pressures. Thus a generation of unhappy "liberated" women who cry and whine because there aren't any "real men" around. The real men that feminism destroyed.

 

Many studies have shown that womens' ratings of their happiness have gone down since the 50's. I doubt society has the collective intelligence and/or wisdom to take an honest look at the implications of that fact, at least in my lifetime. To once again reassess gender roles, what we value as a society, to stop championing money and workplace success as the be-all of happiness (because it really isn't.) And again, the people at the top don't want us to.

 

The problem with your position is that you keep talking about a much more expansive version of the "basic nature" of males and females than biology alone can support.

 

It would be more intellectually honest if you would say something like you belive in the western north american version of Judeo-Christian values when it comes to gender roles, sex, and the family than to pretend otherwise.

 

I could let Pat Robertson and Jimmy Swaggart call me a faggot more than I can bear a intelectually dishonest discussion.

[ChessPieceFace]

Not everyone is heterosexual or gender normative...

 

OK... not everyone likes to have sex with humans either, do we have to include everything really? I guess in your world we do. Bend over backwards to accommodate a tiny fraction while wrecking the lives of the majority, it's the liberal way.

 

yet most peopel who are not are still admittedly biologically male or female. That reproductive purpose is separate from how you live, who you love, what you wear, or all that other man made (as in made up by human culture) BS.

 

Right, gender roles are completely "made up" by human culture, as well as every single thing we think. No such thing as pre-programmed areas of our brain. Let's just ignore all basic brain biology for the purposes of advancing the liberal agenda.

 

BTW some species can walk right after falling out of the mother's birth canal. They must have a really good society to teach them that trick so quickly.

 

Never said women act like physically weaker men. I said it is the males place to provide security and food for the female during that period of child rearing and vulnerability. i.e. males are physically stronger than females...for sheer greater size and % muscle mass if nothing else.

 

Beyond those basic physical differences the sexes are identical in every other mental and physical way.

 

That is hands-down hilarious. So all the women who go after alpha males, who value money and status. All the men who go after the hottest women with the biggest breasts. That's ALL society. You heard it here folks.

 

BTW I really wish I could believe in that lunacy, it would mean we could actually fix the human race's problems without changing the DNA. Sadly, I live in reality.

 

It would be more intellectually honest if you would say something like you believe in the western north american version of Judeo-Christian values when it comes to gender roles, sex, and the family than to pretend otherwise.

 

Who is pretending? I believe traditional gender roles WORKED a whole lot better than the confused nation of fatherless children we have right now. At the end of the day, results are what matter. If indeed it takes certain beliefs or gender roles that originate in a particular religion for humans to behave properly without their society collapsing, how logical is it to reject it just because you don't share the underlying beliefs? Oh, but you apparently don't believe society is collapsing. How many happy marriages do you know personally? Does marriage even matter either? Should we hand our children over to the state? How far off the rails have you gone?

 

I could let Pat Robertson and Jimmy Swaggart call me a faggot more than I can bear a intelectually dishonest discussion.

 

Intellectually honest discussion is not in the liberal playbook.

[mesmerized]

Who is pretending? I believe traditional gender roles WORKED a whole lot better than the confused nation of fatherless children we have right now. At the end of the day, results are what matter. If indeed it takes certain beliefs or gender roles that originate in a particular religion for humans to behave properly without their society collapsing, how logical is it to reject it just because you don't share the underlying beliefs? Oh, but you apparently don't believe society is collapsing. How many happy marriages do you know personally? Does marriage even matter either? Should we hand our children over to the state? How far off the rails have you gone?

 

 

No, it didn't "work". Maybe it worked for certain people, like ugly men who happened to have money and power or women who were lucky enough to be in families that actually respected their opinion despite being a woman. For the majority of people, it did bring misery and hard life just as our values now might bring. Just because people were too afraid to get a divorce and stayed in marriages that they hated does not mean they were happy and that everything just worked for them. I bet you that the majority of women even a 100 years ago didn't even know what orgasm was. My mother wasn't happy nor was my grandmother nor most woman I know who had to follow "tradition".

 

Change is not always a bad thing. It just takes some time for it to get to a good place.

[ChessPieceFace]

No, it didn't "work". Maybe it worked for certain people

 

"Certain people" - like children.

 

And men.

 

Oh, and women.

 

But it's interesting to know that supposedly we have to live in a divorced nation of fathers living in apartments paying child support, with women chasing after men that don't exist, in order for "women to know what orgasms are." I always enjoy new perspectives, thanks for that.

[mesmerized]

"Certain people" like children.

 

And men.

 

Oh, and women.

 

What an amazing argument, I'm convinced.

 

I'm sure it would have worked better for you though or you wouldn't be here defending it like that.

[ChessPieceFace]

What an amazing argument, I'm convinced.

 

I'm sure it would have worked better for you though or you wouldn't be here defending it like that.

 

Actually I personally am attracted to liberated women, and by nature would probably work a lot better as a house husband than a bread winner. However I also have a functioning brain which can see the disaster of a society I'm living in.

[TouchedByViolet]

I hate everyone, including myself. However, some I hate more than others, and a small few I love as well.

[mesmerized]

Actually I personally am attracted to liberated women, and by nature would probably work a lot better as a house husband than a bread winner. However I also have a functioning brain which can see the disaster of a society I'm living in.

 

Disasters have always existed in different forms except that people were told to shut up about it. Humans are not perfect, not in nature nor nurture. I personally prefer the challenges I have to face today as a woman as to the ones I would have had to face in a traditional society.

[Els]

Probably hard to have balanced gender perspectives in a society that kills babies for not being male.

 

Also - many western guys import asian wives and AFAIK are very happy. Why - because these asian women were brought up to understand how to respect men, and are probably very happy by how much their American man respects them in return. Constant disrespect, bitching and impossible demands from western women can hurt relationships? Who knew?

 

Yeah, free citizenship, a ticket out of poverty, and a first-world country lifestyle, surely has nothing to do with it. These women are clearly ecstatic solely because their 'importer' treats them with the respect that you believe their countrymen lack; though how one can treat an object with genuine respect is questionable.

 

You haven't answered my question. How much time have you spent outside America? Incidentally, how many 'imports' do you know ran away as soon as they got their green card?

 

As a woman born and bred in Asia myself, I have only to laugh at how the ignorant toot their horns the loudest.

 

Disclaimer: Not talking about the guys who happen to end up with wives of different nationality here. Talking solely about those who 'imported' them.