Women posters on this site catch alot of hell....

[soserious1]

At least you are honest. I respect women who come right out and say they hate men.

 

It's not a matter of "hate" that would involve intense expenditure of emotional energy . No, it's goes like this, when you are young everything the opposite sex does is endlessly fascinating but then you grow up, suddenly you become indifferent to it all.

 

I don't " hate" anybody, I just see no upside, no benefit to investing resources I could use on myself to pursue a relationship with anyone.

[dasein]

and a couple of guys saying that too because they think they might get a little internet nookie.

 

You just explained the overall quality level of this forum without even realizing it.

[serial muse]

At least your actually going out on dates with these men. j/k sort-of.

 

?

 

So are you mad you had to pay?

 

Only when I did feel sponged off of. Just like various guys on here are complaining about. I shouldn't have put up with it either, so that bit's on me. Your point is?

 

Would you of paid half if he had money & not complained?

 

Yes, already have done.

 

Or do you expect the man to pay for dates?

 

Have already made lots of posts on this topic. I do not expect men to pay for dates. I think both people paying their way or trading paying is the way to go.

 

Having already said this a number of times (and, by the way, so has sally4sara), I do find it frustrating that no matter how many times I say it, I still get met with the responses you met me with. There is a very vocal subset of men on here who simply refuse to believe that women might think this. How many times, do you think, have I or other women been told we're lying when we say this kind of thing?

 

And then Woggle comes on here and says he respects women who "admit" they hate men. As though that were the only honest way for a woman to express herself.

 

And people here are trying to say that the misandry is more subtle and pernicious on LS??? When women on LS are constantly met with that kind of subtle, perniciously hateful attitude? And endless threads about how they are, inherently, golddiggers, cheaters, liars or worse? Yes, they're deleted after a day or so, but there are always more, and they always take over the Dating section for that period of time. Ye gods.

 

TIRESOME. As I already said.

 

A lot of men do stuff for women then get blown off or flaked on for the date once she got what she wanted out of them.

 

And as was said your a jerk if you won't do a woman a favor. But and I find this very interesting, only the really young girls have tried this with me since I got buff.

Later 20's & up just seem to know i'll laugh in their face if they try flirting with me then ask me to do something for them like replace the headlight on their car or fix their computer. Da hell?

 

I personally save treating women out to dinner for when their my GF & stick to inexpensive things for "dates" while i'm getting to know her.

 

Those truely interested don't care. Those looking to use me start mentioning expensive restuarants & wandering into the jewelery stores at the mall pointing out things she'd really love to have like the first or 2nd time we hung out

 

Then the constant mentioning of something on their house that needs fixing & how expensive it is to have someone do the work. I'm 100% serious. I deal with this probably with every 1 out of 3 women I meet out with.

 

These are women people set me up with, I meet at charity functions, social events in fine restaurants. Not dating sites or bars.

 

Blows my mind.

 

Yeah. This has nothing to do with what I wrote, though.

 

I was making the very simple point that there are in fact women who don't act that way. Maybe your people picker is at fault?

 

And/or, as I said, just hold the actual people accountable who do stuff you don't like. Don't turn it into a crusade against "women" or "feminists". That's nonsense and so TIRESOME.

 

Feminists are, in fact, your allies here.

 

Here's an interesting little test. It's called the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory. It measures one's attitudes to both hostile and benevolent sexism - in other words, whether you fundamentally see women as "out to get" men, AND ALSO whether you fundamentally think women should be put on pedestals. They've assessed these attitudes in BOTH men and women in multiple countries around the world. The results are quite revealing.

Edited August 25, 2011 by serial muse

[Mme. Chaucer]

Many times, I have challenged people here to find threads where men in their entirety as a gender are bashed and trashed. So far, nobody has found one. Any day of the week, however, you can find the women haters spewing forth thread after thread.

 

The thread mentioned, where the poster complained about her ex boyfriend's sexual comments and "women jumped all over to defend her" is not even related to what I'm talking about. This was a SPECIFiC woman talking about her situation with a SPECIFIC man. I defended her because I believe that her situation was defensible. The genders of the people involved make NO difference to me, unless we are actually talking about the big societal picture of gender-defined roles. Which, incidentally, I think is a very interesting thing to discuss, if the hate could be left out. Just like I think that race relations are very interesting and elucidating to discuss, as long as I'm not trying to talk with confirmed white supremacists.

 

I know anti - man threads are here once in a while; there might be one currently that I have not read entitled something like "why do all men cheat." Though I haven't read it, the title offends me.

 

I HATE bigotry, prejudice, racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. etc. etc. They are all the same thing: HATE. In a myriad of ugly forms.

 

I'm shocked, truly, at how it is nurtured and allowed to thrive within a certain subset of members here at LoveShack.

[carhill]

Took the test. Results:

 

"Hostile Sexism Score: 1.73

Benevolent Sexism Score: 0.36

 

 

What do my scores mean?

 

The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory measures two separate but related tendencies:

 

• "Hostile sexism," which involves negative feelings toward women
  
• "Benevolent sexism," a knight-in-shining armor ideology that offers protection and affection to women who conform to traditional gender roles (e.g., cute girlfriend, obedient wife, etc.)
  

Scores on each dimension can vary from 0 to 5, and although there is no fixed point that divides sexist and nonsexist people, higher ASI scores are related to greater degrees of sexism. For example, people with high levels of hostile sexism are more likely than others to hold negative stereotypes about career women, and they express attitudes that are more tolerant of sexual harassment and spousal abuse of women.

 

In contrast, high scores on benevolent sexism are not related to overt measures of hostility toward women. Nevertheless, benevolent sexism can turn ugly when women venture beyond traditional gender roles. For instance, one study found that benevolent sexists were more likely than others to blame a female victim for being raped after she invited a man into her apartment (presumably because the victim's behavior violated norms of female chastity)."

 

 

Here's a screen capture of the bar chart comparison to other men and women who took the test.

 

 

 

I think *some* female posters catch a lot of hell from *some* male posters on this site. It's not too different than in real life. Carry on.

[serial muse]

Took the test. Results:

 

"Hostile Sexism Score: 1.73

Benevolent Sexism Score: 0.36

 

 

What do my scores mean?

 

The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory measures two separate but related tendencies:

 

• "Hostile sexism," which involves negative feelings toward women
  
• "Benevolent sexism," a knight-in-shining armor ideology that offers protection and affection to women who conform to traditional gender roles (e.g., cute girlfriend, obedient wife, etc.)
  

Scores on each dimension can vary from 0 to 5, and although there is no fixed point that divides sexist and nonsexist people, higher ASI scores are related to greater degrees of sexism. For example, people with high levels of hostile sexism are more likely than others to hold negative stereotypes about career women, and they express attitudes that are more tolerant of sexual harassment and spousal abuse of women.

 

In contrast, high scores on benevolent sexism are not related to overt measures of hostility toward women. Nevertheless, benevolent sexism can turn ugly when women venture beyond traditional gender roles. For instance, one study found that benevolent sexists were more likely than others to blame a female victim for being raped after she invited a man into her apartment (presumably because the victim's behavior violated norms of female chastity)."

 

 

Here's a screen capture of the bar chart comparison to other men and women who took the test.

 

It is also interesting to compare your scores to those of men and women in different countries, to see how these attitudes vary around the world. The test is a very useful mirror, IMO, because it highlights prejudices one didn't perhaps know one had. And the fact that it includes benevolent as well as hostile sexism is particularly interesting, I think, for women taking the test. Men, naturally, score higher on the hostile sexism score, while women, naturally, score higher (relative to themselves, not necessarily relative to men!!!) on the benevolent sexism score.

 

For the record, I scored about 0.3 on both hostile and benevolent sexism. I'm not saying that to brag, but to support my earlier statements, since it seems that one has to constantly prove she isn't lying. Sigh.

Edited August 25, 2011 by serial muse

[Kamille]

Interesting test and great resource Serial Muse. I scored 0,27 on both. What was interesting was to see that Canadians score higher in both types of sexism than do Americans. Americans actually fare better than most of the nations I looked at. Go USA!

[Memphis Raines]

You just explained the overall quality level of this forum without even realizing it.

 

Yes I did, but you conveniently snipped the first part of the post that had to dow with women condoning battery on men that also adds to the overall quality level of this forum.

[sally4sara]

I scored a 1.01 in hostile and a .81 in benevolent.

 

Out of curiosity I went back and changed the gender of my own results and got the same results as a male as I did as a female. Then I did it again but answered only with strongly agree or strongly disagree for all questions choose the obvious zero bias answers and got a .00 for hostile, yet still managed to get a .45 for benevolent for my age, gender, and geography.

 

Then I went back and flipped it getting a 5.0 for hostile and 4.55 for benevolent.

 

I did the same as a male version of me and got the same results.

 

Does this suggest that the study believes it is not possible for anyone of my age and geography to completely forgo benevolent sexism? And it does not believe anyone of my age and geography can be completely benevolently sexist? I'm just trying to deduce the test maker's own bias and whether or not it favors anyone of either gender and found the same results for both genders and found none. Just a little research for all the nay sayers I know who either won't post their results or wish to not acknowledge validity if they find they are more sexist than they'd like to believe.

[dreamingoftigers]

I got 1.18 for hostile and 2.27 for benevolent.

 

I figured my scores might be a little high but they were much lower for the hostile sexism then the average US or England results.

 

Some people really don't have much faith in the opposite gender. Wow. One thinks we would've gotten farther in 50 years.

[carhill]

I would opine my hostile sexism score is as 'high' as it is, though relatively low compared to the average of men who took the test, because of my voluntary experiences with so many broken women over the years as well as being pretty fresh out of divorce. In time I'm sure those numbers will change. I'll bookmark the test and take it again in a year if it's still around and see how it goes.

[dreamingoftigers]

My results were .45 for both initially, then when I started comparing to other countries it seemed to change (?).

 

Odd

[carhill]

Was the score number (at the top of the page) changing or its position on the bar graph?

 

The initial bar graph is covering the average of all test takers, irrespective of country. As demographics are further refined, one's position amongst them can change.

 

I didn't mess around with drilling down to more specific parameters and demographics so someone else might give a better answer.

[Woggle]

Most women don't generalize all men but the attitude towards women who blatantly mistreat men and men who are obviously in pain speaks volumes. Why is it that women who cheat are coddled and excused on this board but a man looks at porn and it is the biggest sin ever?

[Mme. Chaucer]

Most women don't generalize all men but the attitude towards women who blatantly mistreat men and men who are obviously in pain speaks volumes.

 

Examples, please.

 

Personally, I react with compassion when others are in pain UNLESS their pain manifests itself in the "victim becomes victimizer" pattern. And, as you know, I care not what the sex of the person is.

 

Why is it that women who cheat are coddled and excused on this board but a man looks at porn and it is the biggest sin ever?

 

Examples, please?

 

I can't think of any example of a woman being "coddled" if she cheats. If she is posting here because she is feeling bad because she cheated, I imagine there will be plenty of other people who will have empathy / compassion for that.

 

Just because some of us don't immediately resort to calling somebody a "whore" because they come to LS to confess about cheating does not equate to "coddling" that person.

 

Also, I don't see an overwhelming sense that men looking at porn is "the biggest sin ever." Au contraire, in fact. I do think it's pretty universally agreed upon by both men and women that if a man is getting his sexual needs met in the most part by porn, he is short-changing his relationship with his wife or girlfriend and that it's mostly on him if she is unhappy, sexually frustrated, lonely and unfulfilled. Who would even argue with that?

[dasein]

Culture does an excellent job of generalizing men, by the time we have all received the thousands of daily negative messages about men and maleness, there's no need to bother generalizing men here further. The misandrists job is done for them by a feminized media that depends on victimization politics to further its marketing and political agendas.

 

When a man comes to a site like this and says "why do women...?" is he talking about say 4/5 of the last women he has dated? or is he waving a banner of misogyny? in effect hating or bashing women? The person interested in rational discussion knows which, just as the person who is only interested in furthering their own gender polarizing agenda knows also.

 

Less than 1% of the threads here have any kind of REAL overall negative gender message. The trick of the real hate-spewers is in converting harmless generalizations into harmful ones by disingenuous, shout down, over the top righteous indignation tactics, and in internalizing every single complaint made by one gender about members of the other.

 

The "all men cheat" thread is a perfect example. All the supposed "haters of hate" around here aren't exactly waving a banner there, and as a result the thread dies out as it should. Their agenda involves framing every single gender disagreement as "hate speech" because their entire position falls apart if women aren't perceived as the downtrodden "infinite victims." Anything suggesting true equality or any slant in women's favor is anathema to them because it undermines their entire victimhood and martyrhood by threatening to knock them down off the cross.

[dreamingoftigers]

Actually there was a thread with a woman who had a serial cheating husband who was considering having an affair and she did not get the same empathy as the guy who had a serial cheating reformed wife who IS having an affair.

[dreamingoftigers]

Okay, pardon me, I did reread the thread and the posters were quite empathetic but quite thoroughly warning her that having an affair would make her a blah blah blah, same as her husband. Whereas in the guy's thread there was quite the tone of "do whatever you want. Your whore/slut wife deserves it."

[radiodarcy]

Most women don't generalize all men but the attitude towards women who blatantly mistreat men and men who are obviously in pain speaks volumes. Why is it that women who cheat are coddled and excused on this board but a man looks at porn and it is the biggest sin ever?

 

i honestly don't think i've seen any instances of either of these. although i tend to hang out on the breakup/coping boards. but i've seen plenty of posts of women on the cheating/jealousy thread admitting to cheating on their boyfriends and the women getting slammed for it by both men and women.

 

i can't say i've seen too many posts about men looking at porn period. but i don't think most people who have just been dumped would be inclined to write posts about looking at porn.

 

i have to say i post a lot on the break up/coping forum (because that's what brought me here and something i'm still continuing to work on) but i've seen situations that both men and women have experienced that closely mirror my own. i'm not noticing a pattern of one particularly gender treating another gender in a certain way.

 

both men and women cheat on, string along and use one another. when i respond to a post on the break up/coping behavior, i try to address the behavior itself, not the gender of the person acting out that behavior. to me at least, that's arbitrary.

Edited August 25, 2011 by radiodarcy

[serial muse]

I scored a 1.01 in hostile and a .81 in benevolent.

 

Out of curiosity I went back and changed the gender of my own results and got the same results as a male as I did as a female. Then I did it again but answered only with strongly agree or strongly disagree for all questions choose the obvious zero bias answers and got a .00 for hostile, yet still managed to get a .45 for benevolent for my age, gender, and geography.

 

Then I went back and flipped it getting a 5.0 for hostile and 4.55 for benevolent.

 

I did the same as a male version of me and got the same results.

 

Does this suggest that the study believes it is not possible for anyone of my age and geography to completely forgo benevolent sexism? And it does not believe anyone of my age and geography can be completely benevolently sexist? I'm just trying to deduce the test maker's own bias and whether or not it favors anyone of either gender and found the same results for both genders and found none. Just a little research for all the nay sayers I know who either won't post their results or wish to not acknowledge validity if they find they are more sexist than they'd like to believe.

 

Whoa, that's really interesting. I didn't look to see if there's a place to comment, but I wonder if the authors of the test are aware of that...seems important to me!

[sally4sara]

Whoa, that's really interesting. I didn't look to see if there's a place to comment, but I wonder if the authors of the test are aware of that...seems important to me!

 

Yes. I got the sense that whomever made the test perhaps believed no one is able to be completely free of sexism (or biased thinking) and frankly, I have suspected the same for a long time now. We are to some extent, benefited by passing judgment. You look at a situation and judge whether it is safe or risky, wise or unwise. This is good yes? But taken to an extreme position it stops being good and begins to be justification for suspicion and hate.

And we see it all the time on here. Threads with titles like "why do all women---?" and "why do all men---?". Men do X = normal; women do X= abnormal. Women do Y = normal; men do Y = abnormal.

I hate it when women do blah blah (even though I know men do it too). I hate it when a man doesn't blah blah (not bothered if a woman also doesn't).

 

With my own results I have trouble strongly agreeing or disagreeing with a simple statement because I know life is rarely simple. None of my answers were strongly this or that. Such as "should men protect women?" I believe those of us that are larger should help those of us that are smaller in a dangerous situation. I would help anyone I was physically capable of helping. But I know that on average men tend to be larger than women. So I answer a middlin yes men should help women in a dangerous situation. Of course that all goes out the window when there is a fire and 5'5" Joe and 5'10" Jane are headed for the exit; Jane should help Joe. Ideally we should all help each other but when it comes to equality we were not all made equal in every way. So a question about whether or not men should protect women is not one I can answer strongly either way.

 

This would be just one example of why the test creator might set the test for the impossibility of being completely free of bias.

Edited August 25, 2011 by sally4sara

[Engadget]

I scored a 2.55 and a 2.00 respectively, which was surprising on the hostile part. Not sure how any of my answers really reflect that, not to mention that picking slightly agree/disagree has always confused me.

[A O]

Why is it that women who cheat are coddled and excused on this board but a man looks at porn and it is the biggest sin ever?

Examples, please?

Let me put it this way - a woman who commits a crime, be it moral or legal will get a far more sympathetic hearing than a man who commits the same act(s). That's indicative of life in general as well as in this place.

 

From a slightly different view, one could argue that women have a far tougher path to achieving their career/work-place goals than men do.

 

In both situations, the opposite sex tends to dismiss the general concerns/viewpoints of the other. But these concerns/views, without a shadow of doubt - have merit!!

 

 

.

[Mme. Chaucer]

Let me put it this way - a woman who commits a crime, be it moral or legal will get a far more sympathetic hearing than a man who commits the same act(s). That's indicative of life in general as well as in this place.

 

I'm with you on the "legal." Not on the "moral." Especially not here in LoveShackLand or fundamentalist communities of any kind.

[Woggle]

I brought up that thread where a man's wife went to Cuba to have an affair and there are a few others. Men are also accused of having a caveman mentality and being afraid of a woman's sexuality if we want to prevent getting into a relationship with a woman who is more likely to be a cheater. There is this mentality that the man is always to blame for everything no matter how wrong the woman is.

 

Also you look at guys like Untouchable Fire and Phineas who clearly have been through some serious drama with women and they catch hell for venting about their experiences. Sure they are bitter which is understandable but I have never heard them saying all women without exception are like that.