Quote Originally Posted by IanCurtisWishlist
it's not woman-hating at all. it's supposed to convey a message of bitterness. it's not woman-hating. in this story, it could very well be labled as "man-hating" if I were to replace the man with the woman , and the woman with the man.

in response to your comments where you said I was trying too damned hard to connect Marx's quote to love... In my personal opinion, religion is very similar to love. we look to our religions for support, in much the same way that we look towards our significant others for support. when god doesn't give us what we want, we might blasphamize him. when our partner's don't give us what we want, we might cheat on them. Secondly, religion, much like love, blinds people in the sense that it might otherwise affect our judgement. When couples are "in love", they might feel that the only thing they need to survive is their significant other. When people practice extreme blind-faith religion, they might resort to praying for a person's recovery ; abandoning modern medicine in favor of their blind faith. However , when it comes down to it, couples might realize that there is more to a relationship than just burning passion--like living together, sharing chores, etc. In return, many relationshps fall apart because of people's inability to live with one another--the flame has died out. In this context, we can also see where people have abandoned modern medical practice in favor of "faith healing"--which most always results in a loss of life. What is the point? the point is that , like religion, love also has certain "blinding" qualities to it. I can attribute this directly to the psychology of love. in my own personal opinion, love and the opposite sex are very much like a drug to us. some people compulsively seek "love", or affection from other people. once they have a taste for it, they can't get enough of it--the rush of intense emotions, raging hormones--the very reason why we seek out and crave "love". In any case, it's all a result of chemistry in the brain.
My point about you using the Marx quote was that it wasn't worded right. If it isn't clear to the reader but you can explain it well with your above response to me, then that just means you need to clarify and elaborate or re-word that part.
Also, as for the incorporation of the Marx quote, you didn't say that religion is much like love; they weren't being similarily compared although that may have been your intentions. You said, "Marx once said, 'Religion is the Opium of the masses'. For everyone else, there is love. If Marx was right, then love must be the heroin of the masses." "for everyone else, there is love." <--You put the two (religion and love) in an either/or, one or the other position. Maybe if you said instead something like: "Marx once said, 'Religion is the Opium of the masses'. If Marx was right, love, like religion, must be the heroin of the masses". Do you get what i'm saying now? You just need to clarify that it is a comparison based on similarity and not a "one or the other" statement. Saying, "for everyone else", reads as: for those who don't have religion, they have love.

You never addressed what I said about sympathy:

"--I think you should elaborate more on the Sympathy part. It seemed out of place and I don't connect it to the rest of your writing. Why did this woman desire sympathy, is that really the root of it all?"

Yes, you're right, if you switched the male to the female, it could be then be deemed a "man-hating" tone, that just means that there is a gender hating component and you saying that is admitting to it. The fact is you decided to make the victim male, and so it is "woman-hating" in tone, especially with the overgeneralizations. You said you were going for bitter, and that is how it read.