Recently Canada’s state broadcaster interviewed a feminist author who openly advocates violence against men: https://www.cbc.ca/radio/outintheopen/i-want-patriarchy-to-fear-women-mona-eltahawy-says-the-time-for-being-civil-peaceful-and-polite-is-over-1.5296597

The headline chosen by Canada’s state broadcaster strikes me as relatively sympathetic:

“'I want patriarchy to fear women': Mona Eltahawy says the time for being civil, peaceful and polite is over”

The headline makes it sound like she advocates speaking rudely or blocking traffic or something, when in fact she hints at something much worse. (I’m just going by the condensed article, I can’t stomach the full interview right now.)

The worst quote is this part:

I ask people to imagine — now I'm using this word imagine, and I'm underlining it three times — a scenario in which we kill a certain number of men every week. How many men must we kill until patriarchy sits across the table from us and says, "OK, stop. What must we do, so that you can stop this culling?"

Since my book came out, several women have said to me, "Oh my god, I am a mother of sons. How can you be talking about this?" And I say to them, "You are more upset and disturbed at the imaginary scenario of violence against your sons than the actual violence that is committed every day against your daughters or someone else's daughter."

In reality of course, the "patriarchy" is already more likely to kill men than women, from war deaths (including civilians) to death penalties to street violence. But what Eltahawy is advocating (supposedly hypothetically) seems to be a larger-scale program to kill in-group men for no reason except that they are male.

A mainstream media organization would never publish such rhetoric about any other group, except for nations being cast as enemies.

If you think I’m overreacting to this, consider that the word “imagine” is one often recommended for persuasive speech. Getting someone to imagine something is the first step in persuading them to endorse it.